### Hierarchical Decision-making using a New Mathematical Model based on the Best-worst Method

#### Abstract

Decision-making processes in different organizations often have a hierarchical and multilevel structure with various criteria and sub-criteria. The application of hierarchical decision-making has been increased in recent years in many different areas. Researchers have used different hierarchical decision-making methods through mathematical modeling. The best-worst method (BWM) is a multi-criteria evaluation methodology based on pairwise comparisons. In this paper, we introduce a new hierarchical BWM (HBWM) which consists of seven steps. In this new approach, the weights of the criteria and sub-criteria are obtained by using a novel integrated mathematical model. To analyze the proposed model, two numerical examples are provided. To show the performance of the introduced approach, a comparison is also made between the results of the HBWM and BWM methodologies. The analysis demonstrates that HBWM can effectively determine the weights of criteria and sub-criteria through an integrated model.

#### Keywords

decision model, MCDM, best-worst method, hierarchical decisionmaking, pairwise comparison

PDF

#### References

Aboutorab, H., Saberi, M., Asadabadi, M.R., Hussain, O.,Chang, E. (2018). ZBWM: The Z-number extension of Best Worst Method and its application for supplier development, Expert Systems with Applications, 107, 115-125, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.04.015

Badi, I.; Ballem, M. (2018). Supplier selection using the rough BWM-MAIRCA model: A case study in pharmaceutical supplying in Libya, Decision Making: Applications in Management and Engineering, 1(2), 16-33, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.31181/dmame1802016b

Baky, I.A. (2014). Interactive TOPSIS algorithms for solving multi-level non-linear multiobjective decision-making problems, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(4), 1417-1433, 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2013.08.016

Ecer, F. (2018). Third-party logistics (3PLs) provider selection via Fuzzy AHP and EDAS integrated model, Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 24(2), 615-634, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.3846/20294913.2016.1213207

Farias, L.M.S.; Santos, L.C.; Gohr, C.F.; Rocha, L.O. (2019). An ANP-based approach for lean and green performance assessment, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 143, 77-89, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.004

Guo, S.; Zhao, H. (2017). Fuzzy best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method and its applications, Knowledge-Based Systems, 121, 23-31, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.01.010

Gupta, H.; Barua, M.K. (2016). Identifying enablers of technological innovation for Indian MSMEs using best-worst multi criteria decision making method, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 107, 69-79, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.03.028

Gupta, H.; Barua, M.K. (2017). Supplier selection among SMEs on the basis of their green innovation ability using BWM and fuzzy TOPSIS, Journal of Cleaner Production, 152, 242- 258, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.03.125

Gupta, P.; Anand, S.; Gupta, H. (2017). Developing a roadmap to overcome barriers to energy efficiency in buildings using best worst method, Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 244-259, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.005

Hafezalkotob, A.; Hafezalkotob, A. (2017). A novel approach for combination of individual and group decisions based on fuzzy best-worst method, Applied Soft Computing, 59, 316-325, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.036

Ilieva, G.; Yankova, T.; Klisarova-Belcheva, S. (2018). Decision analysis with classic and fuzzy EDAS modifications, Computational and Applied Mathematics, 37(5), 5650-5680, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-018-0652-0

Jiang, W.; Huang, C. (2018). A multi-criteria decision-making model for evaluating suppliers in green SCM, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 13(3), 337- 352, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2018.3.3283

Khan, M.S.A. (2019). The Pythagorean fuzzy Einstein Choquet integral operators and their application in group decision making, Computational and Applied Mathematics, 38(3), 128, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-019-0871-z

Khanmohammadi, E.; Zandieh, M. (2018). Drawing a Strategy Canvas Using the Fuzzy Best-Worst Method, Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 20(1), 57-75, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-018-0202-z

Lei, L.; Zhang, W.F. (2013). Extended VIKOR method for multi-level hybrid multi-attribute group decision making, 25th Chinese Control & Decision Conference(CCDC), 1718-1722, 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1109/CCDC.2013.6561209

Lu, J.; Han, J.; Hu, Y.; Zhang, G. (2016). Multilevel decision-making: A survey, Information Sciences, 346, 463-487, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.01.084

Maghsoodi, A.I.; Mosavat, M.; Hafezalkotob, A.; Hafezalkotob, A. (2019). Hybrid hierarchical fuzzy group decision-making based on information axioms and BWM: Prototype design selection, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127, 788-804, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.11.018

Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Nor, K.; Khalifah, Z.; Zakwan, N.; Valipour, A. (2015). Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications-a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014., Economic Research-Ekonomska IstraLživanja, 28(1), 516-571, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139

Mardani, A.; Jusoh, A.; Zavadskas, E.K. (2015). Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications-Two decades review from 1994 to 2014, Expert Systems with Applications, 42(8), 4126-4148, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.01.003

Mou, Q.; Xu, Z.; Liao, H. (2016). An intuitionistic fuzzy multiplicative best-worst method for multi-criteria group decision making, Information Sciences, 374, 224-239, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2016.08.074

Naz, S.; Akram, M. (2019). Novel decision-making approach based on hesitant fuzzy sets and graph theory, Computational and Applied Mathematics, 38(1), 7, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-019-0773-0

Pamucar, D.; Chatterjee, K.; Zavadskas, E.K. (2019). Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 127, 383-407, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.10.023

Patriarca, R.; Di Gravio, G.; Costantino, F.; Falegnami, A.; Bilotta, F. (2018). An Analytic Framework to Assess Organizational Resilience, Safety and Health at Work, 9(3), 265-276, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2017.10.005

Ren, H.; Liu, M.; Zhou, H. (2019). Extended TODIM method for MADM problem under trapezoidal intuitionistic fuzzy environment, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 14(2), 220-232, 2019.
https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2019.2.3428

Ren, J.; Liang, H.; Chan, F.T.S. (2017). Urban sewage sludge, sustainability, and transition for Eco-City: Multi-criteria sustainability assessment of technologies based on best-worst method, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 116, 29-39, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.10.070

Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method, Omega, 53, 49-57, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2014.11.009

Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model, Omega, 64, 126-130, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.12.001

Rezaei, J.; Wang, J.; Tavasszy, L. (2015). Linking supplier development to supplier segmentation using Best-Worst Method, Expert Systems with Applications, 42(23), 9152-9164, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2015.07.073

Saaty, T.L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structure, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281, 1997.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5

Saaty, T.L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26, 1990.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I

Saaty, T.L.; Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks, European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2), 229-237, 1986.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(86)90184-0

Safarzadeh, S.; Khansefid, S.; Rasti-barzoki, M. (2018). A group multi-criteria decisionmaking based on best-worst method, Computers & Industrial Engineering, 126, 111-121, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.09.011

Salimi, N., Rezaei, J. (2016). Measuring efficiency of university-industry Ph. D. projects using best worst method, Scientometrics, 109(3), 1-28, 2016.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-2121-0

Serrai, W.; Abdelli, A.; Mokdad, L.; Hammal, Y. (2017). Towards an efficient and a more accurate web service selection using MCDM methods, Journal of Computational Science, 22, 253-267, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocs.2017.05.024

Sharaf, I.M. (2018). TOPSIS with similarity measure for MADM applied to network selection, Computational and Applied Mathematics, 37(4), 4104-4121, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-017-0556-4

Sitorus, F.; Cilliers, J.J.; Brito-Parada, P.R. (2018). Multi-Criteria Decision Making for the Choice Problem in Mining and Mineral Processing: Applications and Trends, Expert Systems with Applications, 121, 393-417, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001

Tabatabaei, M.H.; Amiri, M.; Khatami Firouzabadi, S.M.A.; Ghahremanloo, M.; Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M.; Saparauskas, J. (2019). A new group decision-making model based on bwm and its application to managerial problems, Transformations in Business and Economics, 18(2), 197-214, 2019.

Triantaphyllou, E.; Mann, S.H. (1995). Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decision Making in Engineering Applications: Some Challenges, International Journal of Industrial Engineering: Applications and Practic, 2(1), 35-44, 1995.

Van De Kaa, G.; Scholten, D.; Rezaei, J.; Milchram, C. (2017). The battle between battery and fuel cell powered electric vehicles: A BWM approach, Energies, 10(11), 1707, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en10111707

Wei, G.; Wang, J. (2017). A comparative study of robust efficiency analysis and Data Envelopment Analysis with imprecise data, Expert Systems with Applications, 81, 28-38, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.03.043

Xu, G.; Wang, S.; Yang, T.; Jiang, W. (2018). A neutrosophic approach based on TOPSIS method to image segmentation, International Journal of Computers Communications & Control, 13(6), 1047-1061, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2018.6.3268

You, P.; Guo, S.; Zhao, H.; Zhao, H. (2017). Operation performance evaluation of power grid enterprise using a hybrid BWM-TOPSIS method, Sustainability, 9(12), 2329, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su9122329

Zak, J.; Kruszynski, M. (2015). Application of AHP and ELECTRE III/IV methods to multiple level, multiple criteria evaluation of urban transportation projects, Transportation Research Procedia, 10, 820-830, 2015.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2015.09.035

Zhao, H.; Guo, S.; Zhao, H. (2018). Comprehensive performance assessment on various battery energy storage systems, Energies, 11(10), 2841, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en11102841

Zhao, H.; Zhao, H.; Guo, S. (2018). Comprehensive Performance Evaluation of Electricity Grid Corporations Employing a Novel MCDM Model, Sustainability, 10(7), 2130, 2018.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10072130

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15837/ijccc.2019.6.3675

Users can access, download, copy, translate the IJCCC articles for non-commercial purposes provided that users, but cannot redistribute, display or adapt:

• Cite the article using an appropriate bibliographic citation: author(s), article title, journal, volume, issue, page numbers, year of publication, DOI, and the link to the definitive published version on IJCCC website;
• Maintain the integrity of the IJCCC article;
• Retain the copyright notices and links to these terms and conditions so it is clear to other users what can and what cannot be done with the  article;
• Ensure that, for any content in the IJCCC article that is identified as belonging to a third party, any re-use complies with the copyright policies of that third party;
• Any translations must prominently display the statement: "This is an unofficial translation of an article that appeared in IJCCC. Agora University  has not endorsed this translation."

This is a non commercial license where the use of published articles for commercial purposes is forbiden.

Commercial purposes include:

• The inclusion or incorporation of article content in other works or services (other than normal quotations with an appropriate citation) that is then available for sale or licensing, for a fee;
• Use of IJCCC articles or article content (other than normal quotations with appropriate citation) by for-profit organizations for promotional purposes, whether for a fee or otherwise;
• Use for the purposes of monetary reward by means of sale, resale, license, loan, transfer or other form of commercial exploitation;

The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.

[End of CC-BY-NC  License for Website User]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPUTERS COMMUNICATIONS & CONTROL (IJCCC), With Emphasis on the Integration of Three Technologies (C & C & C),  ISSN 1841-9836.

IJCCC was founded in 2006,  at Agora University, by  Ioan DZITAC (Editor-in-Chief),  Florin Gheorghe FILIP (Editor-in-Chief), and  Misu-Jan MANOLESCU (Managing Editor).

Ethics: This journal is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).

Ioan  DZITAC (Editor-in-Chief) at COPE European Seminar, Bruxelles, 2015:

IJCCC is covered/indexed/abstracted in Science Citation Index Expanded (since vol.1(S),  2006); JCR2018: IF=1.585..

IJCCC is indexed in Scopus from 2008 (CiteScore2018 = 1.56):

Nomination by Elsevier for Journal Excellence Award Romania 2015 (SNIP2014 = 1.029): Elsevier/ Scopus

IJCCC was nominated by Elsevier for Journal Excellence Award - "Scopus Awards Romania 2015" (SNIP2014 = 1.029).

IJCCC is in Top 3 of 157 Romanian journals indexed by Scopus (in all fields) and No.1 in Computer Science field by Elsevier/ Scopus.

Impact Factor in JCR2018 (Clarivate Analytics/SCI Expanded/ISI Web of Science): IF=1.585 (Q3). Scopus: CiteScore2018=1.56 (Q2);

Editors-in-Chief: Ioan DZITAC & Florin Gheorghe FILIP.