Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An extended stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method for improving criteria prioritization process

  • Focus
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The process of criteria prioritization and weighting is an important part of multiple attributes decision making. The most frequently applied multi-attribute decision-making weighting tools include analytical hierarchy process, stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis, factor relationship, and best–worst method. When policies are at the core of decision making, stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis method is the most efficient method for criteria evaluation. It involves two important steps: the first is to prioritize the criteria by consulting experts, while the second is the weighting process. This research seeks to extend stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis to improve the quality of the decision-making process by incorporating the reliability evaluation of experts’ idea into the first step. Such a component is absent from the first step in all other similar models. Thus, an extended version of stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis can be applied for such evaluation. To test the applicability and performance of the proposed method, a numerical example from an earlier study was used. The proposed version can replace the classic version in future studies as an improved method in decision-making area.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bitarafan M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Lale Arefi S, Zavadskas EK, Mahmoudzadeh A (2014) Evaluation of real-time intelligent sensors for structural health monitoring of bridges based on SWARA-WASPAS; a case in Iran. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 9(4):333–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brauers WKM, Zavadskas EK, Peldschus F, Turskis Z (2008) Multi-objective decision-making for road design. Transport 23(3):183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chu ATW, Kalaba RE, Spingarn K (1979) A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. J Optim Theory Appl 27(4):531–538

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey N, Helmer O (1963) An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Manag Sci 9(3):458–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deng X, Hu Y, Deng Y, Mahadevan S (2014) Supplier selection using AHP methodology extended by D numbers. Expert Syst Appl 41(1):156–167

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng B, Lai F (2014) Multi-attribute group decision making with aspirations: a case study. Omega 44:136–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghorshi Nezhad MR, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Moztarzadeh F, Zavadskas EK, Bahrami M (2015) Planning the priority of high tech industries based on SWARA-WASPAS methodology: the case of the nanotechnology industry in Iran. Econ Res Ekon Istraž 28(1):1111–1137

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginevicius R (2011) A new determining method for the criteria weights in multi-criteria evaluation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 10(6):1067–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haghnazar Kouchaksaraei R, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Golabchi M (2015) Glasshouse locating based on SWARA-COPRAS approach. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 19(2):111–122

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Bahrami M (2014) Investment prioritizing in high tech industries based on SWARA-COPRAS approach. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(3):534–553

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Saparauskas J (2013) New application of SWARA method in prioritizing sustainability assessment indicators of energy system. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 24(5):408–414

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Aghdaie MH, Derakhti A, Zavadskas EK, Varzandeh MHM (2013a) Decision making on business issues with foresight perspective; an application of new hybrid MCDM model in shopping mall locating. Expert Syst Appl 40(17):7111–7121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Farrokhzad M, Turskis Z (2013b) Investigating on successful factors of online games based on explorer. E M Ekon Manag 16(2):161–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Maknoon R, Zavadskas EK (2015a) Multiple Nash equilibriums and evaluation of strategies; new application of MCDM methods. J Bus Econ Manag 16(2):290–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Salimi J, Maknoon R, Kildiene S (2015b) Technology foresight about R&D projects selection; application of SWARA method at the policy making level. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 26(5):571–580

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Pourhossein M, Yazdani M, Zavadskas EK (2018) Evaluating construction projects of hotels based on environmental sustainability with MCDM framework. Alex Eng J. 57:357–365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jessop A (2014) IMP: a decision aid for multi-attribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates. Omega 49:18–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karabasevic D, Stanujkic D, Urosevic S, Maksimovic M (2015) Selection of candidates in the mining industry based on the application of the SWARA and the MULTIMOORA methods. Acta Montan Slovaca 20(2):116–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Karabasevic D, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Stanujkic D (2016a) The framework for the selection of personnel based on the SWARA and ARAS methods under uncertainties. Informatica 27(1):49–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karabasevic D, Paunkovic J, Stanujkic D (2016b) Ranking of companies according to the indicators of corporate social responsibility based on SWARA and ARAS methods. Serbian J Manag 11(1):43–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall MG (1970) Rank correlation methods, 4th edn. Griffin, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Keršulienė V, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2010) Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). J Bus Econ Manag 11(2):243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krylovas A, Zavadskas EK, Kosareva N, Dadelo S (2014) New KEMIRA method for determining criteria priority and weights in solving MCDM problem. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 13(6):1119–1134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacCrimon KR (1968) Decision making among multiple attribute alternatives: a survey and consolidated approach, Rand Memorandum, RM-4823-ARPA

  • Mulliner E, Malys N, Maliene V (2015) Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2015.05.013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan R, Ramanathan U (2010) A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Omega 38(3–4):228–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rezaei J (2015) Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resources allocation. McGraw-Hill, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 32(7):841–55

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48(1):9–26

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1997) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–81

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2001) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Shannon CE (1948) A note on the concept of entropy. Bell Syst Technol J 27:379–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan V, Shocker AD (1973) Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences. Psychometrika 38(3):337–369

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Stanujkic D, Karabasevic D, Zavadskas EK (2015) A framework for the Selection of a packaging design based on the SWARA method. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 26(2):181–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TJ (1992) A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice. Omega 20(5–6):569–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sušinskas S, Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z (2011) Multiple criteria assessment of pile-columns alternatives. Balt J Road Bridge Eng 6(3):77–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ustinovichius L (2007) Methods of determining objective, subjective and integrated weights of attributes. Int J Manag Decis Mak 8(5–6):540–554

    Google Scholar 

  • Vafaeipour M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Morshed Varzandeh MH, Derakhti A, Eshkalag M Keshavarz (2014) Assessment of regions priority for implementation of solar plants in Iran: new application of a hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach. Energy Convers Manag 86:653–663

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Winterfeldt D, Fischer GW (1975) Multi-attribute utility theory: models and assessment procedures. In: Wendt D, Viek C (eds) Utility, probability and human decision making. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu X (2001) The SIR method: a superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making. Eur J Oper Res 131:587–602

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdani M, Hashemkhani Zolfani S, Zavadskas EK (2016) New integration of MCDM methods and QFD in the selection of green suppliers. J Bus Econ Manag 17(6):1097–1113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • You XY, You JX, Liu HC, Zhen L (2015) Group multi-criteria supplier selection using an extended VIKOR method with interval 2-tuple linguistic information. Expert Syst Appl 42(4):1906–1916

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Vilutienė T (2006) A multiple criteria evaluation of multi-family apartment block’s maintenance contractors: I-model for maintenance contractor evaluation and the determination of its selection criteria. Build Environ 41(5):621–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Ustinovichius L, Turskis Z, Shevchenko G (2008) Application of verbal methods to multi-attribute comparative analysis of investments risk alternatives in construction. Comput Model New Technol 12(4):30–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Zavadskas EK, Turskis Z, Ustinovichius L, Shevchenko G (2010) Attributes weights determining peculiarities in multiple attribute decision making methods. Inzinerine Ekon Eng Econ 21(1):32–43

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Technology Foresight Group, Department of Management, Science and Technology, Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic), P.O. Box 1585-4413, Tehran, Iran

    Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani

  2. Department of Business Management, Faculty of Social Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670, Madrid, Spain

    Morteza Yazdani

  3. Research Institute of Smart Building Technologies, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Sauletekio al. 11, 10223, Vilnius, Lithuania

    Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas

Authors
  1. Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Morteza Yazdani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

Sarfaraz Hashemkhani Zolfani declares that he has no conflict of interest. Morteza Yazdani declares that he has no conflict of interest. Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This Article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Communicated by A. Genovese, G. Bruno.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hashemkhani Zolfani, S., Yazdani, M. & Zavadskas, E.K. An extended stepwise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA) method for improving criteria prioritization process. Soft Comput 22, 7399–7405 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3092-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3092-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation