Processing, Please wait...

  • Publisher Home
  • Home
  • 🔙 Back
  • 📚 Journals
    • ⚙️ IJIEC - Industrial Engineering Computations
    • 🌐 IJDNS - Data and Network Science
    • 🧪 CCL - Current Chemistry Letters
    • 💹 AC - Accounting
    • 🎯 DSL - Decision Science Letters
    • 🚛 USCM - Uncertain Supply Chain Management
    • 🏗️ JPM - Journal of Project Management
    • 🏥 HE - Healthcare Engineering
    • 📈 SCI - Scientometrica
    • 🔩 ESM - Engineering Solid Mechanics
    • 🌿 JFS - Journal of Future Sustainability
    • 💼 MSL - Management Science Letters
  • 📝 Submit Article
  • 📊 Statistics
  • 📋 About
    • 📄 About Us
    • 📰 Blog
    • 📢 News
    • 📧 Contact
  • 📺 Tutorial
  • Search:
  • Advanced Search

Growing Science » Decision Science Letters » A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model

⭐ Highly Cited Articles

  • Jaya Algorithm
  • Rao Algorithm
  • TLBO Algorithm
  • ChatGPT and Blended Learning

Journals

  • IJIEC (840)
  • IJDS (1032)
  • DSL (759)
  • ESM (434)
  • CCL (563)
  • JPM (350)
  • AC (572)
  • JFS (106)
  • MSL (2658)
  • USCM (1104)
  • HE (54)
  • SCI (52)

DSL Volumes

    • ▼ Volume 15 (110)
      • Issue 1 (19)
      • Issue 2 (22)
      • Issue 3 (32)
      • Issue 4 (37)
    • ▼ Volume 14 (87)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (23)
      • Issue 3 (25)
      • Issue 4 (18)
    • ▼ Volume 13 (78)
      • Issue 1 (21)
      • Issue 2 (18)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (20)
    • ▼ Volume 12 (64)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (24)
      • Issue 3 (13)
      • Issue 4 (15)
    • ▼ Volume 11 (49)
      • Issue 1 (9)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • ▼ Volume 10 (43)
      • Issue 1 (7)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (20)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • ▼ Volume 9 (39)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (9)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (8)
    • ▼ Volume 8 (38)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • ▼ Volume 7 (41)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (8)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (17)
    • ▼ Volume 6 (30)
      • Issue 1 (8)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (7)
    • ▼ Volume 5 (39)
      • Issue 1 (12)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (8)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • ▼ Volume 4 (48)
      • Issue 1 (10)
      • Issue 2 (12)
      • Issue 3 (14)
      • Issue 4 (12)
    • ▼ Volume 3 (53)
      • Issue 1 (15)
      • Issue 2 (10)
      • Issue 3 (19)
      • Issue 4 (9)
    • ▼ Volume 2 (30)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (6)
      • Issue 3 (9)
      • Issue 4 (10)
    • ▼ Volume 1 (10)
      • Issue 1 (5)
      • Issue 2 (5)

🔑 Keywords

Jordan(175)
Supply chain management(172)
Vietnam(154)
Customer satisfaction(124)
Performance(117)
Supply chain(115)
Artificial intelligence(108)
Service quality(101)
Competitive advantage(100)
SMEs(95)
Sustainability(94)
Tehran Stock Exchange(94)
optimization(88)
Financial performance(86)
TOPSIS(85)
Trust(85)
Genetic Algorithm(81)
Organizational performance(81)
Job satisfaction(81)
Social media(80)


» Show all keywords

✍️ Authors

Naser Azad(82)
Zeplin Jiwa Husada Tarigan(70)
Mohammad Reza Iravani(65)
Endri Endri(45)
Hotlan Siagian(43)
Muhammad Alshurideh(42)
Dmaithan Almajali(39)
Jumadil Saputra(37)
Muhammad Turki Alshurideh(35)
Ahmad Makui(33)
Sautma Ronni Basana(33)
Barween Al Kurdi(32)
Basrowi Basrowi(31)
Mohammad Khodaei Valahzaghard(30)
Haitham M. Alzoubi(30)
Ni Nyoman Kerti Yasa(30)
Hassan Ghodrati(30)
Shankar Chakraborty(29)
Sulieman Ibraheem Shelash Al-Hawary(28)
Mahmoud Allahham(28)


» Show all authors

🌍 Countries

1. Algeria (52)
2. Angola (2)
3. Argentina (22)
4. Armenia (2)
5. Australia (52)
6. Austria (2)
7. Bahrain (26)
8. Bangladesh (58)
9. Belarus (4)
10. Belgium (3)
11. Benin (2)
12. Benin Republic (1)
13. Bhutan (1)
14. Bosnia and Herzegovina (1)
15. Botswana (9)
16. Brazil (40)
17. Brunei (1)
18. Bulgaria (1)
19. Burkina Faso (1)
20. Cameroon (1)
Total: 121 countries

Show all countries
Decision Science Letters
ISSN 1929-5812 (Online) - ISSN 1929-5804 (Print)
Quarterly Publication
Volume 7 Issue 4 pp. 395-404, 2018

A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model Pages 395-404 PDF Download PDF

Authors: Alireza Sotoudeh-Anvari, Seyed Jafar Sadjadi, Seyed Mohammad Hadji Molana, Soheil Sadi-Nezhad

📋 Author Affiliations:
A. Sotoudeh-Anvari1, S.J. Sadjadi ORCID 2, S.M.H. Molana ORCID 1, S. Sadi-Nezhad ORCID 1
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran
doi 10.5267/j.dsl.2018.2.001
36 Source: Scopus
Crossref 32 Source: CrossRef

🔑 Keywords: Search problem, Best-worst method, Subjective weighting technique, Simple additive weighting

Abstract: Search for lost or hidden things is a very interesting and complicated issue. This problem concentrates on the study of how to exploit resources to discover a target with unknown location. On the other hand, search problem may be formulated as a difficult decision problem because it is affected by various crucial decision factors such as search cost, search time, the probability of discovering, etc. In this paper, a new multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approach on the basis of best-worst method (BWM) and simple additive weighting (SAW) is suggested to rank potential locations of lost or hidden targets. BWM is a novel subjective weighting technique and compared to the most common subjective method, analytic hierarchy process (AHP), requires fewer comparisons and gives more trustworthy outcomes. In this paper, BWM is used to gain the criteria weights and SAW is employed to rank the locations regarding the decision factors. This study demonstrates that BWM is easier and works better than AHP, also perfect agreement in the results of COPRAS, TOPSIS and SAW is observed. The suggested approach is very easy as well as flexible and provides an efficient method which can be developed to tackle other decision problems.

How to cite this paper
APA: Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., Sadjadi, S., Molana, S & Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2018). A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model. Decision Science Letters, 7(4), 395-404.
Chicago/Turabian: Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., Sadjadi, S., Molana, S & Sadi-Nezhad, S. 2018. "A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model." Decision Science Letters 7, no. 4 (2018): 395-404.
AMA: Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., Sadjadi, S., Molana, S & Sadi-Nezhad, S. A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model. Decision Science Letters. 2018;7(4):395-404.

References
Abadi, F., Sahebi, I., Arab, A., Alavi, A., & Karachi, H. (2018). Application of best-worst method in evaluation of medical tourism development strategy. Decision Science Letters, 7(1), 77-86.
Ahmad, W. N. K. W., Rezaei, J., Sadaghiani, S., & Tavasszy, L. A. (2017). Evaluation of the external forces affecting the sustainability of oil and gas supply chain using Best Worst Method. Journal of Cleaner Production, 153, 242-252.
Askarifar, K., Motaffef, Z., & Aazaami, S. (2018). An investment development framework in Iran's seashores using TOPSIS and best-worst multi-criteria decision making methods. Decision Science Letters, 7(1), 55-64.
Benkoski, S. J., Monticino, M. G., & Weisinger, J. R. (1991). A survey of the search theory literature. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 38(4), 469-494.
Bernroider, E., & Stix, V. (2007). A method using weight restrictions in data envelopment analysis for ranking and validity issues in decision making. Computers & Operations Research, 34(9), 2637-2647.
Black, W. L. (1965). Discrete sequential search. Information and control, 8(2), 159-162.
Chatterjee, P., Athawale, V. M., & Chakraborty, S. (2011). Materials selection using complex proportional assessment and evaluation of mixed data methods. Materials & Design, 32(2), 851-860.
Dey, B., Bairagi, B., Sarkar, B., & Sanyal, S. K. (2016). Multi objective performance analysis: A novel multi-criteria decision making approach for a supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 94, 105-124.
Fiedrich, F., Gehbauer, F., & Rickers, U. (2000). Optimized resource allocation for emergency response after earthquake disasters. Safety science, 35(1-3), 41-57.
Garg, R., & Jain, D. (2017). Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making evaluation of e-learning websites using FAHP, COPRAS, VIKOR, WDBA. Decision Science Letters, 6(4), 351-364.
Ghaffari, S., Arab, A., Nafari, J., & Manteghi, M. (2017). Investigation and evaluation of key success factors in technological innovation development based on BWM. Decision Science Letters, 6(3), 295-306.
Ginevičius, R., & Zubrecovas, V. (2009). Selection of the optimal real estate investment project basing on multiple criteria evaluation using stochastic dimensions. Journal of business economics and management, 10(3), 261-270.
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.
Gutjahr, W. J., & Nolz, P. C. (2016). Multicriteria optimization in humanitarian aid. European Journal of Operational Research, 252(2), 351-366.
Hobbs, B. F., & Horn, G. T. (1997). Building public confidence in energy planning: a multimethod MCDM approach to demand-side planning at BC gas. Energy policy, 25(3), 357-375.
Jing, Y. Y., Bai, H., & Wang, J. J. (2012). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for CCHP systems driven by different energy sources. Energy Policy, 42, 286-296.
Kadane, J. B. (2015). Optimal discrete search with technological choice. Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, 81(3), 317-336.
Kriheli, B., Levner, E., & Spivak, A. (2016). Optimal search for hidden targets by unmanned aerial vehicles under imperfect inspections. American Journal of Operations Research, 6(02), 153.
Levner, E. (1994). Infinite‐horizon Scheduling Algorithms for Optimal Search for Hidden Objects. International transactions in operational research, 1(2), 241-250
Løken, E. (2007). Use of multicriteria decision analysis methods for energy planning problems. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11(7), 1584-1595.
Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2017). A comprehensive MCDM-based approach using TOPSIS, COPRAS and DEA as an auxiliary tool for material selection problems. Materials & Design, 121, 237-253.
Mousavi-Nasab, S. H., & Sotoudeh-Anvari, A. (2018). A new multi-criteria decision making approach for sustainable material selection problem: A critical study on rank reversal problem. Journal of Cleaner Production.
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.
Mulliner, E., Malys, N., & Maliene, V. (2016). Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability. Omega, 59, 146-156.
Najafi, M., Eshghi, K., & Dullaert, W. (2013). A multi-objective robust optimization model for logistics planning in the earthquake response phase. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 49(1), 217-249.
Ren, J., Liang, H., & Chan, F. T. (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.
Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49-57.
Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126-130.
Ross, S. M. (1983). Introduction to stochastic dynamic programming. Academic press.
Roy, B. (1990). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods. In Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 155-183). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Salehi, A., & Izadikhah, M. (2014). A novel method to extend SAW for decision-making problems with interval data. Decision Science Letters, 3(2), 225-236.
Salimi, N., & Rezaei, J. (2018). Evaluating firms’ R&D performance using best worst method. Evaluation and program planning, 66, 147-155.
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.
Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., Sadjadi, S.J., Molana, S.M.H., & Sadi-Nezhad, S. (2018). A stochastic multi-objective model based on the classical optimal search model for searching for the people who are lost in response stage of earthquake. Scientia Iranica (in press)
Stone, L. D. (1976). Theory of optimal search (Vol. 118). Elsevier.
Stone, L. D. (2013). Search theory. Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science, 1366-1378.
Terrados, J., Almonacid, G., & PeRez-Higueras, P. (2009). Proposal for a combined methodology for renewable energy planning. Application to a Spanish region. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 13(8), 2022-2030.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods. In Multi-criteria decision making methods: A comparative study (pp. 5-21). Springer, Boston, MA.
Wang, T. C., & Chang, T. H. (2007). Application of TOPSIS in evaluating initial training aircraft under a fuzzy environment. Expert Systems with Applications, 33(4), 870-880.
Wang, Y. M., & Luo, Y. (2010). Integration of correlations with standard deviations for determining attribute weights in multiple attribute decision making. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 51(1-2), 1-12.
Wang, P., Zhu, Z., & Wang, Y. (2016). A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design. Information Sciences, 345, 27-45.
Zavadskas, E. K., & Podvezko, V. (2016). Integrated determination of objective criteria weights in MCDM. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 15(02), 267-283.
  • 85
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

📚 Journal: Decision Science Letters | 📅 Year: 2018 | 📖 Volume: 7 | 📄 Issue: 4 | 👁️ Views: 4999 | 📊 Crossref: 32

Related Articles:
  • Identifying and prioritizing the factors of service experience in banks: A Best-Worst method
  • Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: A robust approach
  • An investment development framework in Iran's seashores using TOPSIS and best-worst multi-criteria decision making methods
  • An extension of compromise ranking method with interval numbers for the evaluation of renewable energy sources
  • A COPRAS-F base multi-criteria group decision making approach for site selection of wind farm

📝 Ready to share your research?

Decision Science Letters is accepting new submissions for upcoming issues. Join our community of authors and publish your work with us.

✓ Open access
✓ Rigorous peer review
✓ Fast publication
📤 Submit Your Manuscript →

📖 Author Guidelines

® 2010-2026 GrowingScience.Com