Weight_Subjective
SWARA: Step-Wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis
Keršulienė, V., Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z. · 2010
Overview
Sequential step-ratio subjective weighting. Output typically weight (higher value = preferred).
Strengths
- •Method-specific: Sequential step-ratio subjective weighting
- •Native group-decision support (multi-DM aggregation built into the pipeline)
Limitations
- •Assumes: Domain experts available
- •Assumes: Experts can express consistent comparisons
Method assistant
Grounded explanations: it explains the method, it does not compute.
Assumptions to verify
- •Domain experts available
- •Experts can express consistent comparisons
When not to use
- •No experts available → use objective weighting
- •High inconsistency → discard and re-elicit
Edge cases
- •See F.steps and D.parameters for SWARA-specific edge handling. recommendation_metadata.assumptions_to_verify also lists boundary conditions.
Common pitfalls
- •Hatalı: 'SWARA bu varsayımı kontrol etmeden uygulamak'. Doğrusu: Domain experts available
- •Hatalı: 'SWARA bu varsayımı kontrol etmeden uygulamak'. Doğrusu: Experts can express consistent comparisons
- •Hatalı: SWARA'yi 'No experts available → use objective weighting' durumunda kullanmak: recommendation_metadata.not_recommended_when alternatif öneriyor.
- •Hatalı: SWARA'yi 'High inconsistency → discard and re-elicit' durumunda kullanmak: recommendation_metadata.not_recommended_when alternatif öneriyor.
Worked example
- 1.Adım 1 (F1): Step 1: Rank criteria by importance C_(1) ≻ C_(2) ≻ … ≻ C_(n). Formül: C_{(1)} \succeq C_{(2)} \succeq \cdots \succeq C_{(n)} Anchor: Kersuliene 2010, p.246 Sec.3
- 2.Adım 2 (F2): Step 2: Comparative importance s_j of each criterion vs the previous one (s_1 = 0). Formül: s_{j} = \text{relative importance of }C_{(j)}\text{ vs }C_{(j-1)},\quad s_{1}=0 Anchor: Kersuliene 2010, p.247 Eq.(1)
- 3.Adım 3 (F3): Step 3: Coefficient k_j = s_j + 1; recalculated weight q_j = q_{j-1}/k_j (q_1 = 1). Formül: k_{j} = s_{j}+1,\quad q_{j} = \dfrac{q_{j-1}}{k_{j}},\ q_{1}=1 Anchor: Kersuliene 2010, p.247 Eqs.(2)-(3)
- 4.Adım 4 (F4): Step 4: Final weights w_j = q_j / Σ q_k. Formül: w_{j} = \dfrac{q_{j}}{\sum_{k=1}^{n} q_{k}} Anchor: Kersuliene 2010, p.247 Eq.(4)
Commonly paired with
- •SWARA + TOPSIS (high)
- •SWARA + VIKOR (high)
- •SWARA + EDAS (high)
- •SWARA + PROMETHEE (high)
- •SWARA + ELECTRE-III (high)
How to cite
Keršulienė, V.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z. (2010). Selection of rational dispute resolution method by applying new step-wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA). Journal of Business Economics and Management. https://doi.org/10.3846/jbem.2010.12