# A Group Decision-Making Approach in MCDM: An Application of the Multichoice Best-Worst Method
## 5 Conclusions, Limitations, and Future Work  
In the present study, we developed an approach for solving decision-making problems involving a group of experts. The proposed approach differs from existing models as it considers choices in pairwise comparisons. It provides freedom to experts to choose multiple responses to compare criteria. The developed model chooses the best responses collected from experts so that the inconsistency is minimized, and the optimal criteria weights are obtained. The idea of the proposed approach is an extension of the MCBWM [28] to group decision making. [PERSON] et al. [28] demonstrated the applicability of MCBWM in MCDM problems. In this paper, the step-wise procedure of the proposed approach was presented. The multichoice approach changes the best to all and others to the worst vector to the vector for which inconsistency is minimized. The objective is to look for the choices with the least inconsistency. The advantage of the proposed approach is that it considers the pairwise comparison values from all experts in a choice set and chooses the one for which inconsistency is minimized. The proposed method considers the human perception and cognition of having the choice in their suggestions. The proposed model was validated using three examples. In all examples, we observed that pairwise importance was compared with the freedom of choosing multiple pairwise comparisons, as choices are combined into one choice set. The developed model was formulated and solved for the ideal weights of the criteria. The results were presented through tables and figures. The results achieved utilizing the developed approach were compared with those of other existing approaches [36]. The weights of the criteria slightly differed without affecting the priority order of the criteria. For all examples, the obtained CR value was better than the CR of existing approaches. The proposed approach was validated by comparing the CR and the order of the criteria obtained. In the proposed method, the obtained CR was either equal to or less than that of the other considered methods, which makes it more or equally reliable. This shows the advantage of the proposed approach over other methods. The proposed approach also has limitations. It lacks consensus, as in other BWM approaches. The best pairwise comparison value from a multichoice set, for which inconsistency is minimized, was considered in the proposed approach. This is a new way of reducing inconsistency in group decision making. This limitation can be overcome by incorporating concepts such as belief theory [47] and confidence levels [48]. Another limitation is that we did not consider the confidence level of the experts for the multichoice response values provided by them. The technicality of the proposed approach makes it difficult to implement. In a future study, these limitations can be rectified. In the near future, we think that the proposed approach can be further extended by involving uncertainty using, for example, fuzzy theory [37], neutrosophic [48], fermatean [49], hesitant [50], probabilistic hesitant fuzzy [51], personalized individual semantics [52], confidence level [48], etc. We did not consider any kind of consensus but considered experts' decisions as choices; so, in the future, we can extend the proposed approach by incorporating the consensus of the decision makers [48; 53; 54] along with the multichoice set. The proposed model can also be implemented for some modern problems; see [55; 56; 57]. All authors equally contributed to the conceptualization; methodology; software; validation; formal analysis; investigation; data curation; writing--original draft preparation; writing--review and editing; visualization; and supervision of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. The authors are thankful to Qassim University, represented by the \"Deanship of Scientific Research\", Saudi Arabia, for providing financial assistance to carry out this research work. Not applicable.