A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process

Xu, Zeshui; Wei, Cuiping

doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(98)00109-x

Cited by 321 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…How to ensure group consistency? (Cao, Leung, & Law, 2008;Dadkhah & Zahedi, 1993;Dodd, Donegan, & McMaster, 1993;Donegan & Dodd, 1991;Grošelj & Stirn, 2012;Ishizaka & Lusti, 2004;Karapetrovic & Rosenbloom, 1999;Kwiesielewicz & van Uden, 2004;Lamata & Alonso, 2006;Moreno-Jiménez et al, 2008;Ramík & Korviny, 2010;Zeshui & Cuiping, 1999) Uncertainty associated with priority derivation-How (e.g., synthesis mode, normalization procedure, and the issue of rank preservation and reversal) to derive preference values from the pairwise comparison matrices? Does the eigenvalue method is sufficient to derive priority?…”

Section: Embedded Uncertainty Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive uncertainty analysis of the analytic hierarchy process methodology applied in the context of environmental decision making

Toth

Vacik

2018

Multi Criteria Decision Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An overview of uncertainty issues associated with the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is provided. Further, an explicit understanding of uncertainty (designation, categorization, and quantification) with respect to the methodological properties of the AHP is developed and used to analyse a hypothetical group decision problem located in the context of environmental decision making (EDM). To calculate the numerical impact of especially designed uncertainty scenarios (USs) on the final ranking given by the AHP, a simulation experiment is conducted using R. It evaluates the impact of uncertainty within three variants of a hypothetical decision-making case by calculating an "overall uncertainty" measure. The consideration of uncertainty may lead to a rank reversal in comparison with that analysis neglecting uncertainty (best alternative given by the AHP). The results show that the absolute maximal impact caused by a US is approximately 0.03. With respect to a single US and the specific case characteristics, in about 50% of the simulated runs a rank reversal occurs. Similar shares of rank reversal over different USs within a single variant of the case raise the question to which uncertainty should be given prior attention in decision-making practice. For decision analysts in EDM, this result implies that additional resources may be necessary to commonly negotiate with decision makers that uncertainties should be addressed. From a theoretical normative point of view, the effects of considering uncertainty issues in the AHP methodology cannot satisfy the ideal of a rational decision analysis. From a descriptive point of view, considering the practice of decision makers, the impacts of the considered uncertainties stay within reasonable limits, meaning that the maximal numerical impact stays on the hundredths decimal place. KEYWORDS designation, categorization, and quantification of uncertainty, overall uncertainty measure, scenarios, simulation experiment, uncertainty modellingThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Section: Embedded Uncertainty Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comprehensive uncertainty analysis of the analytic hierarchy process methodology applied in the context of environmental decision making

Toth

Vacik

2018

Multi Criteria Decision Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AHP enables both objective and subjective opinions to be included in the decision-making process (Rajaeian et al, 2017). The calculation steps of AHP are explained below (Zeshui and Cuiping, 1999;Saaty, 2008):…”

Section: Analytical Hierarchy Process (Ahp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Structural System Selection Using the Integration of Multi-Attribute-Decision-Making (MADM) Methods

Polat

Turkoglu

Damcı

2018

Period. Polytech. Arch.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A structural system carries all loads acting on the building and transfers them effectively to the soil through the foundation. Since it is the essential component of a building, selecting the most appropriate structural system is one of the critical decisions in the structural design. The design team, which consists of engineers and architects, is responsible for determining the structural system that will satisfy the owner's and end user's needs as well as the legal requirements. Due to the fact that a number of compromising and conflicting criteria may affect the structural system selection process, it is a difficult task and it should be considered as a multi-attribute-decisionmaking (MADM) problem. The main objective of this study is to provide the design teams with a MADM approach that will assist them in selecting the most appropriate structural system in a more objective and systematic manner. In the proposed approach, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used to compute the weights of the criteria and Vise Kriterijumska Optimizacija I Kompromisno Resenje (VIKOR) is employed to rank the structural system alternatives. In order to demonstrate how the proposed can be applied in a real life problem, the structural system of a housing project in Istanbul, Turkey is selected via this approach. The findings of the model were discussed with the decision making team in the studied project and they stated that the proposed approach could be easily employed as a guideline in selecting the most appropriate structural system from the managerial viewpoint. This paper is the revised version of the paper that has been published in the proceedings of the Creative Construction Conference 2018 (Polat et al., 2018).

show abstract

“…The degree of consistency (CR or Consistency Ratio) in the pairwise comparisons (steps ii and iii) can be established mathematically, and according to Saaty (1990), Zeshui and Cuiping (1999) and Raharjo et al (2001), if CR > 0.1 then results are inconsistent, and if CR ≤ 0.1 it will be consistent or logical.…”

confidence: 99%

Rodríguez

Alboreca

2012

For. syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present an example of the application of the AHP decision-making approach to forest management, by use of MPC © 2.0 software. The example considered is that of a forest services company interested in buying a timber harvester. The company had preselected four different machines as possible alternatives, and established 11 different criteria involved in the decision, grouped into four categories (economic, environmental, social and technical). The decision-making process was undertaken using MPC © 2.0 software tools, which enable establishment of criteria on two levels, independent pairwise comparison of criteria (first phase) and of alternatives under each criterion (second phase), repetition of the decision-making process by the same or different users, graphical display of the results on the computer screen, and sensitivity analysis.Key words: decision making; criteria; alternatives; multi-criteria decision analysis. ResumenAplicación forestal del método AHP de toma de decisiones mediante el software MPC © En este trabajo se presenta un ejemplo de aplicación a la gestión forestal del método AHP de toma de decisiones mediante el software MPC © 2.0. Se considera el ejemplo de una empresa de servicios forestales interesada en adquirir una procesadora para la corta de madera, habiendo preseleccionado cuatro diferentes máquinas como posibles alternativas, y estableciendo 11 diferentes criterios implicados en la decisión, agrupados a su vez en cuatro categorías: económicos, ambientales, sociales y técnicos. Se presentan con el ejemplo las utilidades del programa MPC © 2.0, entre las que destacan la posibilidad de establecer un esquema de criterios en dos niveles, la realización independiente de la comparación por pares de criterios (primera fase) y de alternativas bajo cada criterio (segunda fase), la posibilidad de incluir diferentes repeticiones de la decisión por un mismo o diferentes usuarios, un interface gráfico para la exposición de los resultados y el análisis de sensibilidad de los mismos.Palabras

show abstract

A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process

Cited by 321 publications

References 5 publications

A comprehensive uncertainty analysis of the analytic hierarchy process methodology applied in the context of environmental decision making

A comprehensive uncertainty analysis of the analytic hierarchy process methodology applied in the context of environmental decision making

Structural System Selection Using the Integration of Multi-Attribute-Decision-Making (MADM) Methods

Forestry application of the AHP by use of MPC© software

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About