Selection of new production facilities with the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering method

Ishizaka, Alessio; Labib, Ashraf

doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.004

Cited by 172 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Group decision making is becoming an increasingly important part of multiple criteria decision making (Ahmad, Saman, Mohamad, Mohamad, & Awang, 2014;De Brucker, Macharis, & Verbeke, 2013;Ishizaka & Labib, 2011a;Kuzman, Grošelj, Ayrilmis, & Zbasnik-Senegacnik, 2013;Ren, Fedele, Mason, Manzardo, & Scipioni, 2013;Skorupski, 2014;Wang, Peng, Zhang, & Chen, 2014;Yu & Lai, 2011). Multiple stakeholders can contribute a variety of experiences, expertise and perspectives, and a group can better deal with the complexity of the problem than a single decision maker (DM).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process

Grošelj

Stirn

Ayrılmış

et al. 2015

Expert Systems with Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tGroup decision making is an important part of multiple criteria decision making and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The aim of this paper was to compare group AHP methods. Seven simple group AHP aggregation techniques that could be attractive for applications selected from the vast array of group AHP models proposed in the literature were selected for evaluation. We developed three new measures of evaluation: group Euclidean distance, group minimum violations, and distance between weights for the purpose of evaluation. The results of seven group AHP methods of the theoretical example were evaluated by three new evaluation measures, satisfactory index and fitting performance index. Furthermore, a case study of a decision making problem from the construction engineering field was performed and nine group AHP aggregation techniques, seven of them formerly presented and two new two stage group approaches were applied. Finally, the case study was evaluated using all five measures for each of the nine group decision making methods. The results showed that not all group AHP methods are equally convenient and that the selection of the method depended on the specific application.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process

Grošelj

Stirn

Ayrılmış

et al. 2015

Expert Systems with Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Another example is Ishizaka and Labib (2011b), who develop the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering (GAHPO) method. In this approach, the stakeholders are incorporated into a level of the hierarchy.…”

Section: Group Aggregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With group judgments in the context of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) one would hope for broad consensus among the decision makers. However, in practice this will not always be the case, and significant dispersion may exist among the judgments. Too much dispersion violates the principle of Pareto Optimality at the comparison level and/or matrix level, and if this happens, then the group may be homogenous in some comparisons and heterogeneous in others. The question then arises as to what would be an appropriate aggregation scheme when a consensus cannot be reached and the decision makers are either unwilling or unable to revise their judgments. In particular, the traditional aggregation via the geometric mean has been shown to be inappropriate in such situations. In this paper, we propose a new method for aggregating judgments when the raw geometric mean cannot be used. Our work is motivated by a supply chain problem of managing spare parts in B Natalie M. Scala 123 N. M. Scala et al.the nuclear power generation sector and can be applied whenever the AHP is used with judgments from multiple decision makers. The method makes use of principal components analysis (PCA) to combine the judgments into one aggregated value for each pairwise comparison. We show that this approach is equivalent to using a weighted geometric mean with the weights obtained from the PCA.

show abstract

“…Ishizaka and Labib presented the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method: a new multi-criteria decision aid method for ordering alternatives in a group decision. Authors found four main advantages: significant reduction of time and effort in the decision process; easiness for the decision makers to arrive at a consensus; enhancement of the decision quality and documentation with justification of the decision made [12]. However, AHP is frequently criticized for its inability to adequately accommodate the inherent uncertainty and imprecision associated with mapping decision maker perceptions to extract number.…”

Section: Review Of Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental Impact Evaluation Method of Grinding Process Using Clustering and ANFIS

Wang¹,

Xiu²

2017

IJCA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Selection of new production facilities with the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering method

Cited by 172 publications

References 56 publications

Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process

Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process

Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Environmental Impact Evaluation Method of Grinding Process Using Clustering and ANFIS

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About