No Access

Comparison of Judgment Scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process — A New Approach

BPMSG, 2 Bedok Reservoir View #17–02, Singapore 479232, Singapore

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219622019500044Cited by:57 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) remains a popular multi-criteria decision method. One topic under discussion of AHP is the use of different scales to translate judgments into ratios. The author makes a new approach to compare different scale functions and to derive a recommendation for the application of scales. The approach is based on simple analytic functions and takes into consideration the number of criteria of the decision problem. A generalization of the so-called balanced scale is proposed, and a new adaptive-balanced scale is introduced. Scales are then categorized and compared based on weight boundaries and weight ratios, weight uncertainties, weight dispersion and number of decision criteria. Finally, a practical example of a decision hierarchy is presented applying the different scales. The results show that the generalized balanced scale improves weight dispersion and weight uncertainty in comparison to the fundamental AHP scale. The proposed adaptive-balanced scale overcomes the problem of a change of the maximum weight depending on the number of decision criteria.

Keywords:

References

1. T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation (McGraw-Hill, 1980), ISBN 0–07–054371–2. Google Scholar
2. A. Ishizaka and A. Labib, Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications 38(11) (2011) 14336–14345. Web of Science, Google Scholar
3. G. Kou, D. Ergu, C. Lin and Y. Chen, Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making, Technological and Economic Development of Economy 22(5) (2016) 738–765. Web of Science, Google Scholar
4. C. Garuti, Reflections on scales from measurements, not measurements from scales, International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 9(3) (2017) 349–361. Google Scholar
5. T. L. Saaty and L. G. Vargas, The seven pillars of the analytic hierarchy process, models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process, International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, Vol. 175 (Springer, 2012), pp. 23–40, ISBN 978–1-4614–3596–9. Google Scholar
6. T. L. Saaty, Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International Journal Services Sciences 1(1) (2008) 83–98. Google Scholar
7. J. Franeka and A. Kresta, Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP, Procedia Economics and Finance 12 (2014) 164–173. Google Scholar
8. G. Crawford and C. Williams, A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29 (1985) 387–405. Web of Science, Google Scholar
9. D. Ma and X. Zheng, 9/9–9/1 Scale method of AHP, 2nd Int. Symp. AHP, Vol. 1 ( Pittsburgh, 1991), pp. 197–202. Google Scholar
10. A. Salo and R. Hämäläinen, On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (1997) 309–319. Google Scholar
11. A. Ishizaka, D. Balkenborg and T. Kaplan, Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP, Journal of the Operational Research Society 62 (2010) 700–710. Web of Science, Google Scholar
12. P. Harker and L. Vargas, The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process, Management Science 33(11) (1987) 1383–1403. Web of Science, Google Scholar
13. W. W. Koczkodaj, Pairwise comparisons rating scale paradox, in Transactions on Computational Collective Intelligence XXII, eds., N. T. Nguyen and R. Kowalczyk, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 9655 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2016), pp. 1–9. Google Scholar
14. F. Lootsma, Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions, Eur. J. Operational Res. 40 (1989) 109–116. Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. Y. Dong, Y. Xu, H. Li and M. Dai, A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP, Eur. J. Operational Res. 186 (2008) 229–242. Web of Science, Google Scholar
16. G. A. Miller, The magical number seven, plus or minus two some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review 101(2) (1955) 343–352. Web of Science, Google Scholar
17. T. L. Saaty and M. S. Ozdemir, Why the magic number seven plus or minus two, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 38 (2003) 233–244. Web of Science, Google Scholar
18. A. Salo and R. Hamalainen, Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons, European Journal of Operational Research 82(3) (1995) 458–475. Web of Science, Google Scholar
19. J. J. Buckley, Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17(3) (1985) 233–247. Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. D. Y. Chang, Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 95(3) (1996) 649–655. Web of Science, Google Scholar
21. T. Demirel, N.Ç. Demirel and C. Kahraman, Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its application, in Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making, eds., C. Kahraman, Theory and Applications with Recent Developments, Vol. 16 (Springer, Boston, MA, 2008), pp. 53–83. Google Scholar
22. A. Ishizaka, Comparison of fuzzy logic, AHP, FAHP and hybrid fuzzy AHP for new supplier selection and its performance analysis, International Journal of Integrated Supply Management 9(1/2) (2014) 1–22. Google Scholar
23. R. Banuelas and J. Antony, Modified analytic hierarchy process to incorporate uncertainty and managerial aspects, International Journal of Production Research 42(18) (2004) 3851–3872. Web of Science, Google Scholar
24. E. D. Hahn, Decision making with uncertain judgments: A stochastic formulation of the analytic hierarchy process, Decision Science 34(3) (2003) 443–466. Web of Science, Google Scholar
25. A. Stam and A. P. D. Silva, Stochastic judgments in the AHP: The measurement of rank reversal probabilities, Decision Science 28(3) (2007) 655–688. Web of Science, Google Scholar
26. I. Durbach, R. Lahdelma and P. Salminen, The analytic hierarchy process with stochastic judgements, European Journal of Operational Research 238(2) (2014) 552–559. Web of Science, Google Scholar
27. I. L. Tomashevskii, Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors, European Journal of Operational Research 240(3) (2015) 774–780. Web of Science, Google Scholar
28. M. J. Webb, Estimating uncertainty attributable to inconsistent pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), A Praxis Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Engineering and Applied Science of The George Washington University, ProQuest 10751947, published by ProQuest LLC (2018). Google Scholar
29. K. D. Goepel, AHP online system (AHP-OS), Rational decision making made easy (2017), https://bpmsg.com/academic/ahp.php. Google Scholar
30. T. L. Saaty, How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1990) 9–26. Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. T. L. Saaty, Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary, European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 85–91. Web of Science, Google Scholar
32. S. Siraj, Preference elicitation from pairwise comparisons in multi-criteria decision making. Dissertation, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Manchester, pp. 33–34 and 57–60 (2011). Google Scholar