Ishizaka, Alessio and Balkenborg, Dieter and Kaplan, Todd (2009): Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP.
Download (148kB) | Preview
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the most popular multi-attribute decision aid methods. However, within AHP, there are several competing preference measurement scales and aggregation techniques. In this paper, we compare these possibilities using a decision problem with an inherent trade-off between two criteria. A decision-maker has to choose among three alternatives: two extremes and one compromise. Six different measurement scales described previously in the literature and the new proposed logarithmic scale are considered for applying the additive and the multiplicative aggregation techniques. The results are compared with the standard consumer choice theory. We find that with the geometric and power scales a compromise is never selected when aggregation is additive and rarely when aggregation is multiplicative, while the logarithmic scale used with the multiplicative aggregation most often selects the compromise that is desirable by consumer choice theory.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP|
|Keywords:||AHP, Multi-criteria Decision analysis|
|Subjects:||C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C6 - Mathematical Methods ; Programming Models ; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling > C60 - General|
|Depositing User:||Todd R Kaplan|
|Date Deposited:||25. Dec 2009 09:09|
|Last Modified:||09. Mar 2015 10:17|
Ahn BS and Choi SH (2008). ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean home shopping company. J Opl res Soc 59(3): 322-330.
Akarte MM, Surendra NV, Ravi B and Rangaraj N (2001). Web based casting supplier evaluation using analytic hierarchy process. J Opl res Soc 52: 511-522.
Bañuelas R and Antony J (2007). Application of stochastic analytic hierarchy process within a domestic appliance manufacturer. J Opl res Soc 58(1): 29-38.
Barzilai J and Golany B (1994). AHP rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. Inf Sys and Opl Res 32(2): 57-64.
Barzilai J (1997). Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. J Opl res Soc 48 (12): 1226-32.
Belton V and Gear T (1983). On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of Analytic Hierarchies. Omega 11: 228-230.
Dyer JS (1990). Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mngt Sci 36(3): 249-258.
Forman EH and Gass SI (2001). The Analytic Hierarchy Process – an exposition. Opns Res 49(4): 469-486.
Fukuyama H and Weber WL (2002). Evaluating public school district performance via DEA gain functions. J Opl res Soc 53(9): 992-1003.
Golden BL, Wasil EA and Harker PT (1989). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: applications and studies. Springer-Ver¬lag: Heidelberg.
Harker PT and Vargas LG (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mngt Sci 33(11): 1383-1403.
Harker PT and Vargas LG (1990). Reply to “remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Mngt Sci 36(3): 269-273.
Ho W (2008). Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its applications – a literature review. Eur J Opl Res 186(1): 211-228.
Holder RD (1990). Some comment on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. J Opl res Soc 41(11): 1073-1076.
Holder RD (1991). Response to Holder's comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process: response to the response. J Opl res Soc 42(10): 914-918.
Ishizaka A (2004a). The advantages of clusters and pivots in AHP. Proceeding 15th Mini-Euro Conference MUDSM.
Ishizaka A (2004b). Développement d’un système tutorial intelligent pour dériver des priorités dans l’AHP. PhD Thesis. University of Basle. Dis¬sertation.de: Berlin.
Ishizaka A and Lusti M (2006). How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study. Cent Eur J Opns Res 14(4): 387-400.
Kumar S and Vaidya OS (2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process: an overview of applications. Eur J Opl Res 169(1): 1-29.
Lee CW and Kwak NK (1999). Information resource planning for a health-care system using an AHP-based goal programming method. J Opl res Soc 50(12): 1191-1198.
Leskinen P and Kangas J (2005). Rank reversal in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons. J Opl res Soc 56(7): 855-861.
Leung LC, Lam KC and Cao D (2006). Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process & the analytic network process. J Opl res Soc 57(6): 682 – 691.
Li X, Beullens P, Jones D and Tamiz M (2008). An integrated queuing and multi-objective bed allocation model with application to a hospital in China. J Opl res Soc advance online publication 6 February 2008; doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors. 2602565.
Liberatore MJ and Nydick RL (2008). The Analytic Hierarchy Process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review. Eur J Opl Res 189(1): 194-207.
Lootsma FA (1989). Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions. Eur J Opl Res 40(1): 109-116.
Lootsma FA, Mensch TCA and Vos FA (1990). Multi-criteria analysis and budget reallocation in long-term research planning. Eur J Opl Res 47(3): 293-305.
Lootsma FA (1993). Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 2(2): 87-110.
Ma D and Zheng X (1991). 9/9-9/1 Scale method of AHP. 2nd Proceeding Int. Symposium on AHP. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh 1: 197-202.
Mingers J, Liu W and Weng W (2007). Using SSM to structure the identification of inputs and outputs in DEA. J Opl res Soc advance online publication 19 December 2007; doi: 10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602542.
Omkarprasad V and Sushil K (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Opl Res 169(1): 1-29.
Pöyhönen MA, Hamalainen RP and Salo AA (1997). An experiment on the numerical modelling of verbal ratio statements. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 6(1): 1-10.
Saaty ThL (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3): 234-281.
Saaty ThL (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mac Gray-Hill: New York.
Saaty ThL and Vargas LG (1984b). Comparison of eigenvalue, logarith¬mic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Math Modelling 5(5): 309-324.
Saaty ThL (1990). An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process”. Mngt Sci 36(3): 259-268.
Saaty ThL (1991). Response to Holder’s comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. J Opl res Soc 42(10): 909-929.
Salo AA and Hamalainen RP (1997). On the measurement of preference in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 6(6): 309-319.
Sha DY and Che ZH (2006). Supply chain network design: partner selection and produc¬tion/distribution planning using a systematic model. J Opl res Soc 57(1): 52-62.
Stam A and Duarte Silva P (2003). On multiplicative priority rating methods for AHP. Eur J Opl Res 145(1): 92-108.
Tavana M (2006). A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA. J Opl res Soc 57(10): 1197-1215.
Triantaphyllou E (2001). Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 10(1): 11-25.
Triantaphyllou E and Baig K (2005). The impact of aggregating benefit and cost criteria in four MCDA methods. IEEE Trans Engng Mngt 52(2): 213-226.
Vargas LG (1990). An overview of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and its applications. Eur J Opl Res 48(1): 2-8.
Vargas LG (1997). Comments on Barzilai and Lootsma why the multiplicative AHP is invalid: a practical counterexample. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 6(4): 169-170.
Wheeler S (2006). An analysis of combined arms teaming for the Australian defence force. J Opl res Soc 57(11): 1279-1288.
Winkler R (1990). Decision modeling and rational choice: AHP and Utility Theory. Mngt Sci 36(3): 247-248.
Yeo G-T, Song D-W, Dinwoodie J and Roe M (2009). Weighting the competitiveness factors for container ports under conflicting interests, J Opl res Soc advance online publication, doi: 10.1057/jors.2009.88
Zahedi F (1986). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: a survey of the method and its applications. Interface 16(4): 96-108.