IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v250y2016i2p602-614.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hesitant analytic hierarchy process

Author

Listed:
  • Zhu, Bin
  • Xu, Zeshui
  • Zhang, Ren
  • Hong, Mei

Abstract

In traditional analytic hierarch process (AHP), decision makers (DMs) are required to provide crisp judgments over paired comparisons of objectives to construct comparison matrices. To enhance the modeling ability of traditional AHP, we propose hesitant AHP (H-AHP) that can consider the hesitancy experienced by the DMs in decision. H-AHP is characterized by hesitant judgments, where each hesitant judgment can be represented by several possible values. Different probability distributions can be used to further describe hesitant judgments according to the DMs’ preferences. Based on a hesitant comparison matrix (HCM) that consists of hesitant judgments, we define two indices to measure the consistency degree and the consensus degree of the HCM respectively. From a stochastic point of view, a new prioritization method is developed to derive priorities from HCMs, where the results are with probability interpretations. We provide a step by step procedure for H-AHP, and demonstrate this new method with a real-life decision making problem.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2016. "Hesitant analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 602-614.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:250:y:2016:i:2:p:602-614
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221715009054
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.09.063?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aguaron, Juan & Moreno-Jimenez, Jose Maria, 2003. "The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 137-145, May.
    2. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    4. Alfredo Altuzarra & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2010. "Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1755-1773, December.
    5. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2015. "Generalized analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 277-288.
    6. Claus Rinner & Jacek Malczewski, 2002. "Web-enabled spatial decision analysis using Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA)," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 4(4), pages 385-403, December.
    7. Hauser, David & Tadikamalla, Pandu, 1996. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process in an uncertain environment: A simulation approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 91(1), pages 27-37, May.
    8. Ergu, Daji & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi & Shi, Yong, 2011. "A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 246-259, August.
    9. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    10. Ivlev, Ilya & Vacek, Jakub & Kneppo, Peter, 2015. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for supporting the selection of medical devices under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 247(1), pages 216-228.
    11. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 9-26, September.
    12. Rosenbloom, E. S., 1997. "A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 371-378, January.
    13. L Mikhailov, 2000. "A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(3), pages 341-349, March.
    14. Risto Lahdelma & Pekka Salminen, 2001. "SMAA-2: Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis for Group Decision Making," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(3), pages 444-454, June.
    15. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Karabulut, Yağmur & Mukul, Esin, 2018. "A novel renewable energy selection model for United Nations' sustainable development goals," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PA), pages 290-302.
    2. Yıldız, Nurdan & Tüysüz, Fatih, 2019. "A hybrid multi-criteria decision making approach for strategic retail location investment: Application to Turkish food retailing," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    3. Virgilio López-Morales, 2018. "A Reliable Method for Consistency Improving of Interval Multiplicative Preference Relations Expressed under Uncertainty," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1561-1585, September.
    4. Pätäri, Eero & Karell, Ville & Luukka, Pasi & Yeomans, Julian S, 2018. "Comparison of the multicriteria decision-making methods for equity portfolio selection: The U.S. evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 655-672.
    5. Kang Xu & Jiuping Xu, 2020. "A direct consistency test and improvement method for the analytic hierarchy process," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 359-388, September.
    6. Meng, Fanyong & Xiong, Beibei, 2021. "Logical efficiency decomposition for general two-stage systems in view of cross efficiency," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(2), pages 622-632.
    7. Fatih Tüysüz, 2018. "Simulated Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets-Based Approach for Modeling Uncertainty in AHP Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 801-817, May.
    8. Wanying Xie & Zeshui Xu & Zhiliang Ren & Hai Wang, 2018. "Probabilistic Linguistic Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Application on the Performance Assessment of Xiongan New Area," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(06), pages 1693-1724, November.
    9. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Mukul, Esin & Kongar, Elif, 2021. "Health tourism strategy selection via SWOT analysis and integrated hesitant fuzzy linguistic AHP-MABAC approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    2. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2015. "Generalized analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 277-288.
    3. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    4. May, Jerrold H. & Shang, Jennifer & Tjader, Youxu Cai & Vargas, Luis G., 2013. "A new methodology for sensitivity and stability analysis of analytic network models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 180-188.
    5. Kang Xu & Jiuping Xu, 2020. "A direct consistency test and improvement method for the analytic hierarchy process," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 359-388, September.
    6. Fatih Tüysüz, 2018. "Simulated Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets-Based Approach for Modeling Uncertainty in AHP Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 801-817, May.
    7. József Temesi, 2019. "An interactive approach to determine the elements of a pairwise comparison matrix," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 533-549, June.
    8. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    9. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    10. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.
    11. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    12. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mar Arenas-Parra & Raquel Quiroga-García & Celia Bilbao-Terol, 2022. "An extended best–worst multiple reference point method: application in the assessment of non-life insurance companies," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(5), pages 5323-5362, November.
    13. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    14. Escobar, M. T. & Moreno-Jimenez, J. M., 2000. "Reciprocal distributions in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 123(1), pages 154-174, May.
    15. Jalao, Eugene Rex & Wu, Teresa & Shunk, Dan, 2014. "An intelligent decomposition of pairwise comparison matrices for large-scale decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 270-280.
    16. Dong, Yucheng & Hong, Wei-Chiang & Xu, Yinfeng & Yu, Shui, 2013. "Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 654-662.
    17. Daji Ergu & Gang Kou & János Fülöp & Yong Shi, 2014. "Further Discussions on Induced Bias Matrix Model for the Pair-Wise Comparison Matrix," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 980-993, June.
    18. M. Gabriela Sava & Luis G. Vargas & Jerrold H. May & James G. Dolan, 2022. "Multi-dimensional stability analysis for Analytic Network Process models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(2), pages 1401-1424, September.
    19. L. N. Pradeep Kumar Rallabandi & Ravindranath Vandrangi & Subba Rao Rachakonda, 2016. "Improved Consistency Ratio for Pairwise Comparison Matrix in Analytic Hierarchy Processes," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 33(03), pages 1-19, June.
    20. Ian Durbach, 2019. "Scenario planning in the analytic hierarchy process," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:250:y:2016:i:2:p:602-614. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.