IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/oprepe/v8y2021ics2214716021000087.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria

Author

Listed:
  • Majumdar, Abhijit
  • Tiwari, Manoj Kumar
  • Agarwal, Aastha
  • Prajapat, Kanika

Abstract

Rank reversal in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) due to introduction or removal of a new alternative is well documented in literature. However, rank reversal due to the aggregation of benefit and cost criteria has not been addressed with requisite rigour. This paper demonstrates a new type of rank reversal in AHP which can arise due to the method (ratio or difference) and approach (sum 1 or sum 2) used to aggregate the benefit and cost criteria. Numerical examples, mathematical analyses and computer simulations have been used for demonstration of results. It is found that considering the benefit and cost criteria separately (sum 2 approach) while aggregating them can yield irrational ranking. It is also demonstrated that ratio method of aggregation is untenable in additive variants of AHP as it yields identical ranking in sum 1 and sum 2 approaches. Difference method of aggregation considering the benefit and cost criteria together (sum 1 approach) is most logical and sound in additive variants of AHP. The results also counter the notion that multiplicative AHP is immune to rank reversal between ratio and difference methods of aggregation. Besides, sum 1 and sum 2 approaches produce different raking of alternatives in multiplicative AHP irrespective of the method of aggregation. Outcome of this research will be helpful while choosing the appropriate method and approach for aggregation of benefit and cost criteria in different variants of AHP.

Suggested Citation

  • Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:8:y:2021:i:c:s2214716021000087
    DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2021.100185
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716021000087
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.orp.2021.100185?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. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Schenkerman, Stan, 1994. "Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 407-419, May.
    3. Ray, Thomas G. & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 1998. "Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 129-136, April.
    4. Lin, Chang-Chun, 2007. "A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(2), pages 1145-1150, January.
    5. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    6. Ly, Pham Thi Minh & Lai, Wen-Hsiang & Hsu, Chiung-Wen & Shih, Fang-Yin, 2018. "Fuzzy AHP analysis of Internet of Things (IoT) in enterprises," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 1-13.
    7. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    8. Sojin Park & Nahyun Kwon & Yonghan Ahn, 2019. "Forecasting Repair Schedule for Building Components Based on Case-Based Reasoning and Fuzzy-AHP," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-17, December.
    9. Usha Ramanathan & Ramakrishnan Ramanathan, 2011. "An investigation into rank reversal properties of the multiplicative AHP," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1), pages 54-77.
    10. Boulomytis, V.T.G. & Zuffo, A.C. & Imteaz, M.A., 2019. "Detection of flood influence criteria in ungauged basins on a combined Delphi-AHP approach," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 6(C).
    11. Mahtani, Umesh S. & Garg, Chandra Prakash, 2018. "An analysis of key factors of financial distress in airline companies in India using fuzzy AHP framework," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 87-102.
    12. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1990. "Reply to "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process" by J. S. Dyer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 269-273, March.
    13. Al-Husain, Raed & Khorramshahgol, Reza, 2020. "Incorporating analytical hierarchy process and goal programming to design responsive and efficient supply chains," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    14. Lai, Vincent S. & Wong, Bo K. & Cheung, Waiman, 2002. "Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 134-144, February.
    15. Vargas, Luis G., 1994. "Reply to Schenkerman's avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 420-425, May.
    16. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    17. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1987. "The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1383-1403, November.
    18. Saaty, Thomas L & Vargas, Luis G, 1984. "The legitimacy of rank reversal," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 513-516.
    19. Haddad, Malik & Sanders, David, 2018. "Selection of discrete multiple criteria decision making methods in the presence of risk and uncertainty," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 5(C), pages 357-370.
    20. Wichapa, Narong & Khokhajaikiat, Porntep, 2017. "Solving multi-objective facility location problem using the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process and goal programming: a case study on infectious waste disposal centers," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 39-48.
    21. Belton, Valerie & Gear, Tony, 1983. "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 228-230.
    22. Paweł Ziemba, 2019. "Inter-Criteria Dependencies-Based Decision Support in the Sustainable wind Energy Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-29, February.
    23. Saaty, Thomas L., 1986. "Absolute and relative measurement with the AHP. The most livable cities in the United States," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 327-331.
    24. Dede, Georgia & Kamalakis, Thomas & Sphicopoulos, Thomas, 2016. "Theoretical estimation of the probability of weight rank reversal in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(2), pages 587-600.
    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. Vijay Pereira & Umesh Bamel, 2023. "Charting the managerial and theoretical evolutionary path of AHP using thematic and systematic review: a decadal (2012–2021) study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 635-651, July.
    2. Jana Stofkova & Matej Krejnus & Katarina Repkova Stofkova & Peter Malega & Vladimira Binasova, 2022. "Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Selected Methods in the Managerial Decision-Making Process in the Context of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.

    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. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    2. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    3. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    4. Liu, Qizhi, 2022. "Identifying and correcting the defects of the Saaty analytic hierarchy/network process: A comparative study of the Saaty analytic hierarchy/network process and the Markov chain-based analytic network ," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    5. Kumar, N. Vinod & Ganesh, L. S., 1996. "A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 656-662, December.
    6. Jain, Bharat A. & Nag, Barin N., 1996. "A decision-support model for investment decisions in new ventures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 473-486, May.
    7. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    8. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    9. L C Leung & Y V Hui & M Zheng, 2003. "Analysis of compatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 758-768, July.
    10. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    11. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    12. Belton, Valerie & Goodwin, Paul, 1996. "Remarks on the application of the analytic hierarchy process to judgmental forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 155-161, March.
    13. M Tavana, 2006. "A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1197-1215, October.
    14. 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.
    15. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
    16. Millet, Ido & Saaty, Thomas L., 2000. "On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 205-212, February.
    17. Zahir, Sajjad, 1999. "Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 373-396, January.
    18. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    19. Bititci, U. S. & Suwignjo, P. & Carrie, A. S., 2001. "Strategy management through quantitative modelling of performance measurement systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 15-22, January.
    20. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.

    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:oprepe:v:8:y:2021:i:c:s2214716021000087. 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.journals.elsevier.com/operations-research-perspectives .

    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.