IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i24p4984-d1301860.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Sensitivity Analysis of Some Fuzzy AHP Methods

Author

Listed:
  • Irina Vinogradova-Zinkevič

    (Department of Information Technologies, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania)

Abstract

A precise evaluation of the actual situation is a significant aspect of making a correct and informed decision. Due to the bounded accuracy and elements of uncertainty in the data itself, a point estimate may be less adjusted and rough than an estimate based on fuzzy set theory. The stability of the Fuzzy AHP Arithmetic mean, Geometric mean, Extent analysis, and Lambda Max methods, widely used in practice, is verified. Three stages of verification are considered, investigating the impact of the following: (a) the scale applied; (b) methods of aggregation of the AHP matrices into the FAHP matrix; and (c) methods of combining several FAHP judgments. Slight changes in experts’ estimates are programmatically simulated tens of thousands of times to track changes in ranking and deviations of results from the initial estimate. This continues the study of FAHP’s stability due to the ambiguous results of such verification by the method of extent analysis. As a result of a comparative analysis of the listed evaluation methods, their specific features and advantages are identified.

Suggested Citation

  • Irina Vinogradova-Zinkevič, 2023. "Comparative Sensitivity Analysis of Some Fuzzy AHP Methods," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-41, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:24:p:4984-:d:1301860
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/24/4984/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/24/4984/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cheng, Ching-Hsue, 1997. "Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based on the grade value of membership function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 343-350, January.
    2. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    3. Ilić, Damir & Milošević, Isidora & Ilić-Kosanović, Tatjana, 2022. "Application of Unmanned Aircraft Systems for smart city transformation: Case study Belgrade," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    4. 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.
    5. Anur Mehdic & Thomas Gunton & Murray Rutherford, 2020. "Assessing the role of subjective judgment and science in environmental impact assessment: implications and options for reform," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 63(10), pages 1771-1790, August.
    6. Koczkodaj, W.W. & Szybowski, J., 2015. "Pairwise comparisons simplified," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 253(C), pages 387-394.
    7. Awasthi, Anjali & Govindan, Kannan & Gold, Stefan, 2018. "Multi-tier sustainable global supplier selection using a fuzzy AHP-VIKOR based approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 195(C), pages 106-117.
    8. Eva Trinkūnienė & Valentinas Podvezko & Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas & Izolda Jokšienė & Irina Vinogradova & Vaidotas Trinkūnas, 2017. "Evaluation of quality assurance in contractor contracts by multi-attribute decision-making methods," Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 1152-1180, January.
    9. Cheng-Ru Wu & Che-Wei Chang & Hung-Lung Lin, 2008. "FAHP Sensitivity Analysis for Measurement Nonprofit Organizational Performance," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 283-302, June.
    10. Irina Vinogradova, 2019. "Multi-Attribute Decision-Making Methods as a Part of Mathematical Optimization," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(10), pages 1-21, October.
    11. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    12. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Nitidetch Koohathongsumrit & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon, 2022. "An integrated FAHP–ZODP approach for strategic marketing information system project selection," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(6), pages 1792-1809, September.
    2. Ruchi Mishra & Rajesh Kr Singh & Venkatesh Mani, 2023. "A hybrid multi criteria decision-making framework to facilitate omnichannel adoption in logistics: an empirical case study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 685-719, July.
    3. Hsin-Chieh Wu & Toly Chen & Chin-Hau Huang, 2020. "A Piecewise Linear FGM Approach for Efficient and Accurate FAHP Analysis: Smart Backpack Design as an Example," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-18, August.
    4. Raman Kumar Goyal & Sakshi Kaushal, 2018. "Deriving crisp and consistent priorities for fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria systems using non-linear constrained optimization," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 195-209, June.
    5. Amir Hossein Salimi & Amir Noori & Hossein Bonakdari & Jafar Masoompour Samakosh & Ehsan Sharifi & Mohammadreza Hassanvand & Baharam Gharabaghi & Mehdi Agharazi, 2020. "Exploring the Role of Advertising Types on Improving the Water Consumption Behavior: An Application of Integrated Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy VIKOR Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-33, February.
    6. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    7. Dinçer, Hasan & Yüksel, Serhat, 2019. "An integrated stochastic fuzzy MCDM approach to the balanced scorecard-based service evaluation," Mathematics and Computers in Simulation (MATCOM), Elsevier, vol. 166(C), pages 93-112.
    8. Marcus V. C. Fagundes & Bernd Hellingrath & Francisco G. M. Freires, 2021. "Supplier Selection Risk: A New Computer-Based Decision-Making System with Fuzzy Extended AHP," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-17, March.
    9. Truong Thi Hue & Nguyen Anh Tuan & Luu Huu Van & Luong Thuy Lien & Do Dieu Huong & Luong Tram Anh & Nghiem Xuan Huy & Luu Quoc Dat, 2022. "Prioritization of Factors Impacting Lecturer Research Productivity Using an Improved Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-15, May.
    10. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    11. V. Alpagut Yavuz, 2016. "An Analysis of Job Change Decision Using a Hybrid Mcdm Method: A Comparative Analysis," International Journal of Business and Social Research, MIR Center for Socio-Economic Research, vol. 6(3), pages 60-75, March.
    12. Wang, Xiaojun & Chan, Hing Kai & Li, Dong, 2015. "A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 212-223.
    13. Caprioli, Caterina & Bottero, Marta, 2021. "Addressing complex challenges in transformations and planning: A fuzzy spatial multicriteria analysis for identifying suitable locations for urban infrastructures," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    14. Puppala, Harish & Peddinti, Pranav R.T. & Tamvada, Jagannadha Pawan & Ahuja, Jaya & Kim, Byungmin, 2023. "Barriers to the adoption of new technologies in rural areas: The case of unmanned aerial vehicles for precision agriculture in India," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Hodges, Donald G. & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2016. "Participatory and multi-criteria analysis for forest (ecosystem) management: A case study of Pohorje, Slovenia," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 80-86.
    16. Nehal Elshaboury & Tarek Attia & Mohamed Marzouk, 2020. "Comparison of Several Aggregation Techniques for Deriving Analytic Network Process Weights," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(15), pages 4901-4919, December.
    17. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    18. Weiliang Qiao & Yu Liu & Xiaoxue Ma & Yang Liu, 2020. "Human Factors Analysis for Maritime Accidents Based on a Dynamic Fuzzy Bayesian Network," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 957-980, May.
    19. Mohamed Hanine & Omar Boutkhoum & Abderrafie El Maknissi & Abdessadek Tikniouine & Tarik Agouti, 2016. "Decision making under uncertainty using PEES–fuzzy AHP–fuzzy TOPSIS methodology for landfill location selection," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 36(4), pages 351-367, December.
    20. Xue Ding & Mengling Qin & Linsen Yin & Dayong Lv & Yao Bai, 2023. "Research on FinTech Talent Evaluation Index System and Recruitment Strategy: Evidence From Shanghai in China," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(4), pages 21582440231, November.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:24:p:4984-:d:1301860. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.