IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v154y2007i1p123-13210.1007-s10479-007-0182-4.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties

Author

Listed:
  • Jacinto González-Pachón
  • Carlos Romero

Abstract

Pairwise comparison is a popular method for establishing the relative importance of n objects. Its main purpose is to get a set of weights (priority vector) associated with the objects. When the information gathered from the decision maker does not verify some rational properties, it is not easy to search the priority vector. Goal programming is a flexible tool for addressing this type of problem. In this paper, we focus on a group decision-making scenario. Thus, we analyze different methodologies for getting a collective priority vector. The first method is to aggregate general pairwise comparison matrices (i.e., matrices without suitable properties) and then get the priority vector from the consensus matrix. The second method proposes to get the collective priority vector by formulating an optimization problem without determining the consensus pairwise comparison matrix beforehand. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Suggested Citation

  • Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:154:y:2007:i:1:p:123-132:10.1007/s10479-007-0182-4
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-007-0182-4
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10479-007-0182-4
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-007-0182-4?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. D F Jones & S J Mardle, 2004. "A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(8), pages 869-875, August.
    2. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    3. Herrera, F. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Chiclana, F., 2001. "Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 372-385, March.
    4. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.
    5. González-Pachøn, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 1999. "Distance-based consensus methods: a goal programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 341-347, June.
    6. Gonzalez-Pachon, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2004. "A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 158(2), pages 351-361, October.
    7. 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.
    8. Linares, Pedro & Romero, Carlos, 2002. "Aggregation of preferences in an environmental economics context: a goal-programming approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 89-95, April.
    9. Romero, Carlos, 2001. "Extended lexicographic goal programming: a unifying approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 63-71, February.
    10. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    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. de Sousa Xavier, António Manuel & Costa Freitas, Maria de Belém & de Sousa Fragoso, Rui Manuel, 2015. "Management of Mediterranean forests — A compromise programming approach considering different stakeholders and different objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 38-46.
    2. António Xavier & Maria de Belém Costa Freitas & Rui Fragoso & Maria do Socorro Rosário, 2022. "Analysing the Recent Dynamics of Agricultural Sustainability in Portugal Using a Compromise Programming Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-16, September.
    3. Brandt, Patric & Kvakić, Marko & Butterbach-Bahl, Klaus & Rufino, Mariana C., 2017. "How to target climate-smart agriculture? Concept and application of the consensus-driven decision support framework “targetCSA”," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 234-245.
    4. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2016. "The precise consistency consensus matrix in a local AHP-group decision making context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 245-259, October.
    5. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    6. J. Fülöp & W. Koczkodaj & S. Szarek, 2012. "On some convexity properties of the Least Squares Method for pairwise comparisons matrices without the reciprocity condition," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 54(4), pages 689-706, December.
    7. Thierry Denœux & Marie-Hélène Masson, 2012. "Evidential reasoning in large partially ordered sets," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 195(1), pages 135-161, May.
    8. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    9. María Romero & María Luisa Cuadrado & Luis Romero & Carlos Romero, 2020. "Optimum acceptability of telecommunications networks: a multi-criteria approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1899-1911, September.
    10. de Andrés, Rocío & García-Lapresta, José Luis & González-Pachón, Jacinto, 2010. "Performance appraisal based on distance function methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 207(3), pages 1599-1607, December.
    11. Fu-Ling Cai & Xiuwu Liao & Kan-Liang Wang, 2012. "An interactive sorting approach based on the assignment examples of multiple decision makers with different priorities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 87-108, August.
    12. González-Pachón, Jacinto & Romero, Carlos, 2011. "The design of socially optimal decisions in a consensus scenario," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 179-185, April.

    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. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    2. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    3. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Roberto Cervelló-Royo & Francisco Guijarro & Victor Martinez-Gomez, 2019. "Social Performance considered within the global performance of Microfinance Institutions: a new approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 737-755, September.
    5. Jerónimo Aznar & Francisco Guijarro & José Moreno-Jiménez, 2011. "Mixed valuation methods: a combined AHP-GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural valuation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 221-238, October.
    6. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    7. Gebrezgabher, Solomie A. & Meuwissen, Miranda P.M. & Oude Lansink, Alfons G.J.M., 2014. "A multiple criteria decision making approach to manure management systems in the Netherlands," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 643-653.
    8. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    9. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    10. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    11. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    12. Pedro Linares & Sara Lumbreras & Alberto Santamaría & Andrea Veiga, 2016. "How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 227-244, October.
    13. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Ma, Jian & Jiang, Yan-Ping & Sun, Yong-Hong & Ma, Louis, 2006. "A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 311-321, October.
    14. Zorica Srđević & Bojan Srđević & Kosana Suvočarev & Laslo Galamboš, 2020. "Hybrid Constructed Wetland Selection as a Group Decision-Making Problem," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 295-310, January.
    15. Mónica de Castro-Pardo & João C. Azevedo, 2021. "A Goal Programming Model to Guide Decision-Making Processes towards Conservation Consensuses," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-25, February.
    16. L. R. Figueiredo & E. A. Frej & G. L. Soares & P. Ya. Ekel, 2021. "Group Decision-Based Construction of Scenarios for Multicriteria Analysis in Conditions of Uncertainty on the Basis of Quantitative and Qualitative Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 665-696, June.
    17. Pietro Amenta & Alessio Ishizaka & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Vijay Vyas, 2020. "Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 33-62, January.
    18. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    19. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    20. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.

    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:spr:annopr:v:154:y:2007:i:1:p:123-132:10.1007/s10479-007-0182-4. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.