IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v27y2019i2d10.1007_s10100-018-0539-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An interactive approach to determine the elements of a pairwise comparison matrix

Author

Listed:
  • József Temesi

    (Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

The elicitation process, which provides initial data for further analysis in various decision making problems, can influence the final result (preference scores, weights). The elicitation process is crucial for getting consistent, near-consistent or inconsistent PCM. Decision support systems apply different approaches in practice. This paper aims at investigating two questions. Correction methods are interpreted and analyzed from the viewpoints of their philosophy and techniques to decrease the degree of inconsistency. On the other hand improving consistency in real-world decision problems is not possible without additional information from the decision maker. The proposed interactive method can be applied for individual decision making problems with verbal scale. The involvement of the decision maker and a heuristic rule can ensure that the process either provides a near-consistent and error-free PCM or demonstrates the inability of the decision maker to reach that goal.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:27:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10100-018-0539-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-018-0539-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10100-018-0539-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-018-0539-6?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. Matteo Brunelli & Michele Fedrizzi, 2015. "Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 66(1), pages 1-15, January.
    2. 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.
    3. Kou, Gang & Ergu, Daji & Shang, Jennifer, 2014. "Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 261-271.
    4. Wolfgang Gaul & Dominic Gastes, 2012. "A note on consistency improvements of AHP paired comparison data," Advances in Data Analysis and Classification, Springer;German Classification Society - Gesellschaft für Klassifikation (GfKl);Japanese Classification Society (JCS);Classification and Data Analysis Group of the Italian Statistical Society (CLADAG);International Federation of Classification Societies (IFCS), vol. 6(4), pages 289-302, December.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Karapetrovic, Stanislav & Rosenbloom, E. S., 1999. "A quality control approach to consistency paradoxes in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 704-718, December.
    8. 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.
    9. József Temesi, 2011. "Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker," 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. 19(2), pages 239-249, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    13. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John, 2012. "A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 420-428.
    14. Kuenz Murphy, Catherine, 1993. "Limits on the analytic hierarchy process from its consistency index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 138-139, February.
    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. 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.
    2. Kou, Gang & Ergu, Daji & Shang, Jennifer, 2014. "Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 261-271.
    3. Cooper, Orrin & Yavuz, Idil, 2016. "Linking validation: A search for coherency within the Supermatrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 252(1), pages 232-245.
    4. Liang, Fuqi & Brunelli, Matteo & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Valdecy Pereira & Helder Costa, 2015. "Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 229(1), pages 635-655, June.
    7. Csató, László & Petróczy, Dóra Gréta, 2021. "On the monotonicity of the eigenvector method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 292(1), pages 230-237.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Sándor Bozóki & Linda Dezső & Attila Poesz & József Temesi, 2013. "Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 511-528, December.
    11. Marcin Anholcer & János Fülöp, 2019. "Deriving priorities from inconsistent PCM using network algorithms," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 57-74, March.
    12. Li, Kevin W. & Wang, Zhou-Jing & Tong, Xiayu, 2016. "Acceptability analysis and priority weight elicitation for interval multiplicative comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 628-638.
    13. Mohd. Sadiq & Mohd. Sadim & Azra Parveen, 2021. "Applying statistical approach to check the consistency of pairwise comparison matrices during software requirements prioritization process," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 12(3), pages 451-460, June.
    14. Ho, William & Ma, Xin, 2018. "The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 399-414.
    15. Changsheng Lin & Gang Kou & Daji Ergu, 2013. "An improved statistical approach for consistency test in AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 289-299, December.
    16. Brunelli, Matteo & Fedrizzi, Michele, 2015. "Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 765-773.
    17. 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.
    18. Matteo Brunelli & Michele Fedrizzi, 2019. "A general formulation for some inconsistency indices of pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 274(1), pages 155-169, March.
    19. Siraj, S. & Mikhailov, L. & Keane, J.A., 2012. "Preference elicitation from inconsistent judgments using multi-objective optimization," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 461-471.
    20. József Temesi, 2011. "Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker," 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. 19(2), pages 239-249, 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:spr:cejnor:v:27:y:2019:i:2:d:10.1007_s10100-018-0539-6. 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.