IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitdm/v18y2019i02ns0219622018500517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process

Author

Listed:
  • Ardalan Bafahm

    (Project Management Office, Research Institute of Construction Management, Tehran 1977867551, Iran)

  • Minghe Sun

    (College of Business, The University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX 78249, USA)

Abstract

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been believed to be one of the most pragmatic and widely accepted methods for multi-criteria decision making. However, there have been various criticisms of this method within the last four decades. In this study, the results of AHP contradicting common expectations are examined for both the distributive and ideal modes. Specifically, conflicting priorities, conflicting decisions, and conflicting preference relations are investigated. A decision-making scenario is used throughout the paper and an illustrative example constructed from the decision-making scenario is provided to demonstrate each of the conflicting results recommended by AHP. With a parametric formulation of each unexpected result, the possibility of unexpected results of AHP is generalized irrespective of applying the distributive or ideal mode. The logic and causes of these contradictions are also analyzed. This study shows that AHP is not always reliable, and could lead the decision makers towards incorrect decisions.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:18:y:2019:i:02:n:s0219622018500517
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219622018500517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219622018500517
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219622018500517?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. 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.
    2. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    3. C M Brugha, 2004. "Structure of multi-criteria decision-making," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(11), pages 1156-1168, November.
    4. Schoner, Bertram & Wedley, William C. & Choo, Eng Ung, 1993. "A unified approach to AHP with linking pins," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 384-392, February.
    5. P Ji & R Jiang, 2003. "Scale transitivity in the AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(8), pages 896-905, August.
    6. Lootsma, F. A., 1989. "Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 109-116, May.
    7. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    8. 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.
    9. Hovanov, Nikolai V. & Kolari, James W. & Sokolov, Mikhail V., 2008. "Deriving weights from general pairwise comparison matrices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 205-220, March.
    10. Watson, SR, 1982. "Assesing Attribute Weights," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 10(6), pages 582-583.
    11. Peter H. Farquhar & Anthony R. Pratkanis, 1993. "Decision Structuring with Phantom Alternatives," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1214-1226, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Gang Kou & Yanqun Lu & Yi Peng & Yong Shi, 2012. "Evaluation Of Classification Algorithms Using Mcdm And Rank Correlation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(01), pages 197-225.
    14. Saaty, Thomas L., 2006. "Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 557-570, January.
    15. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    16. Sajjad Zahir, 2009. "Normalisation and rank reversals in the additive analytic hierarchy process: a new analysis," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 4(4), pages 446-467.
    17. Tversky, Amos & Slovic, Paul & Kahneman, Daniel, 1990. "The Causes of Preference Reversal," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 204-217, March.
    18. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2006. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process: wash criteria should not be ignored," International Journal of Management and Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(2/3), pages 180-188.
    19. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Forman, Ernest H., 1990. "Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 153-155, September.
    25. Saaty, Thomas L & Vargas, Luis G, 1984. "The legitimacy of rank reversal," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 513-516.
    26. 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.
    27. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    28. Chen, Hongyi & Kocaoglu, Dundar F., 2008. "A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(1), pages 266-288, February.
    29. Joaquín Pérez & José Jimeno & Ethel Mokotoff, 2006. "Another potential shortcoming of AHP," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 14(1), pages 99-111, June.
    30. T Kainulainen & P Leskinen & P Korhonen & A Haara & T Hujala, 2009. "A statistical approach to assessing interval scale preferences in discrete choice problems," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 252-258, February.
    31. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    32. Webber, Sally A. & Apostolou, Barbara & Hassell, John M., 1997. "The sensitivity of the analytic hierarchy process to alternative scale and cue presentations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 351-362, January.
    33. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    34. Amos Tversky & Itamar Simonson, 1993. "Context-Dependent Preferences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(10), pages 1179-1189, 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. Emanuele Salerno, 2020. "Identifying Value-Increasing Actions for Cultural Heritage Assets through Sensitivity Analysis of Multicriteria Evaluation Results," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-13, November.
    2. S. Saffarzadeh & A. Hadi-Vencheh & A. Jamshidi, 2019. "An Interval Based Score Method for Multiple Criteria Decision Making Problems," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(05), pages 1667-1687, September.
    3. Mustafa Kemal Yilmaz & Ali Osman Kusakci & Ekrem Tatoglu & Orkun Icten & Feyzullah Yetgin, 2019. "Performance Evaluation of Real Estate Investment Trusts using a Hybridized Interval Type-2 Fuzzy AHP-DEA Approach: The Case of Borsa Istanbul," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1785-1820, November.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Liu, Xianliang & Ma, Yonghao, 2021. "A method to analyze the rank reversal problem in the ELECTRE II method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    12. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    18. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    19. Virgilio López-Morales & Joel Suárez-Cansino, 2017. "Reliable Intervals Method in Decision-Based Support Models for Group Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 183-204, January.
    20. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 699-711, April.

    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:wsi:ijitdm:v:18:y:2019:i:02:n:s0219622018500517. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijitdm/ijitdm.shtml .

    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.