IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v204y2010i2p285-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Compromising prioritization from pairwise comparisons considering type I and II errors

Author

Listed:
  • Kim, Deok-Hwan
  • Kim, Kwang-Jae
  • Sam Park, K.

Abstract

We explore an important problem in prioritizing product design alternatives, using a real-world case. Despite the importance of prioritization in the area of new product development, the development of systematic schemes has been limited and the concepts and methods developed in the decision analysis area do not seem to be used actively. Therefore, we propose a new method, referred to as the compromising prioritization technique, to prioritize the product design alternatives based on paired comparisons. It introduces type I and type II errors and compromises these two errors to arrive at a desirable order of alternatives. To accomplish this, the two indices of homogeneity and separation are developed together with a heuristic algorithm. A comparative study is also conducted to support our method for use in product development and analogous areas. We then demonstrate how to use the developed compromising prioritization technique using a case study on the asymmetric digital subscriber line (ADSL)-based high-speed internet service product.

Suggested Citation

  • Kim, Deok-Hwan & Kim, Kwang-Jae & Sam Park, K., 2010. "Compromising prioritization from pairwise comparisons considering type I and II errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 204(2), pages 285-293, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:204:y:2010:i:2:p:285-293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(09)00752-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    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. Fichtner, John, 1986. "On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 341-345.
    2. Mareschal, Bertrand, 1986. "Stochastic multicriteria decision making and uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 58-64, July.
    3. Macharis, Cathy & Springael, Johan & De Brucker, Klaas & Verbeke, Alain, 2004. "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 307-317, March.
    4. Tversky, Amos & Thaler, Richard H, 1990. "Anomalies: Preference Reversals," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(2), pages 201-211, Spring.
    5. Parreiras, R.O. & Vasconcelos, J.A., 2007. "A multiplicative version of Promethee II applied to multiobjective optimization problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 183(2), pages 729-740, December.
    6. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    7. Cook, Wade D. & Kress, Moshe, 1988. "Deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matrices: An axiomatic approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 355-362, December.
    8. van Huylenbroeck, G., 1995. "The conflict analysis method: bridging the gap between ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and ORESTE," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 490-502, May.
    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. Isabella M. Lami & Stefano Moroni, 2020. "How Can I Help You? Questioning the Role of Evaluation Techniques in Democratic Decision-Making Processes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    2. Jessop, Alan, 2014. "IMP: A decision aid for multiattribute evaluation using imprecise weight estimates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 18-29.
    3. Chao, Xiangrui & Kou, Gang & Li, Tie & Peng, Yi, 2018. "Jie Ke versus AlphaGo: A ranking approach using decision making method for large-scale data with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 239-247.

    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. Behzadian, Majid & Kazemzadeh, R.B. & Albadvi, A. & Aghdasi, M., 2010. "PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(1), pages 198-215, January.
    2. Bice Cavallo, 2019. "Coherent weights for pairwise comparison matrices and a mixed-integer linear programming problem," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 75(1), pages 143-161, September.
    3. Alfredo Altuzarra & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2010. "Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1755-1773, December.
    4. Conde, Eduardo & de la Paz Rivera Pérez, María, 2010. "A linear optimization problem to derive relative weights using an interval judgement matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 201(2), pages 537-544, March.
    5. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    6. Csató, László, 2019. "A characterization of the Logarithmic Least Squares Method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(1), pages 212-216.
    7. László Csató, 2019. "Axiomatizations of inconsistency indices for triads," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 280(1), pages 99-110, September.
    8. Matteo Brunelli, 2017. "Studying a set of properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 248(1), pages 143-161, January.
    9. László Csató, 2018. "Characterization of the Row Geometric Mean Ranking with a Group Consensus Axiom," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(6), pages 1011-1027, December.
    10. Concepcion Roman & Juan Carlos Martin & Raquel Espino, 2011. "Using Stated Preferences (Sp) To Analyze The Service Quality Of Public Transport," ERSA conference papers ersa11p86, European Regional Science Association.
    11. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    12. Stephan Schulmeister, 2000. "Technical Analysis and Exchange Rate Dynamics," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 25857, February.
    13. Wang, Ying-Ming & Elhag, Taha M.S., 2007. "A goal programming method for obtaining interval weights from an interval comparison matrix," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(1), pages 458-471, February.
    14. Ji-Hee Lee & Woo-Young Chun & Jun-Ho Choi, 2021. "Weighting the Attributes of Human-Related Activities for Fire Safety Measures in Historic Villages," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-12, March.
    15. Zeshui Xu, 2013. "Compatibility Analysis of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relations in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 463-482, May.
    16. D'ora Gr'eta Petr'oczy & L'aszl'o Csat'o, 2019. "Revenue allocation in Formula One: a pairwise comparison approach," Papers 1909.12931, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2020.
    17. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    18. Levary, Reuven R. & Wan, Ke, 1999. "An analytic hierarchy process based simulation model for entry mode decision regarding foreign direct investment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 661-677, December.
    19. Stefanos Dosis & George P. Petropoulos & Kleomenis Kalogeropoulos, 2023. "A Geospatial Approach to Identify and Evaluate Ecological Restoration Sites in Post-Fire Landscapes," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-23, December.
    20. Henrik Andersson & James Hammitt & Gunnar Lindberg & Kristian Sundström, 2013. "Willingness to Pay and Sensitivity to Time Framing: A Theoretical Analysis and an Application on Car Safety," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 56(3), pages 437-456, 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:eee:ejores:v:204:y:2010:i:2:p:285-293. 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.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.