IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v229y2013i3p654-662.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process

Author

Listed:
  • Dong, Yucheng
  • Hong, Wei-Chiang
  • Xu, Yinfeng
  • Yu, Shui

Abstract

Because individual interpretations of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) linguistic scale vary for each user, this study proposes a novel framework that AHP decision makers can use to generate numerical scales individually, based on the 2-tuple linguistic modeling of AHP scale problems. By using the concept of transitive calibration, individual characteristics in understanding the AHP linguistic scale are first defined. An algorithm is then proposed for detecting the individual characteristics from the linguistic pairwise comparison data that is associated with each of the AHP individual decision makers. Finally, a nonlinear programming model is proposed to generate individual numerical scales that optimally match the obtained individual characteristics. Two well-known numerical examples are re-examined using the proposed framework to demonstrate its validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Dong, Yucheng & Hong, Wei-Chiang & Xu, Yinfeng & Yu, Shui, 2013. "Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 654-662.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:229:y:2013:i:3:p:654-662
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.03.019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713002476
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.03.019?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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi, 2008. "On consistency measures of linguistic preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(2), pages 430-444, September.
    4. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. Huizingh, Eelko K. R. E. & Vrolijk, Hans C. J., 1997. "A Comparison of Verbal and Numerical Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 237-247, June.
    8. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    9. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    10. 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.
    11. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Finan, J. S. & Hurley, W. J., 1999. "Transitive calibration of the AHP verbal scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 367-372, January.
    15. Grošelj, Petra & Zadnik Stirn, Lidija, 2012. "Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(2), pages 417-420.
    16. 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.
    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. Bice Cavallo & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Evaluating scales for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 951-965, June.
    2. Yuji Sato & Kim Hua Tan, 2023. "Inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons: an improvement of the Consistency Index," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 809-830, July.
    3. Vijay Pereira & Umesh Bamel, 2023. "Charting the managerial and theoretical evolutionary path of AHP using thematic and systematic review: a decadal (2012–2021) study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 635-651, July.
    4. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    5. Li, Cong-Cong & Dong, Yucheng & Liang, Haiming & Pedrycz, Witold & Herrera, Francisco, 2022. "Data-driven method to learning personalized individual semantics to support linguistic multi-attribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Xia, Meimei & Chen, Jian, 2015. "Multi-criteria group decision making based on bilateral agreements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 756-764.
    7. 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.
    8. Wu, Xingli & Liao, Huchang, 2019. "A consensus-based probabilistic linguistic gained and lost dominance score method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 272(3), pages 1017-1027.

    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    5. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    6. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. L. N. Pradeep Kumar Rallabandi & Ravindranath Vandrangi & Subba Rao Rachakonda, 2016. "Improved Consistency Ratio for Pairwise Comparison Matrix in Analytic Hierarchy Processes," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 33(03), pages 1-19, June.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Klaus D. Goepel, 2019. "Comparison of Judgment Scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process — A New Approach," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 445-463, March.
    18. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    19. 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.
    20. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Zhang, Li-Hua, 2014. "Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 718-726.

    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:229:y:2013:i:3:p:654-662. 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.