IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/cejnor/v14y2006i4p387-400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study

Author

Listed:
  • Alessio Ishizaka
  • Markus Lusti

Abstract

A heated discussion has arisen over the “best” priorities derivation method. Using a Monte Carlo simulation this article compares and evaluates the solutions of four AHP ratio scaling methods: the right eigenvalue method, the left eigenvalue method, the geometric mean and the mean of normalized values. Matrices with different dimensions and degree of impurities are randomly constructed. We observe a high level of agreement between the different scaling techniques. The number of ranking contradictions increases with the dimension of the matrix and the inconsistencies. However, these contradictions affect only close priorities. Copyright Springer-Verlag 2006

Suggested Citation

  • Alessio Ishizaka & Markus Lusti, 2006. "How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study," 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. 14(4), pages 387-400, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:cejnor:v:14:y:2006:i:4:p:387-400
    DOI: 10.1007/s10100-006-0012-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10100-006-0012-9
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10100-006-0012-9?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. Takeda, E. & Cogger, K. O. & Yu, P. L., 1987. "Estimating criterion weights using eigenvectors: A comparative study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 360-369, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Brugha, Cathal M., 2000. "Relative measurement and the power function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 627-640, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Golany, B. & Kress, M., 1993. "A multicriteria evaluation of methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 210-220, September.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Hartvigsen, David, 2005. "Representing the strengths and directions of pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 357-369, June.
    5. Sándor Bozóki, 2008. "Solution of the least squares method problem of pairwise comparison matrices," 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. 16(4), pages 345-358, December.
    6. Faramondi, Luca & Oliva, Gabriele & Setola, Roberto & Bozóki, Sándor, 2023. "Robustness to rank reversal in pairwise comparison matrices based on uncertainty bounds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 676-688.
    7. Abel, Edward & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John, 2018. "Inconsistency reduction in decision making via multi-objective optimisation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 212-226.
    8. 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.
    9. Gass, S. I. & Rapcsak, T., 2004. "Singular value decomposition in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(3), pages 573-584, May.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Arán Carrión, J. & Espín Estrella, A. & Aznar Dols, F. & Zamorano Toro, M. & Rodríguez, M. & Ramos Ridao, A., 2008. "Environmental decision-support systems for evaluating the carrying capacity of land areas: Optimal site selection for grid-connected photovoltaic power plants," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 12(9), pages 2358-2380, December.
    16. Wanke, Peter Fernandes & Chiappetta Jabbour, Charbel José & Moreira Antunes, Jorge Junio & Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, Ana Beatriz & Roubaud, David & Sobreiro, Vinicius Amorim & Santibanez Gonzalez‬, Erne, 2021. "An original information entropy-based quantitative evaluation model for low-carbon operations in an emerging market," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 234(C).
    17. Lee, Heeseok & Shi, Yong & Nazem, Sufi M. & Yeol Kang, Sung & Ho Park, Tae & Ho Sohn, Myung, 2001. "Multicriteria hub decision making for rural area telecommunication networks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(3), pages 483-495, September.
    18. Van Asch, Thomas & Dewulf, Wouter & Kupfer, Franziska & Cárdenas, Ivan & Van de Voorde, Eddy, 2020. "Cross-border e-commerce logistics – Strategic success factors for airports," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    19. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    20. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2022. "Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1759-1785, July.

    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:14:y:2006:i:4:p:387-400. 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.