IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v8y1999i6d10.1023_a1008622202638.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups

Author

Listed:
  • Robert L. Armacost

    (University of Central Florida)

  • Jamshid C. Hosseini

    (Marquette University)

  • Julie Pet-Edwards

    (University of Central Florida)

Abstract

When decision makers who comprise a large nominal group face an unstructured decision problem and no simultaneous interactive communications are available, problem identification and consensus building are difficult, if not impossible. Few tools are available to assist decision makers in this situation. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has typically been used to evaluate a set of alternatives after a decision problem has been structured as a hierarchy with various levels of criteria above the alternatives. With a group of decision makers, AHP has been used to evaluate those alternatives either by consensus building or by combining judgments or priorities using the geometric mean to aggregate their preferences. In this paper, we extend the use of AHP to a situation involving a large nominal group of dispersed decision makers where the entire hierarchy is not defined at the outset. In particular, we use the AHP as an integrative approach to identify the priorities of the various criteria and then use those priorities to screen and consolidate a large set of potential alternatives. This results in considering a reduced set of alternatives that will be affected by the more important criteria. The consolidated set of alternatives is evaluated by each individual in the group using AHP, combined using the geometric mean, and the results are synthesized to obtain the overall priorities of the alternatives. The approach is demonstrated and evaluated in a case study to select an alunmi anniversary gift to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy with a large nominal group of decision-makers dispersed throughout the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert L. Armacost & Jamshid C. Hosseini & Julie Pet-Edwards, 1999. "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 535-555, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:6:d:10.1023_a:1008622202638
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008622202638
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008622202638
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008622202638?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. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    2. Khorramshahgol, Reza & Moustakis, Vassilis S., 1988. "Delphic hierarchy process (DHP): A methodology for priority setting derived from the Delphi method and analytical hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 347-354, December.
    3. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney & Craig W. Kirkwood, 1975. "Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 430-437, December.
    5. J. F. Nunamaker, Jr. & Alan R. Dennis & Joseph S. Valacich & Douglas R. Vogel, 1991. "Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1325-1346, 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. Malcolm J. Beynon, 2006. "The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-42, January.
    2. Natalie M. Scala & Jayant Rajgopal & Luis G. Vargas & Kim LaScola Needy, 2016. "Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 355-372, March.
    3. Yu-Cheng Tang & Malcolm J. Beynon, 2005. "Application and Development of a Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process within a Capital Investment Study," Journal of Economics and Management, College of Business, Feng Chia University, Taiwan, vol. 1(2), pages 207-230, July.

    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. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    2. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    3. Bice Cavallo & Gerardo Canfora & Livia D’Apuzzo & Massimo Squillante, 2014. "Reasoning under uncertainty and multi-criteria decision making in data privacy," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1957-1972, July.
    4. Cui, Ye & E, Hanyu & Pedrycz, Witold & Fayek, Aminah Robinson, 2022. "A granular multicriteria group decision making for renewable energy planning problems," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 199(C), pages 1047-1059.
    5. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    6. Behnoosh Matani & Babak Shirazi & Javad Soltanzadeh, 2019. "F-MaMcDm: Sustainable Green-Based Hydrogen Production Technology Roadmap Using Fuzzy Multi-Aspect Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management (IJITM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(08), pages 1-32, December.
    7. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    8. 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.
    9. Daji Ergu & Gang Kou & János Fülöp & Yong Shi, 2014. "Further Discussions on Induced Bias Matrix Model for the Pair-Wise Comparison Matrix," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 161(3), pages 980-993, June.
    10. Mehmet Yüksel, 2019. "A Model Proposal for the Evaluation of Chemistry Education in the Context of Learning Environment," Asian Journal of Education and Training, Asian Online Journal Publishing Group, vol. 5(3), pages 488-494.
    11. Baback Vaziri & Shaunak Dabadghao & Yuehwern Yih & Thomas L. Morin & Mark Lehto, 2020. "Crowd-Ranking: a Markov-based method for ranking alternatives," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 279-295, March.
    12. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    13. M. Gabriela Sava & Luis G. Vargas & Jerrold H. May & James G. Dolan, 2022. "Multi-dimensional stability analysis for Analytic Network Process models," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(2), pages 1401-1424, September.
    14. Utpal Bose & David B. Paradice, 1999. "The Effects of Integrating Cognitive Feedback and Multi-attribute Utility-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods in GDSS," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 157-182, March.
    15. L. Sun & B. S. Greenberg, 2006. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making: Optimal Priority Synthesis from Pairwise Comparisons," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 317-339, August.
    16. Saaty, Thomas L. & Shang, Jen S., 2007. "Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 22-37, March.
    17. Joseph Gogodze, 2019. "Innovative advantages ranking. A new approach," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 29(1), pages 5-15.
    18. Koop, Wilhelm & Kleffmann, Markus & Gels, Arne & Neukirchen, Thomas & Jäger, Stefanie & Klumpp, Matthias, 2018. "Serious Games in der Logistik: Generalisierbarkeit und Zertifizierung," ild Schriftenreihe 62, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    19. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    20. Pascoe, Sean & Doshi, Amar & Kovac, Mladen & Austin, Angelica, 2019. "Estimating coastal and marine habitat values by combining multi-criteria methods with choice experiments," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 1-1.

    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:grdene:v:8:y:1999:i:6:d:10.1023_a:1008622202638. 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.