IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitdm/v15y2016i02ns0219622016500103.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Modeling Group Perceptions Using Stochastic Simulation: Scaling Issues in the Multiplicative AHP

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Bruhn Barfod

    (Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 115, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

  • Robin van den Honert

    (#x2020;Risk Frontiers – Natural Hazards Research Centre, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW 2109, Australia)

  • Kim Bang Salling

    (Department of Transport, Technical University of Denmark, Bygningstorvet 115, DK-2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark)

Abstract

This paper proposes a new decision support approach for applying stochastic simulation to the multiplicative analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in order to deal with issues concerning the scale parameter. The paper suggests a new approach that captures the influence from the scale parameter by making use of probability distributions. Herein, the uncertainty both with regard to the scale and the inherent randomness from the parameter is captured by probabilistic input and output distributions. Provided that each alternative and criteria under consideration are independent it is assumed that the embedded uncertainty from the progression factors remains the same. The result is then an interval estimate for each alternative’s final scores. This can lead to overlapping intervals of scores which may be interpreted as possible rank reversals. Thus, the decision support approach makes it possible to calculate the probability of overlapping for any given set of pairwise comparisons.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Bruhn Barfod & Robin van den Honert & Kim Bang Salling, 2016. "Modeling Group Perceptions Using Stochastic Simulation: Scaling Issues in the Multiplicative AHP," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(02), pages 453-474, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:15:y:2016:i:02:n:s0219622016500103
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219622016500103
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219622016500103
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219622016500103?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. Hamidreza Eskandari & Luis Rabelo, 2007. "Handling Uncertainty In The Analytic Hierarchy Process: A Stochastic Approach," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 6(01), pages 177-189.
    2. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    3. Salling, Kim Bang & Banister, David, 2009. "Assessment of large transport infrastructure projects: The CBA-DK model," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 43(9-10), pages 800-813, November.
    4. 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.
    5. Olson, David L. & Fliedner, Gene & Currie, Karen, 1995. "Comparison of the REMBRANDT system with analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 82(3), pages 522-539, May.
    6. Ramanathan, R., 1997. "Stochastic decision making using multiplicative AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 97(3), pages 543-549, March.
    7. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    8. Fatemeh Zahedi, 1986. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---A Survey of the Method and its Applications," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 96-108, August.
    9. Michael Bruhn Barfod & Anders Vestergaard Jensen & Steen Leleur, 2011. "Examination of Decision Support Systems for Composite CBA and MCDA Assessments of Transport Infrastructure Projects," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Yong Shi & Shouyang Wang & Gang Kou & Jyrki Wallenius (ed.), New State of MCDM in the 21st Century, chapter 0, pages 167-176, Springer.
    10. Van den Honert, R. C., 1998. "Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: A model of group consensus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 99-111, October.
    11. Sajjad Zahir, 2006. "Eliciting Ratio Preferences For The Analytic Hierarchy Process With Visual Interfaces: A New Mode Of Preference Measurement," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 245-261.
    12. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    13. P Leskinen & J Kangas, 2005. "Rank reversals in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(7), pages 855-861, July.
    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. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    2. Hahn, Eugene D., 2006. "Link function selection in stochastic multicriteria decision making models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(1), pages 86-100, July.
    3. Braunschweig, Thomas & Janssen, Willem & Rieder, Peter, 2001. "Identifying criteria for public agricultural research decisions," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 725-734, May.
    4. Barfod, Michael Bruhn & Salling, Kim Bang, 2015. "A new composite decision support framework for strategic and sustainable transport appraisals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-15.
    5. Aguaron, Juan & Moreno-Jimenez, Jose Maria, 2003. "The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 137-145, May.
    6. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Belton, Valerie & Hodgkin, Julie, 1999. "Facilitators, decision makers, D.I.Y. users: Is intelligent multicriteria decision support for all feasible or desirable?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 247-260, March.
    9. Salling, Kim Bang & Leleur, Steen, 2015. "Accounting for the inaccuracies in demand forecasts and construction cost estimations in transport project evaluation," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 8-18.
    10. Elzbieta Broniewicz & Karolina Ogrodnik, 2021. "A Comparative Evaluation of Multi-Criteria Analysis Methods for Sustainable Transport," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-23, August.
    11. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    12. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    13. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    14. Bigdeli, Alinaghi Ziaee & Kamal, Muhammad Mustafa & de Cesare, Sergio, 2013. "Electronic information sharing in local government authorities: Factors influencing the decision-making process," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 33(5), pages 816-830.
    15. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    16. Fatih Tüysüz, 2018. "Simulated Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets-Based Approach for Modeling Uncertainty in AHP Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 801-817, May.
    17. Yang, Jian-Bo, 2001. "Rule and utility based evidential reasoning approach for multiattribute decision analysis under uncertainties," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 131(1), pages 31-61, May.
    18. Kumar, N. Vinod & Ganesh, L. S., 1996. "A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 656-662, December.
    19. Barfod, Michael Bruhn, 2012. "An MCDA approach for the selection of bike projects based on structuring and appraising activities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(3), pages 810-818.
    20. Aron Larsson & Mona Riabacke & Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2015. "Cardinal and Rank Ordering of Criteria — Addressing Prescription within Weight Elicitation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1299-1330, 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:wsi:ijitdm:v:15:y:2016:i:02:n:s0219622016500103. 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.