Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the most popular multi-attribute decision aid methods. However, results depend on the preference measurement sacle and the aggregation technique used. In this paper, we describe a decision problem with an inherent trade-off between two criteria. A decision-maker has to choose among three alternatives: two extremes and one "compromise". Six different measurement scales described previously in the literature and the new proposed logarithmic scale are considered for applying the additive and the multiplicative AHP. The results are compared with the standard consumer choice theory. The geometric and power scales offer no chance (for the additive AHP) and very few chances (for the multiplicative AHP) for a compromise to be selected. The logarithmic scale used with the multiplicative AHP is the most in agreement with the consumer choice theory.
|Date of creation:||Nov 2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (01392) 263218
Fax: (01392) 263242
Web page: http://business-school.exeter.ac.uk/about/departments/economics/
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
- Vargas, Luis G., 1990. "An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 2-8, September.
- Lootsma, F. A. & Mensch, T. C. A. & Vos, F. A., 1990. "Multi-criteria analysis and budget reallocation in long-term research planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 47(3), pages 293-305, August.
- Robert L. Winkler, 1990. "Decision Modeling and Rational Choice: AHP and Utility Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 247-248, March.
- James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
- Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
- Alessio Ishizaka & Markus Lusti, 2006. "How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 387-400, December.
- 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.
- 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.
- Lootsma, F. A., 1989. "Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 109-116, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:exe:wpaper:0506. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Carlos Cortinhas)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.