IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/exe/wpaper/0506.html

Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP

Author

Listed:
  • Alessio Ishizaka

    (University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth Business School)

  • Dieter Balkenborg

    (Department of Economics, University of Exeter)

  • Todd Kaplan

    (Department of Economics, University of Exeter)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Alessio Ishizaka & Dieter Balkenborg & Todd Kaplan, 2005. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Discussion Papers 0506, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:exe:wpaper:0506
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://exetereconomics.github.io/RePEc/dpapers/DP0506.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gasparini, Gaia & Brunelli, Matteo & Chiriac, Marius Dan, 2022. "Multi-period portfolio decision analysis: A case study in the infrastructure management sector," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    2. Mangirdas Morkunas & Elzė Rudienė & Lukas Giriūnas & Laura Daučiūnienė, 2020. "Assessment of Factors Causing Bias in Marketing- Related Publications," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-16, October.
    3. 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.
    4. Alessio Ishizaka, 2014. "Comparison of fuzzy logic, AHP, FAHP and hybrid fuzzy AHP for new supplier selection and its performance analysis," International Journal of Integrated Supply Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 9(1/2), pages 1-22.
    5. Sérgio J Teixeira & João J Ferreira & Peter Wanke & Jorge Junio Moreira Antunes, 2021. "Evaluation model of competitive and innovative tourism practices based on information entropy and alternative criteria weight," Tourism Economics, , vol. 27(1), pages 23-44, February.
    6. Corrente, S. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S., 2021. "Pairwise comparison tables within the deck of cards method in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 291(2), pages 738-756.
    7. Bice Cavallo & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Evaluating scales for pairwise comparisons," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 951-965, June.
    8. Jih-Jeng Huang & Masahiro Inuiguchi, 2015. "Diminishing Utility Decision Model for Weighting Criteria," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1263-1284, November.
    9. Jiancheng Tu & Zhibin Wu, 2025. "Analytic hierarchy process rank reversals: causes and solutions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 346(2), pages 1785-1809, March.
    10. Rosa, Carmen Brum & Rigo, Paula Donaduzzi & Rediske, Graciele & Moccellin, Ana Paula & Mairesse Siluk, Julio Cezar & Michels, Leandro, 2021. "How to measure organizational performance of distributed generation in electric utilities? The Brazilian case," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 191-203.
    11. Paulami De & Mrinmoy Majumder, 2020. "Allocation of energy in surface water treatment plants for maximum energy conservation," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 3347-3370, April.
    12. Jordi Gallego-Ayala & Dinis Juízo, 2014. "Integrating Stakeholders’ Preferences into Water Resources Management Planning in the Incomati River Basin," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 28(2), pages 527-540, January.
    13. Xiongfeng Pan & Cuicui Han & Xiaowei Lu & Zhiming Jiao & Yang Ming, 2020. "Green innovation ability evaluation of manufacturing enterprises based on AHP–OVP model," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 290(1), pages 409-419, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Paula Donaduzzi Rigo & Graciele Rediske & Carmen Brum Rosa & Natália Gava Gastaldo & Leandro Michels & Alvaro Luiz Neuenfeldt Júnior & Julio Cezar Mairesse Siluk, 2020. "Renewable Energy Problems: Exploring the Methods to Support the Decision-Making Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-27, December.
    16. J. Hummel & John Bridges & Maarten IJzerman, 2014. "Group Decision Making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Benefit-Risk Assessment: A Tutorial," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(2), pages 129-140, June.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Susanna Sironen & Jyri Seppälä & Pekka Leskinen, 2015. "Towards more non-compensatory sustainable society index," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 17(3), pages 587-621, June.
    21. Marion Danner & Vera Vennedey & Mickaël Hiligsmann & Sascha Fauser & Christian Gross & Stephanie Stock, 2016. "How Well Can Analytic Hierarchy Process be Used to Elicit Individual Preferences? Insights from a Survey in Patients Suffering from Age-Related Macular Degeneration," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(5), pages 481-492, October.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • C60 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:exe:wpaper:0506. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sebastian Kripfganz (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deexeuk.html .

    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.