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, within AHP, there are several competing preference measurement scales and aggregation techniques. In this paper, we compare these possibilities using 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 aggregation techniques. The results are compared with the standard consumer choice theory. We find that with the geometric and power scales a compromise is never selected when aggregation is additive and rarely when aggregation is multiplicative, while the logarithmic scale used with the multiplicative aggregation most often selects the compromise that is desirable by consumer choice theory.
|Date of creation:||20 Dec 2009|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Ludwigstraße 33, D-80539 Munich, Germany|
Web page: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de
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.:
- 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.
- James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Lootsma, F. A., 1989. "Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 109-116, May.
- Robert L. Winkler, 1990. "Decision Modeling and Rational Choice: AHP and Utility Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 247-248, March.
- 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. & 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.
- 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.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:19563. 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: (Joachim Winter)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.