IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

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

  • Ishizaka, Alessio
  • Balkenborg, Dieter
  • Kaplan, Todd

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/19563/1/MPRA_paper_19563.pdf
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 19563.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 20 Dec 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:19563
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page: http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. Lootsma, F. A., 1989. "Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 109-116, May.
  9. Robert L. Winkler, 1990. "Decision Modeling and Rational Choice: AHP and Utility Theory," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 247-248, March.
  10. 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.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.