IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/59887.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: a bibliometric analysis from past, present and future of AHP and TOPSIS

Author

Listed:
  • MUKHERJEE, KRISHNENDU

Abstract

Previous review papers on analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) mainly focused on the application areas and paid scant attention to the framework development of AHP, TOPSIS and their hybrid methods. The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on analytic hierarchy process (AHP), type of scale used in AHP, modified AHP, rank reversal problem of AHP, validation of AHP, application of AHP, TOPSIS, normalization methods for TOPSIS, distance functions for TOPSIS, fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS, rank reversal problem of TOPSIS and various applications of TOPSIS to prepare a readymade reference for academician, research scholar and industry people. In this regard, research works are gathered from 1980 to 2013 (searched via ScienceDirect, IEEE etc) and out of which 61 research papers are critically assayed to depict the development of AHP, TOPSIS and their hybrid methods. Meaningful information and critical remarks are summarized in various tabular formats and charts to give readers easy information.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukherjee, Krishnendu, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution: a bibliometric analysis from past, present and future of AHP and TOPSIS," MPRA Paper 59887, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:59887
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/59887/3/MPRA_paper_59887.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    2. Qureshi, M. E. & Harrison, S. R. & Wegener, M. K., 1999. "Validation of multicriteria analysis models," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 105-116, November.
    3. Xia, Weijun & Wu, Zhiming, 2007. "Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount environments," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 35(5), pages 494-504, October.
    4. Opricovic, Serafim & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2004. "Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 445-455, July.
    5. 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.
    6. Beynon, Malcolm, 2002. "An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 104-117, July.
    7. Saaty, Thomas L., 1994. "Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 426-447, May.
    8. Guitouni, Adel & Martel, Jean-Marc, 1998. "Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 109(2), pages 501-521, September.
    9. P. Shim, Jung., 1989. "Bibliographical research on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 161-167.
    10. Saaty, Thomas L & Vargas, Luis G, 1984. "The legitimacy of rank reversal," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 513-516.
    11. Belton, Valerie & Gear, Tony, 1985. "The legitimacy of rank reversal--A comment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 13(3), pages 143-144.
    12. Saaty, Thomas L., 1990. "Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 156-160, September.
    13. Mukherjee, Krishnendu & Sarkar, Bijon & Bhattacharyya, Ardhendu, 2012. "Supplier selection by F-compromise method: a case study of cement industry of NE India," MPRA Paper 57786, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2013.
    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. Thomas L. Saaty & Daji Ergu, 2015. "When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1171-1187, November.
    2. Blanca Ceballos & David A. Pelta & María T. Lamata, 2018. "Rank Reversal and the VIKOR Method: An Empirical Evaluation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 513-525, March.
    3. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    4. Eduardo Fernandez & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2018. "Characterization of the Effectiveness of Several Outranking-Based Multi-Criteria Sorting Methods," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1047-1084, July.
    5. Roman Vavrek, 2019. "Evaluation of the Impact of Selected Weighting Methods on the Results of the TOPSIS Technique," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(06), pages 1821-1843, November.
    6. Mulliner, Emma & Malys, Naglis & Maliene, Vida, 2016. "Comparative analysis of MCDM methods for the assessment of sustainable housing affordability," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PB), pages 146-156.
    7. Mulliner, Emma & Smallbone, Kieran & Maliene, Vida, 2013. "An assessment of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 270-279.
    8. Hajkowicz, Stefan & Higgins, Andrew, 2008. "A comparison of multiple criteria analysis techniques for water resource management," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 255-265, January.
    9. Zheng Yuan & Baohua Wen & Cheng He & Jin Zhou & Zhonghua Zhou & Feng Xu, 2022. "Application of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Analysis to Rural Spatial Sustainability Evaluation: A Systematic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(11), pages 1-31, May.
    10. Kuo, Ting, 2017. "A modified TOPSIS with a different ranking index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 260(1), pages 152-160.
    11. Concetta Manuela La Fata & Toni Lupo & Tommaso Piazza, 2019. "Service quality benchmarking via a novel approach based on fuzzy ELECTRE III and IPA: an empirical case involving the Italian public healthcare context," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 106-120, March.
    12. Francesco Ciardiello & Andrea Genovese, 2023. "A comparison between TOPSIS and SAW methods," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 967-994, June.
    13. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    14. Iwaro, Joseph & Mwasha, Abrahams & Williams, Rupert G. & Zico, Ricardo, 2014. "An Integrated Criteria Weighting Framework for the sustainable performance assessment and design of building envelope," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 417-434.
    15. Büyüközkan, Gülçin & Havle, Celal Alpay & Feyzioğlu, Orhan, 2021. "Digital competency evaluation of low-cost airlines using an integrated IVIF AHP and IVIF VIKOR methodology," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    16. Zahir, Sajjad, 1999. "Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 373-396, January.
    17. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    18. Yolandi Schoeman & Paul Oberholster & Vernon Somerset, 2021. "A Zero-Waste Multi-Criteria Decision-Support Model for the Iron and Steel Industry in Developing Countries: A Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-23, March.
    19. Ferrari, Paolo, 2003. "A method for choosing from among alternative transportation projects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 150(1), pages 194-203, October.
    20. Beynon, Malcolm, 2002. "An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 104-117, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    AHP; TOPSIS; Fuzzy Hierarchical TOPSIS; Normalization methods; Rank reversal problem; Review.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C6 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods; Programming Models; Mathematical and Simulation Modeling

    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:pra:mprapa:59887. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.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.