A Novel Scale for Inconsistency Reduction in the Pair-Wise Comparison Matrices

• Autorzy: MalyadaVommi Amukta , Vommi Vijaya babu

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.2478/fcds-2025-0004

• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Linguistic pairwise comparison of the attributes forms the basis for prioritization of the attributes and also aids in calculating the weights for each attribute for final decision making in the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). This process may sometimes lead to inconsistencies in the pairwise comparison matrix, and the acceptability of the method is checked with respect to a measure known as Consistency Ratio (CR), whose upper limit is fixed as 0.1. The present work attempts to develop a new methodology in which the pairwise attribute comparison matrix is formed in such a manner that the decision maker can safely eliminate the process of consistency check. In this endeavor, a new scale called as 'Relative Percentage Supremacy' (RPS) scale with three variations namely, High, Moderate and Low is introduced and employed. The proposed methodology is successfully applied to Saaty's ‘Distance’, 'Optics', 'National Wealth' and 'Weights Estimation' problems for which the actual weights are available. Also, the method has been applied on Saaty's 'Buying a House' problem and a comparison of the results with the results of already existing scales is done. The Relative Percentage Supremacy scale with Moderate value is found to yield results close to the Saaty's actual values in the majority of the time and the applicability of the other variations are also discussed.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Analytical Hierarchy Process; AHP; pairwise comparison; Consistency Ratio; CR; Relative Percentage Supremacy; RPS

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Poznańskiej
• Czasopismo: Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences
• Rocznik: 2025
• Tom: Vol. 50, No. 1
• Strony: 87--114
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 28 poz., tab.

Twórcy

autor

MalyadaVommi Amukta

• ECE department, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Kakinada, India

autor

Vommi Vijaya babu

• Department of Mechanical Engineering, Andhra University, Visakhapatnam, India

Bibliografia

• [1] Brans J. P., Vincke P., Mareschal B. How to select and how to rank projects: The PROMETHEE method, European Journal of Operations Research, 24, 228-238, 1986.
• [2] Cagno E., Caron F., Pereg A. Multicriteria assessment of the probability of winning in competitive bidding process, International Journal of Production Management, 19, 313-324, 2001.
• [3] Chamodrakas I., Batis D., Martakos D. Supplier selection in electronic market places using satisficing and fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 490-498, 2010.
• [4] Dagdeviren M., Yavuz S., Killinc N. Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environments, Expert Systems with Applications, 36, 8143-8151, 2009.
• [5] Dodd F. J., Donegan H. A. Comparison of prioritization techniques using hierarchy mappings, Journal of the operational research society, 46(40), 492-498, 1995.
• [6] Donegan H. A., Dodd F. J. A note on Saaty's random indexes, Mathematical Computer Modelling, 15, 135-137, 1991.
• [7] Dong Y., Xu Y., Li H., Dai M., A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 186, 229-242, 2008.
• [8] Franek J., Kresta A., Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP, Procedia Econ. Financ., 12, 164-173, 2014.
• [9] French S. Decision Theory - an Introduction to the Mathematics off rationality, Chapter 10, Section 10.3, Ellis Horwood Ltd, 1988.
• [10] Harker P., Vegas L. The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science, 33(11), 1383-1403, 1987.
• [11] Hwang C. L., Yoon K. P. Multiple attribute decision making methods and applications, Springer, New York, 1981.
• [12] Ishikaza A., Balkenborg D., Kaplan T. Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternatives in AHP, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 700-710, 2010.
• [13] Ji P., Jiang R. Scale sensitivity in the AHP, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54, 896-905, 2003.
• [14] Kahraman C., Kaya İ. A fuzzy multicriteria methodology for selection among energy alternatives. Expert Syst. Appl. 37, 6270-6281, 2010.
• [15] Lai V., Wong B. K., Cheng W. Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment. A case of using AHP in software selection, European Journal of Operations Research, 137, 134-144, 2002.
• [16] Lootsma, F. Conflict resolution via Pairwise comparison of concessions, European Journal of Operational Research, 40(1), 109-116, 1989.
• [17] Ma D., Zheng X. Scale method of AHP, In 2nd International Symposium on (Vol. I), University of Pittsburgh, 197-202,1991.
• [18] Munizu M., Riyadi S. An application of analytical hierarchy process (AHP) in formulating priority strategy for enhancing creative industry competitiveness, Decision Science Letters, 10(3), 443-450, 2021.
• [19] Roy B. The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods., Theory Decis, 31, 49-73, 1991.
• [20] Saaty T. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234-281, 1977.
• [21] Saaty T. Decision making with the AHP. Why is the principal eigenvector necessary, European Journal of Operational Research, 145, 85-91,2003.
• [22] Salo A., Hamalaimen R. On the measurement of preference in the Analytical Hierarchy Process, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6 (6), 309-319, 1997.
• [23] Shivade A. S., Sapkal, S. U. Selection of optimum plant layout using AHP-TOPSIS and WASPAS approaches coupled with entropy method, Decision Science Letters,11(4), 545-562, 2022.
• [24] Siregar H., Suroso A. I., Siregar H., Djohar S. Development of efficient strategies to optimize production efficiency: Evidence from pine chemical industry, Decision Science Letters, 11(4), 419-430, 2022.
• [25] Vidal L., Sahin E., Martelli N., Berhoune M., Bonan B. Applying AHP to select drugs to be produced by anticipation in a chemotherapy compounding unit, Expert Systems with Applications, 37, 1528-1534, 2010.
• [26] Vommi V. B. TOPSIS with statistical distances: A new approach to MADM, Decision Science Letters, 6(1), 49-66, 2017.
• [27] Vommi V. B., Kakollu S. A simple approach to multiple attribute decision making using loss function approach, Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 13, 107-116, 2017.
• [28] Yu P. L. A class of solutions for group decision problems, Management Science, 19, 936-946, 1973.