Scenario based analysis of logarithmic utility approach for deriving priority vectors in analytic hierarchy process

• Autorzy: Kazibudzki P.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Obviously, providing unique answers to the alternatives of a decision is a prerequisite for each authentic decision making theory. It is common knowledge that the Eigenvalue Method, usually applied in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, in a unique way captures the transitivity in matrices that are not consistent. This could lead to the conclusion that maybe the Eigenvalue Method is the only proper way to enable reliable decision making based on priority weighing during pairwise comparison judgments in a situation when inconsistency takes place. Undoubtedly, however, the Eigenvalue Method, in spite of obvious benefits, also has a few drawbacks which perhaps, should be also taken into consideration before labelling it as exceptional. That is also the reason why a relatively novel and new approach is introduced in this article. In the approach presented herein, an optimization procedure is combined with the Eigenvalue Method, which enables the retaining of advantages of the latter, while at the same time avoiding its drawbacks.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

analytic hierarchy process (AHP); decision making

• Wydawca: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Częstochowskiej
• Czasopismo: Prace Naukowe Instytutu Matematyki i Informatyki Politechniki Częstochowskiej
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 10, nr 2
• Strony: 99--105
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 20 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Kazibudzki P.

• The Faculty of Social Sciences, Jan Długosz University, Poland,

Bibliografia

• [1] Basak I., Comparison of statistical procedures in analytic hierarchy process using a ranking test, Mathematical Computation Modelling 1998, 28, 105-118.
• [2] Crawford G., Williams C.A., A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 1985, 29, 387-405.
• [3] Lipovetsky S., Tishler A., Interval estimation of priorities in the AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 1997, 114, 153-164.
• [4] Bryson N., A goal programming method for generating priority vectors, Journal of the Operational Research Society 1995, 46, 641-648.
• [5] Hashimoto A., A note on deriving weights from pairwise comparison ratio matrices, European Journal of Operational Research 1994, 73, 144-149.
• [6] Lin C-C., An enhanced goal programming method for generating priority vectors, Journal of the Operational Research Society 2006, 57, 1491-1496.
• [7] Sun L., Greenberg B.S., Multiple group decision making: optimal priority synthesis from pairwise comparisons, Journal of Optimisation Theory Application 2006, 130(2), 317-338.
• [8] Dong Y., Xu Y., Li H., Dai M., A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritisation methods in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 2008, 186, 229 242.
• [9] Hovanov N.V., Kolari J.W., Sokolov M.V., Deriving weights from general pairwise comparison matrices, Mathematical Social Sciences 2008, 55, 205-220.
• [10] Saaty T.L., Hu G., Ranking by Eigenvector versus other methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Applied Mathematics Letters 1998, 11(4), 121-125.
• [11] Saaty T.L., Vargas L.G., Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least square and least square methods in estimating ratio, Journal of Mathematical Modelling 1984, 5, 309-324.
• [12] Srdjevic B., Combining different prioritisation methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis, Computers and Operational Research 2005, 32, 1897-1919.
• [13] Choo E.U., Wedley W.C., A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices, Computers & Operation Research 2004, 31, 893-908.
• [14] Grzybowski A.Z., Goal programming approach for deriving priority vectors - some new ideas, Scientific Research of the Institute of Mathematics and Computer Science 2010, 1(9), 17-27.
• [15] Crawford, G.B., The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgment matrix, Mathematical Modelling 1987, 9(3-5), 327-334.
• [16] Saaty T.L., Fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh 1994.
• [17] Saaty T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw Hill, New York 1980.
• [18] Budescu D.V., Zwick R., Rapoport A., Comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and the geometric mean procedure for ratio scaling, Applied Psychological Measurement 1986, 10, 69-78.
• [19] Bana e Costa C.A., Vansnick J.-C., A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 2008, 187, 1422-1428.
• [20] Grzybowski A.Z., Estimating priority weights - an optimization procedures based on Saaty's eigenvalue method, private communication, 2010.