IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v195y2009i1p239-250.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new data envelopment analysis method for priority determination and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Ying-Ming
  • Chin, Kwai-Sang

Abstract

The DEAHP method for weight deviation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has been found flawed and sometimes produces counterintuitive priority vectors for inconsistent pairwise comparison matrices, which makes its application very restrictive. This paper proposes a new data envelopment analysis (DEA) method for priority determination in the AHP and extends it to the group AHP situation. In this new DEA methodology, two specially constructed DEA models that differ from the DEAHP model are used to derive the best local priorities from a pairwise comparison matrix or a group of pairwise comparison matrices no matter whether they are perfectly consistent or inconsistent. The new DEA method produces true weights for perfectly consistent pairwise comparison matrices and the best local priorities that are logical and consistent with decision makers (DMs)' subjective judgments for inconsistent pairwise comparison matrices. In hierarchical structures, the new DEA method utilizes the simple additive weighting (SAW) method for aggregation of the best local priorities without the need of normalization. Numerical examples are examined throughout the paper to show the advantages of the new DEA methodology and its potential applications in both the AHP and group decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Ying-Ming & Chin, Kwai-Sang, 2009. "A new data envelopment analysis method for priority determination and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(1), pages 239-250, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:195:y:2009:i:1:p:239-250
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(08)00177-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    2. L Mikhailov, 2000. "A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(3), pages 341-349, March.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L & Vargas, Luis G, 1984. "The legitimacy of rank reversal," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 513-516.
    4. Belton, Valerie & Gear, Tony, 1983. "On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 228-230.
    5. Islei, G. & Lockett, A. G., 1988. "Judgemental modelling based on geometric least square," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 27-35, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kao, Chiang & Liu, Shiang-Tai, 2022. "Group decision making in data envelopment analysis: A robot selection application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(2), pages 592-599.
    2. Amy H. I. Lee & Chun Yu Lin & He-Yau Kang & Wen Hsin Lee, 2012. "An Integrated Performance Evaluation Model for the Photovoltaics Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-21, April.
    3. Seyed Saeed Hosseinian & Hamidreza Navidi & Abas Hajfathaliha, 2012. "A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation and Group Decision Making in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 233-254, May.
    4. Petra Grošelj & Špela Pezdevšek Malovrh & Lidija Zadnik Stirn, 2011. "Methods based on data envelopment analysis for deriving group priorities in analytic hierarchy process," 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. 19(3), pages 267-284, September.
    5. Ho, William & Ma, Xin, 2018. "The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 399-414.
    6. Ying-Ming Wang & Ying Luo & Yi-Song Xu, 2013. "Cross-Weight Evaluation for Pairwise Comparison Matrices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 483-497, May.
    7. Liu, Bingsheng & Shen, Yinghua & Zhang, Wei & Chen, Xiaohong & Wang, Xueqing, 2015. "An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy principal component analysis model-based method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 209-225.
    8. S M Mirhedayatian & R Farzipoor Saen, 2011. "A new approach for weight derivation using data envelopment analysis in the analytic hierarchy process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(8), pages 1585-1595, August.

    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. S M Mirhedayatian & R Farzipoor Saen, 2011. "A new approach for weight derivation using data envelopment analysis in the analytic hierarchy process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(8), pages 1585-1595, August.
    2. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    3. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
    4. Jain, Bharat A. & Nag, Barin N., 1996. "A decision-support model for investment decisions in new ventures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 473-486, May.
    5. 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.
    6. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    7. Wang, Ying-Ming & Fan, Zhi-Ping & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2007. "A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 356-366, October.
    8. Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    9. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    10. Liu, Qizhi, 2022. "Identifying and correcting the defects of the Saaty analytic hierarchy/network process: A comparative study of the Saaty analytic hierarchy/network process and the Markov chain-based analytic network ," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 9(C).
    11. Liu, Fang & Zou, Shu-Cai & Li, Qing, 2020. "Deriving priorities from pairwise comparison matrices with a novel consistency index," Applied Mathematics and Computation, Elsevier, vol. 374(C).
    12. Khezrimotlagh, Dariush & Kaffash, Sepideh & Zhu, Joe, 2022. "U.S. airline mergers’ performance and productivity change," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    13. Christian Growitsch & Tooraj Jamasb & Christine Müller & Matthias Wissner, 2016. "Social Cost Efficient Service Quality: Integrating Customer Valuation in Incentive Regulation—Evidence from the Case of Norway," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Joe Zhu (ed.), Data Envelopment Analysis, chapter 0, pages 71-91, Springer.
    14. Franz R. Hahn, 2007. "Determinants of Bank Efficiency in Europe. Assessing Bank Performance Across Markets," WIFO Studies, WIFO, number 31499.
    15. Alperovych, Yan & Hübner, Georges & Lobet, Fabrice, 2015. "How does governmental versus private venture capital backing affect a firm's efficiency? Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 508-525.
    16. Wang, Zhao-Hua & Zeng, Hua-Lin & Wei, Yi-Ming & Zhang, Yi-Xiang, 2012. "Regional total factor energy efficiency: An empirical analysis of industrial sector in China," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 115-123.
    17. repec:lan:wpaper:1115 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Azarnoosh Kafi & Behrouz Daneshian & Mohsen Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, 2021. "Forecasting the confidence interval of efficiency in fuzzy DEA," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 31(1), pages 41-59.
    19. Ruiqing Yuan & Xiangyang Xu & Yanli Wang & Jiayi Lu & Ying Long, 2024. "Evaluating Carbon-Emission Efficiency in China’s Construction Industry: An SBM-Model Analysis of Interprovincial Building Heating," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(6), pages 1-16, March.
    20. Costa, Marcelo Azevedo & Lopes, Ana Lúcia Miranda & de Pinho Matos, Giordano Bruno Braz, 2015. "Statistical evaluation of Data Envelopment Analysis versus COLS Cobb–Douglas benchmarking models for the 2011 Brazilian tariff revision," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 47-60.
    21. Kristiaan Kerstens & Ignace Van de Woestyne, 2018. "Enumeration algorithms for FDH directional distance functions under different returns to scale assumptions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 271(2), pages 1067-1078, December.

    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:eee:ejores:v:195:y:2009:i:1:p:239-250. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.