IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v96y1997i2p371-378.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP

Author

Listed:
  • Rosenbloom, E. S.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Rosenbloom, E. S., 1997. "A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 371-378, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:96:y:1997:i:2:p:371-378
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(96)00049-5
    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. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Schoner, Bertram & Wedley, William C. & Choo, Eng Ung, 1993. "A unified approach to AHP with linking pins," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 384-392, February.
    3. Schenkerman, Stan, 1994. "Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 407-419, May.
    4. Donald L. Keefer & Stephen M. Pollock, 1980. "Approximations and Sensitivity in Multiobjective Resource Allocation," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 114-128, February.
    5. Vargas, Luis G., 1994. "Reply to Schenkerman's avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision support models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 420-425, May.
    6. Basak, Indrani, 1990. "Testing for the rank ordering of the priorities of the alternatives in Saaty's ratio-scale method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 148-152, September.
    7. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    8. Donald L. Keefer & Samuel E. Bodily, 1983. "Three-Point Approximations for Continuous Random Variables," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 595-609, May.
    9. Sajjad Zahir, M., 1991. "Incorporating the uncertainty of decision judgements in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 206-216, July.
    10. Fatemeh Zahedi, 1986. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---A Survey of the Method and its Applications," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 16(4), pages 96-108, August.
    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. Koc, Kerim & Ekmekcioğlu, Ömer & Işık, Zeynep, 2023. "Developing a probabilistic decision-making model for reinforced sustainable supplier selection," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 259(C).
    2. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2015. "Generalized analytic network process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 244(1), pages 277-288.
    3. Ahmet Kaya & Dragan Pamucar & Hasan Emin Gürler & Mehmet Ozcalici, 2024. "Determining the financial performance of the firms in the Borsa Istanbul sustainability index: integrating multi criteria decision making methods with simulation," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 10(1), pages 1-44, December.
    4. Fatih Tüysüz, 2018. "Simulated Hesitant Fuzzy Linguistic Term Sets-Based Approach for Modeling Uncertainty in AHP Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 801-817, May.
    5. Dianfa Wu & Zhiping Yang & Ningling Wang & Chengzhou Li & Yongping Yang, 2018. "An Integrated Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model and AHP Weighting Uncertainty Analysis for Sustainability Assessment of Coal-Fired Power Units," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-27, May.
    6. Baudry, Gino & Macharis, Cathy & Vallée, Thomas, 2018. "Range-based Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis: A combined method of Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis and Monte Carlo simulation to support participatory decision making under uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(1), pages 257-269.
    7. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui & Zhang, Ren & Hong, Mei, 2016. "Hesitant analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 602-614.
    8. Yelda Ayrim & Kumru Didem Atalay & Gülin Feryal Can, 2018. "A New Stochastic MCDM Approach Based on COPRAS," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 857-882, May.
    9. Mehmet Ozcalici, 2023. "Integrating queue theory and multi-criteria decision-making tools for selecting roll-over car washing machine," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 33(2), pages 99-119.
    10. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    11. Chou, Jui-Sheng & Ongkowijoyo, Citra Satria, 2015. "Reliability-based decision making for selection of ready-mix concrete supply using stochastic superiority and inferiority ranking method," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 29-39.
    12. Cox, M.A.A., 2007. "Examining alternatives in the interval analytic hierarchy process using complete enumeration," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 957-962, July.
    13. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.

    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. 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.
    2. Kumar, N. Vinod & Ganesh, L. S., 1996. "A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 656-662, December.
    3. L C Leung & Y V Hui & M Zheng, 2003. "Analysis of compatibility between interdependent matrices in ANP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 54(7), pages 758-768, July.
    4. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    5. Van den Honert, R. C., 1998. "Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: A model of group consensus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(1), pages 99-111, October.
    6. 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).
    7. Zygmunt Korban & Maja Taraszkiewicz-Łyda, 2022. "The Impact of Time Pressure on the Results of Psychotechnical Tests Based on the Findings of Pilot Studies Conducted on a Group of Students of the Silesian University of Technology—A Case Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(22), pages 1-12, November.
    8. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    9. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    10. Faramondi, Luca & Oliva, Gabriele & Setola, Roberto & Bozóki, Sándor, 2023. "Robustness to rank reversal in pairwise comparison matrices based on uncertainty bounds," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 676-688.
    11. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    12. Bititci, U. S. & Suwignjo, P. & Carrie, A. S., 2001. "Strategy management through quantitative modelling of performance measurement systems," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(1), pages 15-22, January.
    13. Weck, M. & Klocke, F. & Schell, H. & Ruenauver, E., 1997. "Evaluating alternative production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 100(2), pages 351-366, July.
    14. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    15. Wedley, William C. & Choo, Eng Ung & Schoner, Bertram, 2001. "Magnitude adjustment for AHP benefit/cost ratios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(2), pages 342-351, January.
    16. Williams, Michael L. & Dennis, Alan R. & Stam, Antonie & Aronson, Jay E., 2007. "The impact of DSS use and information load on errors and decision quality," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 176(1), pages 468-481, January.
    17. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1995. "Energy resource allocation incorporating qualitative and quantitative criteria: An integrated model using goal programming and AHP," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 197-218, September.
    18. Madjid Tavana, 2003. "CROSS: A Multicriteria Group-Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Prioritizing Advanced-Technology Projects at NASA," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 33(3), pages 40-56, June.
    19. Millet, Ido & Saaty, Thomas L., 2000. "On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 205-212, February.
    20. Zhu, Qingyun & Shah, Purvi & Sarkis, Joseph, 2018. "Addition by subtraction: Integrating product deletion with lean and sustainable supply chain management," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 205(C), pages 201-214.

    More about this item

    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:eee:ejores:v:96:y:1997:i:2:p:371-378. 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.