IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v11y2023i13p2806-d1176650.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple-Criteria Heuristic Rating Estimation

Author

Listed:
  • Anna Kędzior

    (Faculty of Applied Mathematics, AGH University of Krakow, al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland)

  • Konrad Kułakowski

    (Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Automatics, Computer Science and Biomedical Engineering, AGH University of Krakow, al. Mickiewicza 30, 30-059 Kraków, Poland)

Abstract

One of the most widespread multi-criteria decision-making methods is the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP successfully combines the pairwise comparisons method and the hierarchical approach. It allows the decision-maker to set priorities for all ranked alternatives. But what if, for some of them, their ranking value is known (e.g., it can be determined differently)? The Heuristic Rating Estimation (HRE) method proposed in 2014 tried to bring the answer to this question. However, the considerations were limited to a model only considering a few criteria. This work analyzes how HRE can be used as part of the AHP hierarchical framework. The theoretical considerations are accompanied by illustrative examples showing HRE as a multiple-criteria decision-making method.

Suggested Citation

  • Anna Kędzior & Konrad Kułakowski, 2023. "Multiple-Criteria Heuristic Rating Estimation," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(13), pages 1-19, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:13:p:2806-:d:1176650
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/13/2806/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/11/13/2806/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Saaty, Thomas L., 2003. "Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 85-91, February.
    3. Lucie Lidinska & Josef Jablonsky, 2018. "AHP model for performance evaluation of employees in a Czech management consulting company," 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. 26(1), pages 239-258, March.
    4. Zsuzsanna Katalin Szabo & Zsombor Szádoczki & Sándor Bozóki & Gabriela C. Stănciulescu & Dalma Szabo, 2021. "An Analytic Hierarchy Process Approach for Prioritisation of Strategic Objectives of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-26, February.
    5. 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.
    6. Jaroslav Ramík, 2020. "Pairwise Comparisons Method," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, Springer, number 978-3-030-39891-0, October.
    7. Alessio Ishizaka & Markus Lusti, 2006. "How to derive priorities in AHP: a comparative study," 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. 14(4), pages 387-400, December.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar & Ortt, Roland, 2013. "Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 75-84.
    9. Giancarllo Ribeiro Vasconcelos & Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota, 2019. "Exploring Multicriteria Elicitation Model Based on Pairwise Comparisons: Building an Interactive Preference Adjustment Algorithm," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-14, June.
    10. Fuqiang Lu & Yanli Hu & Hualing Bi & Min Huang & Meng Zhao, 2018. "An Auction Approach for Cost and Schedule Management of IT Outsourcing Project," Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research (APJOR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 35(05), pages 1-23, October.
    11. 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.
    12. Meng Zhao & Song-song Qin & Qi-wang Li & Fu-qiang Lu & Zhe Shen, 2015. "The Likelihood Ranking Methods for Interval Type-2 Fuzzy Sets Considering Risk Preferences," Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Hindawi, vol. 2015, pages 1-12, September.
    13. Hovanov, Nikolai V. & Kolari, James W. & Sokolov, Mikhail V., 2008. "Deriving weights from general pairwise comparison matrices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 205-220, March.
    14. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2013. "The Analytic Network Process," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 1-40, Springer.
    15. Afshin Jamshidi & Farzad Jamshidi & Daoud Ait-Kadi & Amar Ramudhin, 2019. "A review of priority criteria and decision-making methods applied in selection of sustainable city logistics initiatives and collaboration partners," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(15-16), pages 5175-5193, August.
    16. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    17. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1987. "The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1383-1403, November.
    18. Kadziński, Miłosz & Ciomek, Krzysztof & Słowiński, Roman, 2015. "Modeling assignment-based pairwise comparisons within integrated framework for value-driven multiple criteria sorting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 830-841.
    19. 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.
    20. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    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. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    2. 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.
    3. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    4. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John A., 2015. "Contribution of individual judgments toward inconsistency in pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(2), pages 557-567.
    5. 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.
    6. Jiří Mazurek, 2018. "Some notes on the properties of inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(1), pages 27-42.
    7. 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.
    8. Tomashevskii, I.L., 2015. "Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 774-780.
    9. 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.
    10. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    11. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    12. 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.
    13. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2022. "Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1759-1785, July.
    14. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    15. Mónica D. Oliveira & Inês Mataloto & Panos Kanavos, 2019. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for health technology assessment: addressing methodological challenges to improve the state of the art," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(6), pages 891-918, August.
    16. Khaled Belahcène & Vincent Mousseau & Wassila Ouerdane & Marc Pirlot & Olivier Sobrie, 2023. "Multiple criteria sorting models and methods—Part I: survey of the literature," 4OR, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 1-46, March.
    17. Kułakowski, Konrad, 2015. "Notes on order preservation and consistency in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 333-337.
    18. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    19. Virgilio López-Morales & Joel Suárez-Cansino, 2017. "Reliable Intervals Method in Decision-Based Support Models for Group Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 183-204, January.
    20. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:11:y:2023:i:13:p:2806-:d:1176650. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.