IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i18p11546-d915053.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Selected Methods in the Managerial Decision-Making Process in the Context of Sustainable Development

Author

Listed:
  • Jana Stofkova

    (Department of Communication, University of Zilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia)

  • Matej Krejnus

    (Department of Communication, University of Zilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia)

  • Katarina Repkova Stofkova

    (Department of Communication, University of Zilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia)

  • Peter Malega

    (Department of Industrial and Digital Engineering, Technical University of Kosice, Park Komenskeho 9, 040 02 Kosice, Slovakia)

  • Vladimira Binasova

    (Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Zilina, Univerzitna 1, 010 26 Zilina, Slovakia)

Abstract

This article deals with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, which can be calculated in several ways. The aim of the paper is to analyze and describe the AHP method as essential for strategic managerial decision-making to determine which method is efficient for the calculation and to set the proper order of criteria. In the contribution, we show how the AHP method can be used through different techniques. In the article, there are included methods that can be used in order to calculate the matrix in the AHP process for setting criteria. This study also focused on the accuracy of various methods used to compute AHP. The paper contains the procedure of using the Saaty method through the Excel program. The results of the research show that the most accurate method is the Saaty method. In comparison with the Saaty method is the geometric mean method with the slightest deviation (CI = 0.00010), followed by the Row sum of the adjusted Saaty matrix with deviation (CI = 0.00256), reverse sums of the Saaty matrix columns (CI = 0.00852), Arithmetic mean and Row sums of the Saaty matrix (CI = 0.01261). All of these methods are easy to calculate and can be performed without major mathematical calculations. The AHP method is often used with other methods such as SWOT, FUZZY, etc. The survey was carried out through an inquiry with managers who graduated from universities in Slovakia and showed that the respondents considered the Saaty method as the most complex and the most difficult. The geometric mean and average mean methods were regarded as the simplest methods. Respondents (44%) stated that they were able to use a program to calculate the AHP. Respondents (46%) had experience with some method related to the strategic managerial decision-making process. Managers (72%) regarded this skill as important for decision-making in their managerial position. The contribution of this paper is to show the advantages of the AHP method in its wide use in various fields.

Suggested Citation

  • Jana Stofkova & Matej Krejnus & Katarina Repkova Stofkova & Peter Malega & Vladimira Binasova, 2022. "Use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Selected Methods in the Managerial Decision-Making Process in the Context of Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11546-:d:915053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11546/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/18/11546/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ahmad, Salman & Tahar, Razman Mat, 2014. "Selection of renewable energy sources for sustainable development of electricity generation system using analytic hierarchy process: A case of Malaysia," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 458-466.
    2. 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.
    3. Zhiming Li & Zhengxi Fan & Shiguang Shen, 2018. "Urban Green Space Suitability Evaluation Based on the AHP-CV Combined Weight Method: A Case Study of Fuping County, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, July.
    4. Tam, Maggie C. Y. & Tummala, V. M. Rao, 2001. "An application of the AHP in vendor selection of a telecommunications system," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 171-182, April.
    5. Yen-Cheng Chen & Tung-Han Yu & Pei-Ling Tsui & Ching-Sung Lee, 2014. "Erratum to: A fuzzy AHP approach to construct international hotel spa atmosphere evaluation model," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 2371-2371, July.
    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. Thomas L. Saaty, 1987. "Risk—Its Priority and Probability: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 159-172, June.
    8. Shivani Guru & D. K. Mahalik, 2019. "A comparative study on performance measurement of Indian public sector banks using AHP-TOPSIS and AHP-grey relational analysis," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 56(4), pages 1213-1239, December.
    9. Joaquín Pérez & José Jimeno & Ethel Mokotoff, 2006. "Another potential shortcoming of AHP," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 14(1), pages 99-111, June.
    10. Thomas L. Saaty & Luis G. Vargas, 2012. "Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, edition 2, number 978-1-4614-3597-6, March.
    11. Branislav Micieta & Jolanta Staszewska & Matej Kovalsky & Martin Krajcovic & Vladimira Binasova & Ladislav Papanek & Ivan Antoniuk, 2021. "Innovative System for Scheduling Production Using a Combination of Parametric Simulation Models," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-20, August.
    12. 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.
    13. Seok-Keun Yoo & Bo-Young Kim, 2018. "A Decision-Making Model for Adopting a Cloud Computing System," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-15, August.
    14. Thomas L. Saaty, 1994. "How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 24(6), pages 19-43, December.
    15. Alizadeh, Reza & Soltanisehat, Leili & Lund, Peter D. & Zamanisabzi, Hamed, 2020. "Improving renewable energy policy planning and decision-making through a hybrid MCDM method," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    16. Yen-Cheng Chen & Tung-Han Yu & Pei-Ling Tsui & Ching-Sung Lee, 2014. "A fuzzy AHP approach to construct international hotel spa atmosphere evaluation model," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(2), pages 645-657, March.
    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. Sandija Zeverte-Rivza & Laura Girdziute & Agnieszka Parlińska & Peteris Rivza & Anastasija Novikova & Ina Gudele, 2023. "Digitalisation in Bioeconomy in the Baltic States and Poland," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-20, September.
    2. Chunyu Zhang & Wenge Zeng, 2024. "Evaluating the Construction of a Digital Supervision Platform for Digital Trade Systems: a Multilateral Perspective," Journal of the Knowledge Economy, Springer;Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), vol. 15(3), pages 12503-12534, September.
    3. Oleksy-Gebczyk, Aneta, 2023. "Preferences and Consumer Choices: A Case of Polish Markets for Goods and Services," Asian Journal of Applied Economics, Kasetsart University, Center for Applied Economics Research, vol. 30(2), July.
    4. Miroslav Rakyta & Peter Bubenik & Vladimira Binasova & Branislav Micieta & Katarina Staffenova, 2022. "Advanced Logistics Strategy of a Company to Create Sustainable Development in the Industrial Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(19), pages 1-36, October.
    5. Wanvipa Wongvilaisakul & Paniti Netinant & Meennapa Rukhiran, 2023. "Dynamic Multi-Criteria Decision Making of Graduate Admission Recommender System: AHP and Fuzzy AHP Approaches," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(12), pages 1-32, June.

    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. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid & Nemery, Philippe, 2016. "Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)–AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 602-611.
    2. Abdul, Daud & Wenqi, Jiang & Tanveer, Arsalan, 2022. "Prioritization of renewable energy source for electricity generation through AHP-VIKOR integrated methodology," Renewable Energy, Elsevier, vol. 184(C), pages 1018-1032.
    3. Hosseini Dehshiri, Seyyed Jalaladdin & Amiri, Maghsoud & Mostafaeipour, Ali & Le, Ttu, 2024. "Evaluation of renewable energy projects based on sustainability goals using a hybrid pythagorean fuzzy-based decision approach," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 297(C).
    4. Mastrocinque, Ernesto & Ramírez, F. Javier & Honrubia-Escribano, Andrés & Pham, Duc T., 2022. "Industry 4.0 enabling sustainable supply chain development in the renewable energy sector: A multi-criteria intelligent approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    5. Ke Xue & Yuanbing Deng & Shuyao Wang, 2015. "What factors influence national image in disaster reports? Evidence from China," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 1257-1265, May.
    6. Ali Mostafaeipour & Seyyed Jalaladdin Hosseini Dehshiri & Seyyed Shahabaddin Hosseini Dehshiri & Mehdi Jahangiri & Kuaanan Techato, 2020. "A Thorough Analysis of Potential Geothermal Project Locations in Afghanistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-17, October.
    7. Alena Pauliková & Zdenka Gyurák Babeľová & Monika Ubárová, 2021. "Analysis of the Impact of Human–Cobot Collaborative Manufacturing Implementation on the Occupational Health and Safety and the Quality Requirements," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-15, February.
    8. 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.
    9. Gerda Ana Melnik-Leroy & Gintautas Dzemyda, 2021. "How to Influence the Results of MCDM?—Evidence of the Impact of Cognitive Biases," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-25, January.
    10. Haddad, M. & Sanders, D. & Tewkesbury, G., 2020. "Selecting a discrete multiple criteria decision making method for Boeing to rank four global market regions," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 1-15.
    11. Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio, 2016. "Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 2-18.
    12. Gopalji Gaur & T. Velmurugan & P. Prakasam & S. Nandakumar, 2021. "Application specific thresholding scheme for handover reduction in 5G Ultra Dense Networks," Telecommunication Systems: Modelling, Analysis, Design and Management, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 97-113, January.
    13. Angie Ruiz & Jose Guevara, 2020. "Sustainable Decision-Making in Road Development: Analysis of Road Preservation Policies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-25, January.
    14. Tiffany Hutcheson & Graeme Newell, 2018. "Decision-making in the management of property investment by Australian superannuation funds," Australian Journal of Management, Australian School of Business, vol. 43(3), pages 404-420, August.
    15. Judit Oláh & József Popp & Szabolcs Duleba & Anna Kiss & Zoltán Lakner, 2021. "Positioning Bio-Based Energy Systems in a Hypercomplex Decision Space—A Case Study," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-23, July.
    16. Itzel Inti Maria Donati & Davide Viaggi & Zorica Srdjevic & Bojan Srdjevic & Antonella Di Fonzo & Teresa Del Giudice & Orlando Cimino & Andrea Martelli & Anna Dalla Marta & Roberto Henke & Filiberto A, 2023. "An Analysis of Preference Weights and Setting Priorities by Irrigation Advisory Services Users Based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Nguyen Huu Hoang & Csaba Fogarassy, 2020. "Sustainability Evaluation of Municipal Solid Waste Management System for Hanoi (Vietnam)—Why to Choose the ‘Waste-to-Energy’ Concept," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-20, February.
    18. Kulisic, Biljana & Dimitriou, Ioannis & Mola-Yudego, Blas, 2021. "From preferences to concerted policy on mandated share for renewable energy in transport," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    19. Goran Marinković & Zoran Ilić & Milan Trifković & Jelena Tatalović & Marko Božić, 2022. "Optimization Methods as a Base for Decision Making in Land Consolidation Projects Ranking," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-12, September.
    20. Talib Hussain & Benqian Li & Dake Wang, 2018. "What Factors Influence the Sustainable Tour Process in Social Media Usage? Examining a Rural Mountain Region in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(7), pages 1-16, June.

    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:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:18:p:11546-:d:915053. 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.