IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijbire/v11y2016i1p60-75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

AHP and weak consistency in the evaluation of works of art - a case study of a large problem

Author

Listed:
  • Jan Stoklasa
  • Tomáš Talášek
  • Jana TalaÅ¡ová

Abstract

The paper describes an evaluation methodology based on Saaty's AHP, that relaxes the classical Saaty's consistency condition and works with the concept of weak consistency. Weak consistency is seen as a minimum requirement on the consistency of experts' preferences. The relationship of weak consistency and the linguistic level of consistency description using the Saaty's scale is discussed in the paper. The benefits of using weak consistency with large problems are presented - for data input, for the flexibility of the mathematical model and to facilitate further adjustments of the evaluation methodology. In the case of pairwise comparison matrices with ordered categories, the fulfilment of weak consistency can be checked during the data input phase. This way the weak consistency of pairwise comparison matrices can be achieved even for large numbers of categories - unlike the full consistency in Saaty's sense. The paper also provides a case study of a practical application of the proposed evaluation methodology - the mathematical model for the evaluation of creative work outcomes of Czech Art Colleges. The case presented here combines evaluation based on objective criteria with peer review and suggests a possible solution to the problem of arts evaluation for funding purposes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jan Stoklasa & Tomáš Talášek & Jana TalaÅ¡ová, 2016. "AHP and weak consistency in the evaluation of works of art - a case study of a large problem," International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 11(1), pages 60-75.
  • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijbire:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:60-75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=77610
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    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:ids:ijbire:v:11:y:2016:i:1:p:60-75. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=203 .

    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.