IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v56y2010i4p699-711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement

Author

Listed:
  • Michele Bernasconi

    (Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche and SSE, Università "Ca' Foscari," I-30121 Venezia, Italy)

  • Christine Choirat

    (Department of Quantitative Methods, School of Economics and Business Management, Universidad de Navarra, E-31080 Pamplona, Spain)

  • Raffaello Seri

    (Dipartimento di Economia, Università dell'Insubria, I-21100 Varese, Italy)

Abstract

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a decision-making procedure widely used in management for establishing priorities in multicriteria decision problems. Underlying the AHP is the theory of ratio-scale measures developed in psychophysics since the middle of the last century. It is, however, well known that classical ratio-scaling approaches have several problems. We reconsider the AHP in the light of the modern theory of measurement based on the so-called separable representations recently axiomatized in mathematical psychology. We provide various theoretical and empirical results on the extent to which the AHP can be considered a reliable decision-making procedure in terms of the modern theory of subjective measurement.

Suggested Citation

  • Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2010. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Theory of Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(4), pages 699-711, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:56:y:2010:i:4:p:699-711
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.1090.1123
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1123
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.1090.1123?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    2. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    3. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    4. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1990. "Reply to "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process" by J. S. Dyer," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 269-273, March.
    5. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    6. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    7. 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.
    8. Ernest H. Forman & Saul I. Gass, 2001. "The Analytic Hierarchy Process---An Exposition," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 49(4), pages 469-486, August.
    9. Han Bleichrodt & Jose Luis Pinto & Peter P. Wakker, 2001. "Making Descriptive Use of Prospect Theory to Improve the Prescriptive Use of Expected Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(11), pages 1498-1514, November.
    10. Drazen Prelec, 1998. "The Probability Weighting Function," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 66(3), pages 497-528, May.
    11. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    12. Zahedi, Fatemeh, 1986. "A simulation study of estimation methods in the analytic hierarchy process," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 20(6), pages 347-354.
    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. Kriegel, Johannes & Rissbacher, Clemens & Pölzl, Alois & Tuttle-Weidinger, Linda & Reckwitz, Nanni, 2020. "Levers for integrating social work into primary healthcare networks in Austria," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 75-82.
    2. Changsheng Lin & Gang Kou & Daji Ergu, 2013. "An improved statistical approach for consistency test in AHP," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 289-299, December.
    3. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    4. Jih-Jeng Huang, 2021. "Analytic Hierarchy Process with the Correlation Effect via WordNet," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-13, April.
    5. Antonio Menéndez Suárez-Inclán & Cristina Allende-Prieto & Jorge Roces-García & Juan P. Rodríguez-Sánchez & Luis A. Sañudo-Fontaneda & Carlos Rey-Mahía & Felipe P. Álvarez-Rabanal, 2022. "Development of a Multicriteria Scheme for the Identification of Strategic Areas for SUDS Implementation: A Case Study from Gijón, Spain," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, March.
    6. AbdulHafeez Muhammad & Ansar Siddique & Quadri Noorulhasan Naveed & Uzma Khaliq & Ali M. Aseere & Mohd Abul Hasan & Mohamed Rafik N. Qureshi & Basit Shahzad, 2021. "Evaluating Usability of Academic Websites through a Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-22, February.
    7. José Luis Galdón Salvador & Gabriel Marín Díaz, 2024. "Enhancing Business Decision Making through a New Corporate Reputation Measurement Model: Practical Application in a Supplier Selection Process," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-28, January.
    8. Paulius Šūmakaris & Kristina Kovaitė & Renata Korsakienė, 2023. "An Integrated Approach to Evaluating Eco-Innovation Strategies from the Perspective of Strategic Green Transformation: A Case of the Lithuanian Furniture Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(11), pages 1-33, June.
    9. 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).
    10. Michele Bernasconi & Christine Choirat & Raffaello Seri, 2009. "A re-examination of the algebraic properties of the AHP as a ratio-scaling technique," Working Papers 2009_23, Department of Economics, University of Venice "Ca' Foscari".
    11. Akshay Hinduja & Manju Pandey, 2019. "A Distance-based Method for Computing Priorities of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Preference Relation and Its Application in AHP," Vision, , vol. 23(4), pages 329-340, December.
    12. Raffaello Seri & Samuele Centorrino & Michele Bernasconi, 2019. "Nonparametric Estimation and Inference in Economic and Psychological Experiments," Papers 1904.11156, arXiv.org, revised Dec 2019.

    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. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    2. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    3. 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.
    4. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    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. 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.
    7. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    8. 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.
    9. M Tavana, 2006. "A priority assessment multi-criteria decision model for human spaceflight mission planning at NASA," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1197-1215, October.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    13. 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.
    14. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    15. Jason R. W. Merrick & John R. Harrald, 2007. "Making Decisions About Safety in US Ports and Waterways," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 240-252, June.
    16. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    17. 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.
    18. 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).
    19. 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).
    20. Benedetto Barabino & Nicola Aldo Cabras & Claudio Conversano & Alessandro Olivo, 2020. "An Integrated Approach to Select Key Quality Indicators in Transit Services," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 149(3), pages 1045-1080, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ratio scales; subjective weighting; decision making;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:56:y:2010:i:4:p:699-711. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.