IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0146862.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Market Competitiveness Evaluation of Mechanical Equipment with a Pairwise Comparisons Hierarchical Model

Author

Listed:
  • Fujun Hou

Abstract

This paper provides a description of how market competitiveness evaluations concerning mechanical equipment can be made in the context of multi-criteria decision environments. It is assumed that, when we are evaluating the market competitiveness, there are limited number of candidates with some required qualifications, and the alternatives will be pairwise compared on a ratio scale. The qualifications are depicted as criteria in hierarchical structure. A hierarchical decision model called PCbHDM was used in this study based on an analysis of its desirable traits. Illustration and comparison shows that the PCbHDM provides a convenient and effective tool for evaluating the market competitiveness of mechanical equipment. The researchers and practitioners might use findings of this paper in application of PCbHDM.

Suggested Citation

  • Fujun Hou, 2016. "Market Competitiveness Evaluation of Mechanical Equipment with a Pairwise Comparisons Hierarchical Model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(1), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0146862
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146862
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146862
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0146862&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0146862?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Herrera-Viedma, E. & Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F. & Luque, M., 2004. "Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 98-109, April.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L & Vargas, Luis G, 1984. "The legitimacy of rank reversal," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 12(5), pages 513-516.
    4. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Chang, Da-Yong, 1996. "Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 649-655, December.
    7. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Satish Tyagi, 2016. "An improved fuzzy-AHP (IFAHP) approach to compare SECI modes," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(15), pages 4520-4536, August.
    5. 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.
    6. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    7. 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.
    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. 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).
    10. 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.
    11. 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).
    12. Zhü, Kèyù, 2014. "Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 209-217.
    13. Surendra Kansara & Sachin Modgil & Rupesh Kumar, 2023. "Structural transformation of fuzzy analytical hierarchy process: a relevant case for Covid-19," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 450-465, March.
    14. Marco Araújo & Love Ekenberg & Mats Danielson & João Confraria, 2022. "A Multi-Criteria Approach to Decision Making in Broadband Technology Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 387-418, April.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. 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).
    18. Joaquín Pérez, José L. Jimeno, Ethel Mokotoff, 2001. "Another potential strong shortcoming of AHP," Doctorado en Economía- documentos de trabajo 8/02, Programa de doctorado en Economía. Universidad de Alcalá., revised 01 Jun 2002.
    19. 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.
    20. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.

    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:plo:pone00:0146862. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.