IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v30y2021i2d10.1007_s10726-020-09719-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach

Author

Listed:
  • Paweł Karczmarek

    (Lublin University of Technology)

  • Witold Pedrycz

    (University of Alberta
    King Abdulaziz University
    Polish Academy of Sciences)

  • Adam Kiersztyn

    (Lublin University of Technology)

Abstract

Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is widely used in many decision-making problems such as a choice of alternatives, prioritization, or ranking. Despite being a valuable tool based on pairwise comparisons of a set of alternatives the method is strongly connected with numeric or linguistic descriptors of the preferences. This can form a limitation to the users who do not feel comfortable with numbers or words strictly related with the articulation of the meaning of preference, i.e., with a predefined scale. Therefore, in this study, we develop a comprehensive approach based on a simple graphic interface. The results and their consistency as well as stability of the method are examined. Moreover, through a suite of experiments we observe how the method works when a group of experts does not provide answers to all questions. Finally, we analyze four variants of non-linear transforms which are used to minimize the inconsistency ratio of the AHP (fuzzy AHP) process.

Suggested Citation

  • Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09719-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-020-09719-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-020-09719-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-020-09719-6?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
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    3. Manuel Salvador & Alfredo Altuzarra & Pilar Gargallo & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2015. "A Bayesian Approach to Maximising Inner Compatibility in AHP-Systemic Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 655-673, July.
    4. Weistroffer, H. Roland & Wooldridge, Blue E. & Singh, Rahul, 1999. "A multi-criteria approach to local tax planning," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 301-315, December.
    5. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G., 1987. "Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 107-117, October.
    6. Wang, Ying-Ming & Luo, Ying & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2008. "On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 735-747, April.
    7. Natalie M. Scala & Jayant Rajgopal & Luis G. Vargas & Kim LaScola Needy, 2016. "Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 355-372, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    10. Jia-Wei Tang & Tsuen-Ho Hsu, 2018. "Utilizing the Hierarchy Structural Fuzzy Analytical Network Process Model to Evaluate Critical Elements of Marketing Strategic Alliance Development in Mobile Telecommunication Industry," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(2), pages 251-284, April.
    11. Leung, L. C. & Cao, D., 2000. "On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 102-113, July.
    12. Pätäri, Eero & Karell, Ville & Luukka, Pasi & Yeomans, Julian S, 2018. "Comparison of the multicriteria decision-making methods for equity portfolio selection: The U.S. evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(2), pages 655-672.
    13. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    14. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    15. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    16. Seyed Saeed Hosseinian & Hamidreza Navidi & Abas Hajfathaliha, 2012. "A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation and Group Decision Making in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 233-254, May.
    17. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    18. 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.
    19. Marttunen, Mika & Belton, Valerie & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 178-194.
    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. Dong Feng & Jiayi Han & Han Jia & Xinyuan Chang & Jiaqi Guo & Pinghua Huang, 2023. "Regional Economic Growth and Environmental Protection in China: The Yellow River Basin Economic Zone as an Example," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-20, July.
    2. Vijay Pereira & Umesh Bamel, 2023. "Charting the managerial and theoretical evolutionary path of AHP using thematic and systematic review: a decadal (2012–2021) study," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 635-651, July.

    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. Jana Krejčí & Alessio Ishizaka, 2018. "FAHPSort: A Fuzzy Extension of the AHPSort Method," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1119-1145, July.
    2. Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Riya Sureka & Satish Kumar & Deepraj Mukherjee & Christina Theodoraki, 2023. "What restricts SMEs from adopting sophisticated capital budgeting practices?," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 60(1), pages 265-290, January.
    6. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "Modeling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 1-14.
    7. Yibin Zhang & Kevin W. Li & Zhou-Jing Wang, 2017. "Prioritization and Aggregation of Intuitionistic Preference Relations: A Multiplicative-Transitivity-Based Transformation from Intuitionistic Judgment Data to Priority Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(2), pages 409-436, March.
    8. Calabrese, Armando & Costa, Roberta & Levialdi, Nathan & Menichini, Tamara, 2019. "Integrating sustainability into strategic decision-making: A fuzzy AHP method for the selection of relevant sustainability issues," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 155-168.
    9. Zhü, Kèyù, 2014. "Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: Fallacy of the popular methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 209-217.
    10. Liu, Fang & Zhang, Wei-Guo & Zhang, Li-Hua, 2014. "Consistency analysis of triangular fuzzy reciprocal preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(3), pages 718-726.
    11. Bui, Nuong Thi & Kawamura, Akira & Kim, Kyoung Woong & Prathumratana, Lunchakorn & Kim, Tae-Heok & Yoon, Suk-Ho & Jang, Min & Amaguchi, Hideo & Bui, Duong Du & Truong, Ngoc Tu, 2017. "Proposal of an indicator-based sustainability assessment framework for the mining sector of APEC economies," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 405-417.
    12. Shubham Gupta & Raghav Khanna & Pranay Kohli & Sarthak Agnihotri & Umang Soni & M. Asjad, 2023. "Risk evaluation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure using Fuzzy AHP – a case study in India," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 16(1), pages 245-258, March.
    13. S Taghipour & D Banjevic & A K S Jardine, 2011. "Prioritization of medical equipment for maintenance decisions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(9), pages 1666-1687, September.
    14. 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.
    15. Dinulescu Ruxandra & Dobrin Cosmin, 2022. "Applying the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for classifying and prioritizing healthcare quality attributes," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 15-40, March.
    16. Raman Kumar Goyal & Sakshi Kaushal, 2018. "Deriving crisp and consistent priorities for fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria systems using non-linear constrained optimization," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 195-209, June.
    17. Dong, Yucheng & Hong, Wei-Chiang & Xu, Yinfeng & Yu, Shui, 2013. "Numerical scales generated individually for analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(3), pages 654-662.
    18. Wang, Xiaojun & Chan, Hing Kai & Li, Dong, 2015. "A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 212-223.
    19. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    20. 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.

    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:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09719-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.