Top

Decisions in Economics and Finance

Published in:

05-11-2020

Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks

Authors: Alessio Ishizaka, Sajid Siraj

Published in: Decisions in Economics and Finance | Issue 2/2020

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

The analytic hierarchy process is a widely used multi-criteria decision-making method that involves the construction of pairwise comparison matrices. To infer a decision, a consistent or near-consistent matrix is desired, and therefore, several methods have been developed to control or improve the overall consistency of the matrix. However, controlling the overall consistency does not necessarily prevent having strong local inconsistencies. Local inconsistencies are local distortions which can lead to rank reversal when a new alternative is added or deleted. To address this problem, we propose an algorithm for controlling the inconsistency during the construction of the pairwise comparison matrix. The proposed algorithm assists decision makers whilst entering their judgments and does not allow strong local inconsistencies. This algorithm is based on the transitivity rule and has been verified through statistical simulations. Appropriate thresholds of acceptable evaluations have been inferred from these simulations. We demonstrate that the proposed algorithm is a helpful decision aid to decision makers when entering pairwise comparison judgments.

previous article A three-system approach that integrates DEA, BSC, and AHP for museum evaluation

next article Underestimation functions for a rank-two partitioning method

Available only for authorised users

Aguarón, J., Moreno-Jiménez, J.: The geometric consistency index: approximated thresholds. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 147(1), 137–145 (2003)

Bana e Costa, C., Vansnick, J.: A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 187(3), 1422–1428 (2008)

Barzilai, J., Lootsma, F.: Power relation and group aggregation in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 6(3), 155–165 (1997)

Belton, V., Gear, A.: On a shortcoming of Saaty’s method of analytical hierarchies. Omega 11(3), 228–230 (1983)

Belton, V., Gear, T.: The legitimacy of rank reversal — A comment. Omega 13(3), 143–144 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0483(85)90052-0CrossRef

Brunelli, M.: A survey of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 47(8), 751–771 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2018.1523156CrossRef

Brunelli, M., Canal, L., Fedrizzi, M.: Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: a numerical study. Ann. Oper. Res. 211(1), 493–509 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-013-1329-0CrossRef

Camerer, C.: Individual decision making. In: Kagel, J., Roth, A. (eds.) The Handbook of Experimental Economics, pp. 587–703. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1995)

Cao, D., Leung, L.C., Law, J.S.: Modifying inconsistent comparison matrix in analytic hierarchy process: a heuristic approach. Decis. Support Syst. 44(4), 944–953 (2008)

Corbin, R., Marley, A.A.J.: Random utility models with equality: an apparent, but not actual, generalization of random utility models. J. Math. Psychol. 11(3), 274–293 (1974)

De Keyser, W., Peeters, P.: A note on the use of PROMETHEE multicriteria methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 89(3), 457–461 (1996)

Dyer, J.: A clarification of “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 274–275 (1990a)

Dyer, J.: Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 249–258 (1990b)

Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., Shi, Y.: A simple method to improve the consistency ratio of the pair-wise comparison matrix in ANP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 213(1), 246–259 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.03.014CrossRef

Ergu, D., Kou, G., Shi, Y., Shi, Y.: Analytic network process in risk assessment and decision analysis. Comput. Oper. Res. 8, 8–9 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cor.2011.03.005CrossRef

Figueira, J.R., Roy, B.: A note on the paper, “ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods”, by Wang and Triantaphyllou, Omega (2008). Omega 37(3), 731–733 (2009)

Finan, J.S., Hurley, W.J.: The analytic hierarchy process: can wash criteria be ignored? Comput. Oper. Res. 29(8), 1025–1030 (2002)

Forman, E., Gass, S.: The analytic hierarchy process—an exposition. Oper. Res. 49(4), 469–486 (2001)

García-Cascales, S., Lamata, T.: On rank reversal and TOPSIS method. Math. Comput. Model. 56(5–6), 123–132 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2011.12.022CrossRef

Gaul, W., Gastes, D.: A note on consistency improvements of AHP paired comparison data. Adv. Data Anal. Classif. 6(4), 289–302 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11634-012-0119-xCrossRef

Golden, B., Wang, Q.: An alternate measure of consistency. In: Golden, B., Wasil, E., Harker, P. (eds.) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Application and Studies, pp. 68–81. Springer, New York (1989)

González-Pachón, J., Romero, C.: A method for dealing with inconsistencies in pairwise comparisons. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 158(2), 351–361 (2004)

Harker, P., Vargas, L.: The theory of ratio scale estimation: saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Manag. Sci. 33(11), 1383–1403 (1987)

Harker, P., Vargas, L.: Reply to “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 269–273 (1990)

Holder, R.: Some comment on the analytic hierarchy process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 41(11), 1073–1076 (1990)

Holder, R.: Response to Holder’s comments on the analytic hierarchy process: response to the response. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 42(10), 914–918 (1991)

Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D., Kaplan, T.: Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 62(4), 700–710 (2010)

Ishizaka, A., Labib, A.: Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(11), 14336–14345 (2011a). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143CrossRef

Ishizaka, A., Labib, A.: Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Syst. Appl. 38(6), 7317–7325 (2011b). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2010.12.004CrossRef

Ishizaka, A., López, C.: Cost-benefit AHPSort for performance analysis of offshore providers. Int. J. Prod. Res. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2018.1509393CrossRef

Ishizaka, A., Lusti, M.: An expert module to improve the consistency of AHP matrices. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 11(1), 97–105 (2004)

Kendall, M.G., Smith, B.B.: On the method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 31(3/4), 324–345 (1940)

Keskin, B., Köksal, C.: A hybrid AHP/DEA-AR model for measuring and comparing the efficiency of airports. Int. J. Prod. Perform. Manag. 68(3), 524–541 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-02-2018-0043CrossRef

Kwiesielewicz, M., van Uden, E.: Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in AHP. Comput. Oper. Res. 31(5), 713–719 (2004)

Linares, P.: Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 193(2), 492–498 (2009)

Lootsma, F.: Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. J. Multi-Crit. Dec. Anal. 2(2), 87–110 (1993)

Maleki, H., Zahir, S.: A comprehensive literature review of the rank reversal phenomenon in the analytic hierarchy process. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/mcda.1479CrossRef

Mareschal, B., De Smet, Y., Nemery, P.: Rank reversal in the PROMETHEE II method: some new results. Paper presented at the IEEE 2008 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, Singapore

Millet, I., Saaty, T.: On the relativity of relative measures-accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 121(1), 205–212 (2000)

Monti, S., Carenini, G.: Dealing with the expert inconsistencies: the sooner the better. Paper presented at the IJCAI-95 Workshop: “Building Probabilistic Networks: where do the numbers come from?”, Montreal (1995)

Perez, J., Jimeno, J.L., Mokotoff, E.: Another potential shortcoming of AHP. TOP 14(1), 99–111 (2006)

Pérez, J.: Some comments on Saaty’s AHP. Manag. Sci. 41(6), 1091–1095 (1995)

Saaty, T.: A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 15(3), 234–281 (1977)

Saaty, T.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

Saaty, T.: Rank generation, preservation and reversal in the analytic hierarchy decision process. Decis. Sci. 18(2), 157–177 (1987)

Saaty, T.: An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper “remarks on the analytic hierarchy process”. Manag. Sci. 36(3), 259–268 (1990)

Saaty, T.: Response to Holder’s comments on the analytic hierarchy process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 42(10), 909–929 (1991)

Saaty, T.: Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary? Eur. J. Oper. Res. 145(1), 85–91 (2003)

Saaty, T.: Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 168(2), 557–570 (2006)

Saaty, T., Sagir, M.: An essay on rank preservation and reversal. Math. Comput. Modell. (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcm.2008.1008.1001CrossRef

Saaty, T., Takizawa, M.: Dependence and independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26(2), 229–237 (1986)

Saaty, T., Vargas, L.: The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 12(5), 513–516 (1984)

Saaty, T., Vargas, L.: The analytic hierarchy process: wash criteria should not be ignored. Int. J. Manag. Decis. Mak. 7(2/3), 180–188 (2006)

Salo, A., Hamalainen, R.: On the measurement of preference in the analytic hierarchy process. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 6(6), 309–319 (1997)

Schoner, B., Wedley, W.: Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions. Decis. Sci. 20(3), 462–475 (1989)

Schoner, B., Wedley, W., Choo, E.: A unified approach to AHP with linking pins. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 64(3), 384–392 (1993)

Schoner, B., Wedley, W.C., Choo, E.U.: A rejoinder to forman on AHP, with emphasis on the requirements of composite ratio scales. Decis. Sci. 23(2), 509–517 (1992)

Sipahi, S., Timor, M.: The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications. Manag. Decis. 48(5), 775–808 (2010)

Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., Keane, J.: A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 216(2), 420–428 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.07.034CrossRef

Subramanian, N., Ramanathan, R.: A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 138(2), 215–241 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2012.03.036CrossRef

Tone, K.: A comparative study of AHP and DEA. Theory and applications. In: Tone, K. (ed.) Advances in DEA Theory and Applications. Wiley, Chichester (2017)

Triantaphyllou, E.: Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 10(1), 11–25 (2001)

Troutt, M.: Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. Omega 16(4), 365–367 (1988)

Tversky, A., Slovic, P., Kahneman, D.: The cause of preference reversal. Am. Econ. Assoc. 80(1), 204–217 (1990)

Vargas, L.: Comments on Barzilai and Lootsma why the multiplicative AHP is invalid: a practical counterexample. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 6(4), 169–170 (1997)

Vargas, L.G.: A rejoinder. OMEGA 13(4), 249 (1985)

Veni, K., Rajesh, R., Pugazhendhi, S.: Development of decision making model using integrated AHP and DEA for vendor selection. Proc. Eng. 38, 3700–3708 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2012.06.425CrossRef

Wang, Y., Chin, K.-S., Luo, Y.: Aggregation of direct and indirect judgements in pairwise comparison matrices with a re-examination of the criticisms by Bana e Costa and Vansnick. Inf. Sci. 179(3), 329–337 (2009)

Wang, Y., Elhag, T.: An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decis. Support Syst. 42(3), 1474–1480 (2006)

Wang, Y., Luo, Y.: On rank reversal in decision analysis. Math. Comput. Model. 49(5–6), 1221–1229 (2009)

Wanga, X., Triantaphyllou, E.: Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36(1), 45–63 (2008)

Xu, Z., Wei, C.: A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 116(2), 443–449 (1999)

Title: Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks
Authors: Alessio Ishizaka
Sajid Siraj
Publication date: 05-11-2020
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Decisions in Economics and Finance / Issue 2/2020
Print ISSN: 1593-8883
Electronic ISSN: 1129-6569
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10203-020-00309-4

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Other articles of this Issue 2/2020

A special issue on multi-criteria decision aiding

Integrating fuzzy goal programming and data envelopment analysis to incorporate preferred decision-maker targets in efficiency measurement

Constructing dynamic life tables with a single-factor model

A net present value approach to health insurance choice

Inconsistency evaluation in pairwise comparison using norm-based distances

Efficiency evaluation under uncertainty: a stochastic DEA approach