Abstract
Decision Makers generally reason on several criteria, aiming to obtain a total consistency or partial order of several alternatives. MultiCriteria analysis is based on the assumption that such ordering exists. Decision Makers are supported by several kinds of approaches or tools. One approach consists in comparing the criteria two by two, i.e. pairwise comparison, to find the relative importance of each criterion. This relative importance, called weight of criteria, is used to find the final order of alternatives. One methodology, developed by Saaty, called Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP), is based on this principle of pairwise comparison. Having the weights of criteria, the decision makers have then to compare the alternatives two by two for each criterion. Pairwise comparisons are simple to use; however, as the number of items to compare increases, so do the effort of conducting all comparisons and the probability of introducing inconsistencies. In this article we present an innovative approach to conduct pairwise comparisons based on a UI widget that resembles an interactive data plot. It uses the transitivity property of a consistent comparison matrix to infer comparisons. Our hypothesis is that this new approach is more efficient (as it reduces the number of actions the user must conduct to compare all items), more effective (as it limits the sources of inconsistencies), and yields better user satisfaction. We conducted a controlled experiment involving 50 participants. We observed that the proposed widget reduces the effort of making pairwise comparisons, improves the consistency of the comparisons, and leads to a better user experience.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, 1st edn. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA (2000)
Triantaphyllou, E.: Multi-criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study, vol. 44. Springer, Boston (2000). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6
Tanino, T.: Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 12(2), 117–131 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(84)90032-0
Tversky, A.: Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76(1), 31–48 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026750
Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., Davis-Stober, C.P.: Transitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 118(1), 42–56 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021150
Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J., Pérez-García, R.: Improving consistency in AHP decision-making processes. Appl. Math. Comput. 219(5), 2432–2441 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2012.08.079
Saaty, T.L.: Super Decisions (2004). https://superdecisions.com/
Expert Choice: Expert Choice (2021). https://www.expertchoice.com
Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., Keane, J.A.: PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. 22(2), 217–235 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12054
Kämpke, T., Radermacher, F.J., Wolf, P.: Supporting preference elicitation: the FAW preference elicitation tool. Decis. Support Syst. 9(4), 381–391 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-9236(93)90048-8
Abel, E., Galpin, I., Paton, N.W., Keane, J.A.: Pairwise comparisons or constrained optimization? A usability evaluation of techniques for eliciting decision priorities. Int. Trans. Oper. Res. November 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12907
Millet, I.: The effectiveness of alternative preference elicitation methods in the analytic hierarchy process. J. Multi-criteria Decis. Anal. 6(1), 41–51 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199701)6:1%3c41::AID-MCDA122%3e3.0.CO;2-D
Brunelli, M.: A survey of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 47(8), 751–771 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2018.1523156
Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)
Brunelli, M.: Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12502-2
Brooke, J.: SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. p. 8.
Sauro, J.: A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks & Best Practices. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Denver (2011)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Cimadamore, A., Fernandez, A., Ye, C., Zaraté, P., Kamissoko, D. (2021). A User Interface for Consistent AHP Pairwise Comparisons. In: de Almeida, A.T., Morais, D.C. (eds) Innovation for Systems Information and Decision. INSID 2021. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 435. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91768-5_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91768-5_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-91767-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-91768-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)