Skip to main content

A User Interface for Consistent AHP Pairwise Comparisons

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 205 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 435))

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   44.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   59.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Saaty, T.L.: Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory, 1st edn. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  2. 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

  3. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Tversky, A.: Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76(1), 31–48 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026750

  5. Regenwetter, M., Dana, J., Davis-Stober, C.P.: Transitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 118(1), 42–56 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. Saaty, T.L.: Super Decisions (2004). https://superdecisions.com/

  8. Expert Choice: Expert Choice (2021). https://www.expertchoice.com

  9. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 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

  12. 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

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  14. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Brunelli, M.: Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer International Publishing, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12502-2

  16. Brooke, J.: SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. p. 8.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sauro, J.: A Practical Guide to the System Usability Scale: Background, Benchmarks & Best Practices. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Denver (2011)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pascale Zaraté .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics