Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Dealing with the problem of null weights and scores in Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process

  • Methodologies and Application
  • Published:
Soft Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (Fuzzy AHP) has been widely adopted to support decision making problems. The Fuzzy AHP approach based on the synthetic extent analysis is the most applied approach to calculate the values of the criteria weights from fuzzy comparative matrices. The min operator is used to calculate the weights based on values of degree of possibility. If any of the degrees of possibilities is zero, the output of this operator will also be zero. Thus, the criterion weight or alternative score will be set to zero. If not prevented, this problem may lead to a distorted rank. Despite the fact that there are other propositions based on synthetic extent analysis method, none of the studies found in the literature investigate how the problem of null weights and scores can be avoided. This paper investigates different approaches of the Fuzzy AHP method to evaluate whether they can avoid the problem of null weights and scores without affecting the consistency of the results. Five different approaches based on synthetic extent analysis method were implemented and evaluated. Tests were performed considering 12 decision problems. The results indicated that the Fuzzy AHP approach proposed by Ahmed and Kilic is the most appropriate to overcome the problem of null weight of criteria and scores of alternatives without affecting the consistency of the results. Other benefits of using this approach are the simplicity of the computational implementation and better ability to differentiate the importance of the criteria when the weight values are very close.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Source: Based on Pedrycz and Gomide (2007)

Fig. 2

Source: Based on Chang (1996)

Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahmed F, Kilic K (2015) Modification to fuzzy extent analysis and its performance analysis. In: 6th international conference on industrial engineering and systems management (IESM), Seville, Spain

  • Banaeian N, Mobli H, Fahimnia B, Nielsen I, Omida M (2018) Green supplier selection using fuzzy group decision making methods: a case study from the agri-food industry. Comput Oper Res 89:337–347

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Bulut E, Duru O, Keçeci T, Yoshida S (2012) Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for generic fuzzy-AHP modeling: a process model for shipping asset management. Expert Syst Appl 39:1911–1923

    Google Scholar 

  • Büyüközkan G, Cifçi G (2011) A novel fuzzy multi-criteria decision framework for sustainable supplier selection with incomplete information. Comput Ind 62:164–174

    Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese A, Costa R, Menichini T (2013) Using fuzzy AHP to manage intellectual capital assets: an application to the ICT service industry. Expert Syst Appl 40:3747–3755

    Google Scholar 

  • Chai J, Liu JNK, Ngai EWT (2013) Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: a systematic review of literature. Expert Syst Appl 40:3872–3885

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang DY (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Chen J, Hsieh H, Do QH (2015) Evaluating teaching performance based on fuzzy AHP and comprehensive evaluation approach. Appl Soft Comput 28:100–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho J, Lee J (2013) Development of a new technology product evaluation model for assessing commercialization opportunities using Delphi method and fuzzy AHP approach. Expert Syst Appl 40:5314–5330

    Google Scholar 

  • Choudhary D, Shankar R (2012) An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection on thermal power plant location: a case study from India. Energy 42:510–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Das MC, Sarkar B, Ray S (2012) A framework to measure relative performance of Indian technical institutions using integrated fuzzy AHP and COPRAS methodology. Socio Econ Plan Sci 46:230–241

    Google Scholar 

  • De Boer L, Wegen LVD, Telgen J (1998) Outranking methods in support of supplier selection. Eur J Purch Supply Manag 4:109–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Duru O, Bulut E, Yoshida S (2012) Regime switching fuzzy AHP model for choice-varying priorities problem and expert consistency prioritization: a cubic fuzzy-priority matrix design. Expert Syst Appl 39:4954–4964

    Google Scholar 

  • Fattahi R, Khalilzadeh M (2018) Risk evaluation using a novel hybrid method based on FMEA, extended MULTIMOORA, and AHP methods under fuzzy environment. Saf Sci 102:290–300

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedrizzi M, Krejcí J (2015) A note on the paper “Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: fallacy of the popular methods. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl-Based Syst 23:965–970

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gou J, Shen G, Chai R (2013) Model of service-oriented catering supply chain performance evaluation. J Ind Eng Manag 6:215–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Goyal RK, Kaushal S (2018) Deriving crisp and consistent priorities for fuzzy AHP-based multicriteria systems using non-linear constrained optimization. Fuzzy Optim Decis Mak 17(2):195–209

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Hatami-Marbini A, Tavana M (2011) An extension of the ELECTRE I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment. Omega 39:373–386

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Heo E, Kim J, Cho S (2012) Selecting hydrogen production methods using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with opportunities, costs, and risks. Int J Hydrog Energy 37:17655–17662

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho W, Ma X (2018) The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 267:399–414

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kabir G, Hasin MAA (2011) Comparative analysis of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for multicriteria inventory classification. Int J Fuzzy Logic Syst 1:1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Kabir G, Hasin MAA (2013) Multi-criteria inventory classification through integration of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and artificial neural network. Int J Ind Syst Eng 14:74–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C (ed) (2008) Fuzzy multicriteria decision making-theory and applications with recent developments. Springer Science, Turkey

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Kubler S, Robert J, Derigent W, Voisin A, Traon L (2016) A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications. Expert Syst Appl 65:398–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Kutlu AC, Ekmekçioğlu M (2012) Fuzzy failure modes and effects analysis by using fuzzy TOPSIS-based fuzzy AHP. Expert Syst Appl 39:61–67

    Google Scholar 

  • Larimian T, Zarabadi ZSS, Sadeghi A (2013) Developing a fuzzy AHP model to evaluate environmental sustainability from the perspective of secured by design scheme—a case study. Sustain Cit Soc 7:25–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee SK, Mogi G, Lee SK, Kim JW (2011) Prioritizing the weights of hydrogen energy technologies in the sector of the hydrogen economy by using a fuzzy AHP approach. Int J Hydrog Energy 36:1897–1902

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima-Junior FR, Carpinetti LCR (2016) A multicriteria approach based on Fuzzy QFD for choosing criteria for supplier selection. Comput Ind Eng 110:269–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima-Junior FR, Osiro L, Carpinetti LCR (2014) A comparison between Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS methods to supplier selection. Appl Soft Comput 21:194–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandic K, Delibasic B, Knezevic S, Benkovic S (2014) Analysis of the financial parameters of Serbian banks through the application of the fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS methods. Econ Model 43:30–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Lienert J, Belton V (2017) Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. Eur J Oper Res 263:1–17

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Mosadeghi R, Warnken J, Tomlinson R, Mirfenderesk H (2015) Comparison of fuzzy-AHP and AHP in a spatial multi-criteria decision making model for urban land-use planning. Comput Environ Urban 49:54–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Paksoy T, Pehlivan NY, Kahraman C (2012) Organizational strategy development in distribution channel management using fuzzy AHP and hierarchical fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst Appl 39:2822–2841

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedrycz W, Gomide F (2007) Fuzzy systems engineering—toward human-centric computing. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  • Rostamzadeh R, Sofian S (2011) Prioritizing effective 7Ms to improve production systems performance using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS (case study). Expert Syst Appl 38:5166–5177

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy T, Dutta RK (2018) Integrated fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods for multi-objective optimization of electro discharge machining process. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3173-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaygan A, Testik ÖM (2017) A fuzzy AHP-based methodology for project prioritization and selection. Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-017-2851-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylan O, Bafail AO, Abdulaal RMS, Kabli MR (2014) Construction projects selection and risk assessment by fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methodologies. Appl Soft Comp 17:105–116

    Google Scholar 

  • Ureña R, Chiclana F, Fujita H, Herrera-Viedma E (2015) Confidence-consistency driven group decision making approach with incomplete reciprocal intuitionistic preference relations. Knowl-Based Syst 89:86–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Ureña R, Chiclana F, Melançon G, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) A social network based approach for consensus achievement in multiperson decision making. Inf Fus 47:72–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinodh S, Ramiya RA, Gautham SG (2011) Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organization. Expert Syst Appl 38:272–280

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang YJ (2018) Fuzzy multi-criteria decision making on combining fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with representative utility functions under fuzzy environment. Soft Comput 22(5):1641–1650

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y, Luo Y, Hua Z (2008) On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 186:735–747

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Wang H, Bai H, Liu J, Xu H (2012) Measurement indicators and an evaluation approach for assessing strategic environmental assessment effectiveness. Ecol Indic 23:413–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang X, Chang HK, Li D (2015) A case study of an integrated fuzzy methodology for green product development. Eur J Oper Res 241:212–223

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadegaridehkordi E, Nasir MHNB, Noor NFBM, Shuib NLBM, Badie N (2018) Predicting the adoption of cloud-based technology using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and structural equation modeling approaches. Appl Soft Comput. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.12.051

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yazdani-Chamzini A, Yakhchali SH (2012) Tunnel boring machine (TBM) selection using fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 30:194–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Informat Control 8:338–353

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zarghami E, Azemati H, Fatourehchi D, Karamloo M (2018) Customizing well-known sustainability assessment tools for Iranian residential buildings using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. Build Environ 128:107–128

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhü K (2014) Fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: fallacy of the popular methods. Eur J Oper Res 236:209–217

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann HJ (1991) Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht

    MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by CAPES (Agency for supporting human resource development in high education institutions).

Funding

This study was funded by CAPES—Agency for supporting human resource development in high education institutions (Phd scholarship).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Management and Economics, Federal Technological University of Paraná, Av. Sete de Setembro, 3165, Rebouças, Curitiba, Paraná, 80230-901, Brazil

    Francisco Rodrigues Lima-Junior

  2. Production Engineering Department, São Carlos School of Engineering– University of São Paulo, Av. Trabalhador São-Carlense, 400, São Carlos, São Paulo, 13566-590, Brazil

    Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti

Authors
  1. Francisco Rodrigues Lima-Junior
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Luiz Cesar Ribeiro Carpinetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francisco Rodrigues Lima-Junior.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Communicated by V. Loia.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lima-Junior, F.R., Carpinetti, L.C.R. Dealing with the problem of null weights and scores in Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process. Soft Comput 24, 9557–9573 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04464-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-04464-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation