Abstract
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (hereafter AHP) is a popular multi-criteria decision-making technique. The extant AHP literature usually depicts the geometric mean or the arithmetic mean as a measure of aggregation to process group decisions. However, both these measures are subject to the influence of extreme opinions, and aggregations based on them may not accurately portray the true group preference. In this paper, we propose the Common Priority Vector Procedure, which accentuates the majority group preference and diminishes the influence of extreme individual opinions. The method has been further extended to deal with multi-actor, multi-criteria and multi-group decisions. The development of Common Priority Vector Procedure, presented here, has been motivated by a real case study presented towards the end of the paper.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aczel, J., & Saaty, T. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7, 93–102.
Aguaron, J., Escobar, M., & Moreno-Jimenéz, J. (2016). The precise consistency consensus matrix in a local AHP-group decision making context. Annals of Operations Research, 245, 245–259.
Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J., & Pérez-García, R. (2011). Achieving matrix consistency in ahp through linearization. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35, 4449–4457.
Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J., & Pérez-García, R. (2012). An approach to AHP decision in a dynamic context. Decision Support Systems, 53, 499–506.
Bozóki, S., & Lewis, R. (2005). Solving the least squares method problem in the ahp for 3 \(\times \) 3 and 4 \(\times \) 4 matrices. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 13, 255–270.
Brunelli, M., Canal, L., & Fedrizzi, M. (2013). Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: A numerical study. Annals of Operations Research, 211, 493–509.
Brunelli, M., & Fedrizzi, M. (2018). A general formulation for some inconsistency indices of pairwise comparisons. Annals of Operations Research.,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2936-6.
Carroll, J., & Chang, J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart–Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.
Chen, K., Kou, G., Tarn, M., & Song, Y. (2015). Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices. Annals of Operations Research, 235, 155–175.
Csató, L. (2018). Characterization of an inconsistency ranking for pairwise comparison matrices. Annals of Operations Research, 261, 155–165.
Chu, A., Kalaba, R., & Spingarn, K. (1979). A comparison of two methods for determining the weight belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 4, 531–538.
Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms. Research Policy, 43(5), 891–902.
Corradini, C., Demirel, P., & Battisti, G. (2016). Technological diversification within UK’s small serial innovators. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 163–177.
Dong, Y., Xu, H., & Dai, M. (2008). A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in ahp. European Journal of Operational Research, 186, 229–242.
Dyer, J., & Forman, E. (1992). Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems, 8, 99–124.
Farkas, A. (2016). Balancing pairwise comparison matrices by transitive matrices. Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3–4), 397–417.
Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgements and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108, 165–169.
Gass, S., & Rapcsak, T. (2004). Singular value decomposition in ahp. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 573–584.
Gentle, J. E. (2007). Matrix algebra. Theory, computations, and applications in statistics. New York: Springer.
Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis. New York: Springer.
Groselj, P., Stirn, L., Ayrilmis, N., & Kuzman, M. (2015). Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 2198–2204.
Hanafi, M., Mazerolles, G., Dufour, E., & Qannari, E. (2006). Common components and specific weight analysis and multiple co-inertia analysis applied to the coupling of several measurement techniques. Journal of Chemometrics, 20(5), 172–183.
Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 7317–7325.
Ishizaka, A., & Lusti, M. (2006). How to derive priorities in ahp: A comparative study. Central European Journal of Operational Research, 14(4), 387–400.
Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis methods and software. New York: Wiley.
Kazibudzki, P. (2016). An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments. Annals of Operations Research, 244, 525–544.
Lin, C., Kou, G., & Ergu, D. (2013a). A heuristic approach for deriving the priority vector in ahp. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(8), 5828–5836.
Lin, C., Kou, G., & Ergu, D. (2013b). An improved statistical approach for consistency test in AHP. Annals of Operations Research, 211, 289–299.
Linares, P., Lumbreras, S., Santamaria, A., & Veiga, A. (2016). How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP. Annals of Operations Research, 245, 227–244.
Madu, C., & Kuei, C. (1995). Stability analyses of group decision making. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 28, 881–892.
Meyer, G., Neck, H., & Meeks, M. (2002). The entrepreneurship-strategic management interface. In M. Hitt, R. Ireland, S. Camp, & D. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 19–44). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Moreno-Jimenéz, J., Salvador, M., Gargallo, P., & Altuzarrra, A. (2016). Systemic decision making in AHP: A Bayesian approach. Annals of Operations Research, 245, 261–284.
Ortega, J. M. (1968). The Newton–Kantorovich Theorem. The American Mathematical Monthly, 75(6), 658–660.
Pereira, V., & Costa, H. (2015). Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method. Annals of Operations Research, 229, 635–655.
Qannari, E., Wakeling, I., Courcoux, P., & MacFie, H. (2000). Defining the underlining sensory dimensions. Food Quality and Preference, 11(1–2), 151–154.
Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in ahp: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79, 249–265.
Saaty, T. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.
Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.
Saaty, T., & Vargas, L. (2007). Dispersion of group judgments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 918–925.
Sandulli, F., Fernández-Menéndez, J., Rodríguez-Duarte, A., & López-Sánchez, J. I. (2012). The productivity payoff of information technology in multimarket SMEs. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 99–117.
Van Den Honert, R., & Lootsma, F. (1996). Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative ahp. The model of the group decision process and pareto optimality. European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 363–370.
Vargas, L. (2009). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2–8.
Zhou, X., Hub, Y., Deng, Y., Chan, F., & Ishizaka, A. (2018). A DEMATEL-based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2769-3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands (http://kapis.wkap.nl/kaphtml.htm/IFA0254-5330).
Appendix
Appendix
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Amenta, P., Ishizaka, A., Lucadamo, A. et al. Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context. Ann Oper Res 284, 33–62 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03258-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03258-3