Abstract
With group judgments in the context of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) one would hope for broad consensus among the decision makers. However, in practice this will not always be the case, and significant dispersion may exist among the judgments. Too much dispersion violates the principle of Pareto Optimality at the comparison level and/or matrix level, and if this happens, then the group may be homogenous in some comparisons and heterogeneous in others. The question then arises as to what would be an appropriate aggregation scheme when a consensus cannot be reached and the decision makers are either unwilling or unable to revise their judgments. In particular, the traditional aggregation via the geometric mean has been shown to be inappropriate in such situations. In this paper, we propose a new method for aggregating judgments when the raw geometric mean cannot be used. Our work is motivated by a supply chain problem of managing spare parts in the nuclear power generation sector and can be applied whenever the AHP is used with judgments from multiple decision makers. The method makes use of principal components analysis (PCA) to combine the judgments into one aggregated value for each pairwise comparison. We show that this approach is equivalent to using a weighted geometric mean with the weights obtained from the PCA.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aczél J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. J Math Psychol 27:93–102
Aczél J, Alsina C (1987) Synthesizing judgments: a functional equations approach. Math Model 9:311–320
Anderson TW (2003) An introduction to multivariate statistical analysis, 3rd edn. Wiley-Interscience, Hoboken
Arias-Nicolás JP, Pérez CJ, Martín J (2008) A logistic regression-based pairwise comparison method to aggregate preferences. Group Decis Negotiat 17:237–247
Armacost RL, Hosseini JC, Pet-Edwards J (1999) Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a two-phase integrated decision approach for large nominal groups. Group Decis Negotiat 8:535–555
Basak I (1988) When to combine group judgments and when not to in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a new method. Math Comput Model 10:395–404
Basak I, Saaty T (1993) Group decision making using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Math Comput Model 17:101–109
Cho YG, Cho KT (2008) A loss function approach to group preference aggregation in the AHP. Comput Oper Res 35:884–892
Dunteman GH (1989) Principal components analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park
Dyer RF, Forman EH (1992) Group decision support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Decis Support Syst 8:99–124
Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2007) Aggregation of individual preference structures in AHP-group decision making. Group Decis Negotiat 16:287–301
Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur J Oper Res 108:165–169
Huang Y, Liao J, Lin Z (2009) A study on aggregation of group decisions. Syst Res Behav Sci 26:445–454
Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011a) Review of the main developments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Expert Syst Appl 38:14336–14345
Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011b) Selection of new production facilities with the Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Ordering method. Expert Syst Appl 38:7317–7325
Johnson RA, Wichern DW (2007) Applied multivariate statistical analysis, 6th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Jolliffe IT (2002) Principal component analysis, 2nd edn. Springer, New York
Korpela J, Lehmusvaara A, Nisonen J (2007) Warehouse operator selection by combining AHP and DEA methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 108:135–142
Lai VS, Wong BK, Cheung W (2002) Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: a case using the AHP in software selection. Eur J Oper Res 137:134–144
Liberatore MJ, Nydick RL (1997) Group decision making in higher education using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Res High Educ 38:593–614
Liu FF, Hai HL (2005) The voting Analytic Hierarchy Process method for selecting supplier. Int J Prod Econ 97:308–317
Lolli F, Ishizaka A, Gamberini R (2014) New AHP-based approaches for multi-criteria inventory classification. Int J Prod Econ 156:62–74
Molenaers A, Baets H, Pintelon L, Waeyenbergh G (2012) Criticality classification of spare parts: a case study. Int J Prod Econ 140:570–578
Pedrycz W, Song M (2011) Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in group decision making and its optimization with an allocation of information granularity. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 19:527–539
Ramanathan R (2007) Supplier selection problem: integrating DEA with the approaches of total cost of ownership and AHP. Supply Chain Manag Intl J 12:258–261
Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS (1994) Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. Eur J Oper Res 79:249–265
Saaty TL (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill, New York
Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26
Saaty TL (2013) The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: the AHP/ANP approach. Oper Res 61:1101–1118
Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2005) Dispersion of group judgments. Proc ISAHP 2005
Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2007) Dispersion of group judgments. Math Comput Model 46:918–925
Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012) The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions. Soc Choice Welf 38:481–496
Scala NM (2011) Spare parts management for nuclear power generation facilities. Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh
Scala NM, Needy KL, Rajgopal J (2010) Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in group decision making for nuclear spare parts. Proc 31st Annu ASEM Natl Conf
Scala NM, Rajgopal J, Needy KL (2014) Managing spare parts inventories: a data driven methodology. IEEE Trans Eng Manag 61:28–37
Subramanian N, Ramanathan R (2012) A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management. Int J Prod Econ 138:215–241
Van den Honert RC (1998) Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: a model of group consensus. Eur J Oper Res 110:99–111
Van den Honert RC (2001) Decisional power in group decision making: a note on the allocation of group members’ weights in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Group Decis Negotiat 10:275–286
Van den Honert RC, Lootsma FA (1996) Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP: the model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality. Eur J Oper Res 96:363–370
Vargas L (1997) Comments on Barzilai and Lootsma, why the multiplicative AHP is invalid; a practical counterexample. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 6:169–170
Wei C, Chien C, Wang MJ (2005) An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection. Int J Prod Econ 96:47–62
Xu Z, Yager RR (2010) Power-geometric operators and their use in group decision making. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 18:94–105
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Scala, N.M., Rajgopal, J., Vargas, L.G. et al. Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Group Decis Negot 25, 355–372 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9445-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9445-7