Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships
- 290 Downloads
Interpretive ranking process (IRP) is a multi-criteria decision making method based on paired comparison in an interpretive manner. Due to paired comparisons, the number of interpretations to be made for n ranking variables are \(n(n-1)/2\) to establish dominance with respect to each reference variable or criterion. IRP is a knowledge intensive method and thus a large number of comparisons poses a limitation on the number of rankling as well as reference variables to be considered in the design of the decision problem. This paper is intended to make the process of comparison more efficient so that this limitation on number of variables can be relaxed to handle comparatively large size problems as well. The number of interpretive comparisons can be drastically reduced by considering both implicit and transitive dominance relationships. It provides a critical review of IRP steps and suggests improvements to make it more efficient. It then illustrates the modified IRP method on a couple of already published examples (including an example on post-disaster management) and summarizes the reduction in interpretive comparisons that indirectly gives a measure of increase in its efficiency.
KeywordsDisaster management Efficiency Implicit dominance IRP MCDM Transitivity
- Hughes, D. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Rana, N. P. (2017). Mapping IS failure factors on PRINCE2\(\textregistered \) stages: An application of interpretive ranking process (IRP). Production Planning & Control. doi: 10.1080/09537287.2017.1311431.
- Lamata, M. T., Liern, V., & Pérez-Gladish, B. (2016). Doing good by doing well: A MCDM framework for evaluating corporate social responsibility attractiveness. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2271-8.
- Luthra, S., Garg, D., & Haleem, A. (2015). Critical success factors of green supply chain management for achieving sustainability in indian automobile industry. Production Planning & Control, 26(5), 339–362.Google Scholar
- Rouyendegh, B. D., Oztekin, A., Ekong, J., & Dag, A. (2016). Measuring the efficiency of hospitals: A fully-ranking DEA–FAHP approach. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2330-1.
- Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Simon, H. A. (1957). Rationality and decision-making- models of man. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Sushil, (2001). SAP-LAP framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2(1), 51–55.Google Scholar
- Sushil, (2005). Interpretive matrix: A tool to aid interpretation of management and social research. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 6(2), 27–30.Google Scholar
- Sushil, (2009a). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
- Sushil. (2009b). SAP-LAP linkages: A generic interpretive framework for analyzing managerial contexts. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(2), 11–20.Google Scholar
- Sushil. (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106.Google Scholar
- Sushil. (2016). How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models? Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2312-3.
- Sushil. (2017a). Multi-criteria valuation of flexibility initiatives using integrated TISM-IRP with a big data framework. Production Planning & Control, 28(11–12), 999–1010.Google Scholar
- Sushil. (2017b). Theory building using SAP-LAP linkages: An application in the context of disaster management. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-017-2425-3.