Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 283, Issue 1–2, pp 1489–1516 | Cite as

Efficient interpretive ranking process incorporating implicit and transitive dominance relationships

Applications of OR in Disaster Relief Operations, Part II


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.


Disaster management Efficiency Implicit dominance IRP MCDM Transitivity 


  1. Gangotra, A., & Shankar, R. (2016). Strategies in managing risks in the adoption of business analytics practices: A case study of a telecom service provider. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 29(3), 374–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Haleem, A., Sushil, Qadri, M. A., & Kumar, S. (2012). Analysis of critical success factors of world-class manufacturing practices: An application of interpretive structural modelling and interpretive ranking process. Production Planning & Control, 23(10–11), 722–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ho, W., Xu, X., & Dey, P. K. (2010). Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 202(1), 16–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jeng, D. J. F., & Huang, K. H. (2015). Strategic project portfolio selection for national research institutes. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2305–2311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kaur, H., Singh, S. P., & Glardon, R. (2016). An integer linear program for integrated supplier selection: A sustainable flexible framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 17(2), 113–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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
  9. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2014). A flexible decision framework for building risk mitigation strategies in green supply chain using SAP-LAP and IRP approaches. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3), 203–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Mangla, S. K., Kumar, P., & Barua, M. K. (2015). Flexible decision modeling for evaluating the risks in green supply chain using fuzzy AHP and IRP methodologies. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 16(1), 19–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytical hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: Mcgraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make decision: The analytical decision process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sharma, V., Dixit, A. R., & Qadri, M. A. (2016). Modeling lean implementation for manufacturing sector. Journal of Modelling in Management, 11(2), 405–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Simon, H. A. (1957). Rationality and decision-making- models of man. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Sushil, (2001). SAP-LAP framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 2(1), 51–55.Google Scholar
  17. 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
  18. Sushil, (2009a). Interpretive ranking process. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(4), 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sushil. (2009b). SAP-LAP linkages: A generic interpretive framework for analyzing managerial contexts. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 10(2), 11–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Sushil. (2012). Interpreting the interpretive structural model. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 13(2), 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sushil. (2016). How to check correctness of total interpretive structural models? Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-016-2312-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, C. Y. (2012). Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing and logistics systems. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Vaidya, O. S., & Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ware, N. R., Singh, S. P., & Banwet, D. K. (2014). Modeling flexible supplier selection framework. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 15(3), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Warfield, J. N. (1974). Toward interpretation of complex structural models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 4(5), 405–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Kildienė, S. (2014). State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 20(1), 165–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Management StudiesIndian Institute of Technology DelhiNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations