Advertisement

Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 271, Issue 2, pp 1045–1066 | Cite as

A DEMATEL-based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP

  • Xinyi Zhou
  • Yong Hu
  • Yong Deng
  • Felix T. S. Chan
  • Alessio Ishizaka
Original Research

Abstract

Pairwise comparison matrix (PCM) as a crucial component of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) presents the preference relations among alternatives. However, in many cases, the PCM is difficult to be completed, which obstructs the subsequent operations of the classical AHP. In this paper, based on decision-making and trial evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method which has ability to derive the total relation matrix from direct relation matrix, a new completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix (iPCM) is proposed. The proposed method provides a new perspective to estimate the missing values in iPCMs with explicit physical meaning, which is straightforward and flexible. Several experiments are implemented as well to present the completion ability of the proposed method and some insights into the proposed method and matrix consistency.

Keywords

AHP Pairwise comparison matrix Completion method Missing values DEMATEL 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly appreciate the reviewer’s constructive suggestions and the editor’s encouragement. The work is partially supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 61573290, 61503237).

References

  1. Alonso, S., Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Alcalá-Fdez, J., & Porcel, C. (2008). A consistency-based procedure to estimate missing pairwise preference values. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 23(2), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J., & Pérez-García, R. (2015). Consistent completion of incomplete judgments in decision making using AHP. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics, 290, 412–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Rónyai, L. (2010). On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 52(1), 318–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brunelli, M., Canal, L., & Fedrizzi, M. (2013). Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: A numerical study. Annals of Operations Research, 211(1), 493–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brunelli, M., & Fedrizzi, M. (2015). Boundary properties of the inconsistency of pairwise comparisons in group decisions. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 765–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Büyüközkan, G., & Çifçi, G. (2012). A new incomplete preference relations based approach to quality function deployment. Information Sciences, 206, 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Büyüközkan, G., & Görener, A. (2015). Evaluation of product development partners using an integrated AHP-VIKOR model. Kybernetes, 44(2), 220–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chan, F. T., Jha, A., & Tiwari, M. K. (2016). Bi-objective optimization of three echelon supply chain involving truck selection and loading using NSGA-II with heuristics algorithm. Applied Soft Computing, 38, 978–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chan, F. T., & Kumar, N. (2007). Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach. Omega, 35(4), 417–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cheng, B., Hu, S., Wang, J.W., & Dong, Y. Y. (2016). A goal programming approach for group decision making with four incomplete preference relations. In 2016 International conference on intelligent networking and collaborative systems (INCoS) (pp. 435–438). IEEEGoogle Scholar
  11. Chen, K., Kou, G., Tarn, J. M., & Song, Y. (2015). Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices. Annals of Operations Research, 235(1), 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Ishizaka, A. (2016). Combining analytical hierarchy process and choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression. Omega, 61, 2–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Csató, L., & Rónyai, L. (2016). Incomplete pairwise comparison matrices and weighting methods. Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3–4), 309–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dey, P. K., & Cheffi, W. (2013). Green supply chain performance measurement using the analytic hierarchy process: A comparative analysis of manufacturing organisations. Production Planning & Control, 24(8–9), 702–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong, Y., Wang, J., Chen, F., Hu, Y., & Deng, Y. (2017). Location of facility based on simulated annealing and “ZKW” algorithms. Mathematical Problems in Engineering. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4628501.Google Scholar
  16. Emrouznejad, A., & Marra, M. (2017). The state of the art development of AHP (1979–2017): A literature review with a social network analysis. International Journal of Production Research, 55, 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erdogan, M., & Kaya, I. (2016a). A combined fuzzy approach to determine the best region for a nuclear power plant in Turkey. Applied Soft Computing, 39, 84–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Erdogan, M., & Kaya, I. (2016b). Evaluating alternative-fuel busses for public transportation in Istanbul using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP and TOPSIS. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing, 26(6), 625–642.Google Scholar
  19. Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., Shi, Y., & Shi, Y. (2013). The analytic hierarchy process: Task scheduling and resource allocation in cloud computing environment. The Journal of Supercomputing, 64, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Zhang, M. (2016). Estimating the missing values for the incomplete decision matrix and consistency optimization in emergency management. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 40(1), 254–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fedrizzi, M., & Giove, S. (2007). Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 183(1), 303–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fei, L., Wang, H., Chen, L., & Deng, Y. (2017). A new vector valued similarity measure for intuitionistic fuzzy sets based on OWA operators. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems (accepted).Google Scholar
  23. Fontela, E., & Gabus, A. (1976). The DEMATEL observer. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Centre.Google Scholar
  24. Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World problems, an invitation to further thought within the framework of DEMATEL. Geneva: Battelle Geneva Research Center.Google Scholar
  25. Gomez-Ruiz, J. A., Karanik, M., & Peláez, J. I. (2010). Estimation of missing judgments in AHP pairwise matrices using a neural network-based model. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 216(10), 2959–2975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Govindan, K., Kaliyan, M., Kannan, D., & Haq, A. N. (2014). Barriers analysis for green supply chain management implementation in Indian industries using analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Production Economics, 147, 555–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harker, P. T. (1987). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837–848.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14,336–14,345.Google Scholar
  29. Ishizaka, A., & Pereira, V. E. (2016). Portraying an employee performance management system based on multi-criteria decision analysis and visual techniques. International Journal of Manpower, 37(4), 628–659.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ishizaka, A., Siraj, S., & Nemery, P. (2016). Which energy mix for the UK (United Kingdom)? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA (graphical analysis for interactive aid)-AHP (analytic hierarchy process) visualization tool. Energy, 95, 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jandova, V., Krejci, J., Stoklasa, J., & Fedrizzi, M. (2016). Computing interval weights for incomplete pairwise-comparison matrices of large dimension—A weak consistency based approach. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, PP(99), 1.Google Scholar
  32. Jiang, W., Wei, B., Tang, Y., & Zhou, D. (2017). Ordered visibility graph average aggregation operator: An application in produced water management. Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, 27(2), 023117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jiang, W., Wei, B., Zhan, J., Xie, C., & Zhou, D. (2016). A visibility graph power averaging aggregation operator: A methodology based on network analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 101, 260–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jiang, W., & Zhan, J. (2017). A modified combination rule in generalized evidence theory. Applied Intelligence, 46(3), 630–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kahraman, C., Suder, A., & Bekar, E. T. (2016). Fuzzy multiattribute consumer choice among health insurance options. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, A. H., Kang, H. Y., Lin, C. Y., & Shen, K. C. (2015). An integrated decision-making model for the location of a PV solar plant. Sustainability, 7(10), 13,522–13,541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Liang, Q., Liao, X., & Liu, J. (2017). A social ties-based approach for group decision-making problems with incomplete additive preference relations. Knowledge-Based Systems, 119, 68–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liou, J. J. H. (2015). Building an effective system for carbon reduction management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 103, 353–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Liou, J. J. H., Tamosaitiene, J., Zavadskas, E. K., & Tzeng, G. H. (2016). New hybrid COPRAS-G MADM model for improving and selecting suppliers in green supply chain management. International Journal of Production Research, 54(1, SI), 114–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Liu, S., Chan, F. T., & Ran, W. (2016). Decision making for the selection of cloud vendor: An improved approach under group decision-making with integrated weights and objective/subjective attributes. Expert Systems with Applications, 55, 37–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liu, T., Deng, Y., & Chan, F. (2017). Evidential supplier selection based on DEMATEL and game theory. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems,.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40815-017-0400-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mentes, A., Akyildiz, H., Yetkin, M., & Turkoglu, N. (2015). A FSA based fuzzy DEMATEL approach for risk assessment of cargo ships at coasts and open seas of Turkey. Safety Science, 79, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Miccoli, F., & Ishizaka, A. (2017). Sorting municipalities in Umbria according to the risk of wolf attacks with AHPSort II. Ecological Indicators, 73, 741–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mieza, I. Z., Yepes, V., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2017). A systematic review of application of multi-criteria decision analysis for aging-dam management. Journal of Cleaner Production, 147, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moreno-Jiménez, J. M., Salvador, M., Gargallo, P., & Altuzarra, A. (2016). Systemic decision making in AHP: A Bayesian approach. Annals of Operations Research, 245(1–2), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pinto, D., Shrestha, S., Babel, M. S., & Ninsawat, S. (2017). Delineation of groundwater potential zones in the Comoro watershed, Timor Leste using GIS, remote sensing and analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique. Applied Water Science, 7(1), 503–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pourahmad, A., Hosseini, A., Banaitis, A., Nasiri, H., Banaitiene, N., & Tzeng, G. H. (2015). Combination of fuzzy-AHP and DEMATEL-ANP with GIS in a new hybrid MCDM model used for the selection of the best space for leisure in a blighted urban site. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(5), 773–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodríguez, R. M., Bedregal, B., Bustince, H., Dong, Y., Farhadinia, B., Kahraman, C., et al. (2016). A position and perspective analysis of hesitant fuzzy sets on information fusion in decision making. Towards high quality progress. Information Fusion, 29, 89–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2330-1.
  50. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resources allocation. New York: McGraw.Google Scholar
  51. Saaty, T. L. (2004). Decision makingthe analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 13(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Santos, L. F. O. M., Osiro, L., & Lima, R. H. P. (2017). A model based on 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation and analytic hierarchy process for supplier segmentation using qualitative and quantitative criteria. Expert Systems with Applications, 79, 53–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shen, K. Y., & Tzeng, G. H. (2015). Combined soft computing model for value stock selection based on fundamental analysis. Applied Soft Computing, 37, 142–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Strassen, V. (1969). Gaussian elimination is not optimal. Numerische mathematik, 13(4), 354–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Su, C. M., Horng, D. J., Tseng, M. L., Chiu, A. S., Wu, K. J., & Chen, H. P. (2016). Improving sustainable supply chain management using a novel hierarchical grey-DEMATEL approach. Journal of Cleaner Production, 134, 469–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Tomashevskii, I. (2015). Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors. European Journal of Operational Research, 240(3), 774–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Tsai, S. B., Chien, M. F., Xue, Y., Li, L., Jiang, X., Chen, Q., et al. (2015). Using the fuzzy DEMATEL to determine environmental performance: A case of printed circuit board industry in Taiwan. PloS One, 10(6), e0129,153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Tsai, W. H., & Chou, W. C. (2009). Selecting management systems for sustainable development in SMEs: A novel hybrid model based on DEMATEL, ANP, and ZOGP. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(2), 1444–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tzeng, G. H., Chiang, C. H., & Li, C. W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning programs: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(4), 1028–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, C. Y. (2012). Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems. Annals of Operations Research, 197(1), 159–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Vetschera, R. (2017). Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches. European Journal of Operational Research, 258(1), 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wang, H., & Xu, Z. (2016). Interactive algorithms for improving incomplete linguistic preference relations based on consistency measures. Applied Soft Computing, 42, 66–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Wang, Y. M., Luo, Y., & Hua, Z. (2008). On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(2), 735–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wang, Z. J., & Li, K. W. (2016). Group decision making with incomplete intuitionistic preference relations based on quadratic programming models. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 93, 162–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wu, C. R., Lin, C. T., & Tsai, P. H. (2010). Evaluating business performance of wealth management banks. European Journal of Operational Research, 207(2), 971–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wu, H. H., & Chang, S. Y. (2015). A case study of using DEMATEL method to identify critical factors in green supply chain management. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 256, 394–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wu, K. J., Liao, C. J., Tseng, M. L., Lim, M. K., Hu, J., & Tan, K. (2017). Toward sustainability: Using big data to explore the decisive attributes of supply chain risks and uncertainties. Journal of Cleaner Production, 142, 663–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wu, W. W., & Lee, Y. T. (2007). Developing global managers competencies using the fuzzy DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(2), 499–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xu, Z. (2015). Deviation square priority method for distinct preference structures based on generalized multiplicative consistency. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 23(4), 1164–1180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Antucheviciene, J. (2015). Selecting a contractor by using a novel method for multiple attribute analysis: Weighted aggregated sum product assessment with grey values (WASPAS-G). Studies in Informatics and Control, 24(2), 141–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang, Q., Li, M., & Deng, Y. (2017). Measure the structure similarity of nodes in complex networks based on relative entropy. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2017.09.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Zhang, X., Deng, Y., Chan, F. T. S., Adamatzky, A., & Mahadevan, S. (2016). Supplier selection based on evidence theory and analytic network process. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 230(3), 562–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zhang, Z. (2016). Logarithmic least squares approaches to deriving interval weights, rectifying inconsistency and estimating missing values for interval multiplicative preference relations. Soft Computing,.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2049-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Zhou, X., Deng, X., Deng, Y., & Mahadevan, S. (2017a). Dependence assessment in human reliability analysis based on D numbers and AHP. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 313, 243–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Zhou, X., Shi, Y., Deng, X., & Deng, Y. (2017b). D-DEMATEL: A new method to identify critical success factors in emergency management. Safety Science, 91, 93–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xinyi Zhou
    • 1
    • 2
  • Yong Hu
    • 3
  • Yong Deng
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • Felix T. S. Chan
    • 5
  • Alessio Ishizaka
    • 6
  1. 1.Institute of Fundamental and Frontier ScienceUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of ChinaChengduChina
  2. 2.Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer ScienceSyracuse UniversitySyracuseUSA
  3. 3.Big Data Decision InstituteJinan UniversityTianheChina
  4. 4.School of Computer and Information ScienceSouthwest UniversityChongqingChina
  5. 5.Department of Industrial and Systems EngineeringThe Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityHung HomHong Kong
  6. 6.Portsmouth Business School, Richmond BuildingUniversity of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations