The elicitation process, which provides initial data for further analysis in various decision making problems, can influence the final result (preference scores, weights). The elicitation process is crucial for getting consistent, near-consistent or inconsistent PCM. Decision support systems apply different approaches in practice. This paper aims at investigating two questions. Correction methods are interpreted and analyzed from the viewpoints of their philosophy and techniques to decrease the degree of inconsistency. On the other hand improving consistency in real-world decision problems is not possible without additional information from the decision maker. The proposed interactive method can be applied for individual decision making problems with verbal scale. The involvement of the decision maker and a heuristic rule can ensure that the process either provides a near-consistent and error-free PCM or demonstrates the inability of the decision maker to reach that goal.
Pairwise comparison matrices Elicitation methods Inconsistency Multi-attribute decision making Decision support
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick JC (2008) A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. Eur J Oper Res 187:1422–1428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belton V, Gear T (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3):228–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozóki S, Rapcsák T (2008) On Saaty’s and Koczkodaj’s inconsistencies of pairwise comparison matrices. J Global Optim 42(2):157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Rónyai L (2010) On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Math Comput Model 52(1–2):318–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Poesz A (2011) On pairwise comparison matrices that can be made consistent by the modification of a few elements. CEJOR 19(2):157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bozóki S, Fülöp J, Poesz A (2015) On reducing inconsistency of pairwise comparison matrices below an acceptance threshold. CEJOR 23(4):849–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar