Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 483–497 | Cite as

Cross-Weight Evaluation for Pairwise Comparison Matrices

  • Ying-Ming WangEmail author
  • Ying Luo
  • Yi-Song Xu
Article

Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) methodology has recently been applied to weight derivation in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). This paper proposes a cross-weight evaluation technique, which is similar to the cross-efficiency evaluation in DEA, for priority determination in the AHP. The cross-weight evaluation produces true weights for perfectly consistent pairwise comparison matrices and logical weights for inconsistent pairwise comparison matrices. Numerical examples are examined to illustrate the advantages and potential applications of the cross-weight evaluation in priority determination in the AHP.

Keywords

Data envelopment analysis Analytic hierarchy process Cross-weight evaluation Multiple criteria decision making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bryson N (1995) A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. J Oper Res Soc 46(5): 641–648Google Scholar
  2. Caporaletti LE, Dulá JH, Womer NK (1999) Performance evaluation based on multiple attributes with nonparametric frontiers. Omega 27(6): 637–645CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur J Oper Res 2(6): 429–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cogger KO, Yu PL (1985) Eigenweight vectors and least-distance approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios. J Optim Theory Appl 46(4): 483–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Doyle JR, Green RH (1994) Efficiency and cross-efficiency in DEA: derivations, meanings and uses. J Oper Res Soc 45(5): 567–578Google Scholar
  6. Hosseinian SS, Navidi H, Hajfathaliha A (2009) A new linear programming method for weights generation and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. Group Decis Negotiat. doi: 10.1007/s10726-009-9182-x
  7. Ramanathan R (2006) Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic hierarchy process. Comput Oper Res 33(5): 1289–1307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sexton TR, Silkman RH, Hogan AJ (1986) Data envelopment analysis: critique and extensions. In: Silkman RH (ed) Measuring efficiency: an assessment of data envelopment analysis. Jossey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  9. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Saaty TL (1990) Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares. Eur J Oper Res 48(1): 156–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Sevkli M, Koh SCL, Zaim S, Demirbag M, Tatoglu E (2007) An application of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: a case study of BEKO in Turkey. Int J Prod Res 45(9): 1973–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Soares de Mello JCCB, Angulo-Meza L, Branco da Silva BP (2009) A ranking for the olympic games with unitary input DEA models. IMA J Manag Math 20(2): 201–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wang YM (1999) Using DEA method to make decision for multiple attributes. Forecasting 6: 64–66Google Scholar
  14. Wang YM, Xu NR (1991) A linear programming method of priority in AHP. Chin J Ind Eng Eng Manag 5(2): 20–25Google Scholar
  15. Wang YM, Chin KS (2009) A new data envelopment analysis method for priority determination and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 195(1): 239–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang YM, Chin KS (2011) A linear programming approximation to the eigenvector method in the analytic hierarchy process. Inf Sci 181(23): 5240–5248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wang YM, Parkan C, Luo Y (2007) Priority estimation in the AHP through maximization of correlation coefficient. Appl Math Model 31(12): 2711–2718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon GKK (2008a) A data envelopment analysis method with assurance region for weight generation in the analytic hierarchy process. Decis Support Syst 45(4): 913–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang YM, Parkan C, Luo Y (2008b) A linear programming method for generating the most favorable weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. Comput Oper Res 35(12): 3918–3930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wang YM, Chin KS, Leung JPF (2009a) A note on the application of the data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection. Int J Prod Res 47(11): 3121–3138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wang YM, Chin KS, Luo Y (2009b) Aggregation of direct and indirect judgments in pairwise comparison matrices with a re-examination of the criticisms by Bana e Costa and Vansnick. Inf Sci 179(3): 329–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Decision Sciences InstituteFuzhou UniversityFuzhouPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.School of ManagementXiamen UniversityXiamenPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations