Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process

Abstract

The well-planned investment in a robust Information System (IS) is essential for the sustainability of a firm’s competitive advantage. The careful selection of a suitable adoption plan for the IS investment is vital, especially in the early preparedness stage of a system development life cycle (SDLC), as this has a long-lasting impact on the SDLC. The selection process involves a complex, multiple criteria decision making process. The adoption of a multiple criteria decision tool, the Primitive Cognitive Network Process (PCNP), an alternative of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), can be challenging due to the minor differences among objects which are not appropriately evaluated by multiplication or ratio. This commonly results in rating judgement that occurs during the selection of alternatives. To address the challenges with IS planning, this paper proposes the use of the PCNP in various decision models. Three established studies of IS projects using the AHP are revisited using the proposed PCNP to demonstrate the feasibility and usability of the PCNP. The paper discusses data conversion from the AHP to the PCNP, its merits, and limitations. The proposed method can be a applied as an alternative decision tool for IS planning for various projects including Artificial Intelligence adoption projects, cloud sourcing planning projects, and mobile deployment projects.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Dwivedi YK, Wastell D, Laumer S, Henriksen HZ, Myers MD, Bunker D et al (2014) Research on information systems failures and successes: Status update and future directions. Inf Sys Front 17:143–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Saaty TL (1980) Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority, Setting. Resour Alloc, McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Muralidhar K, Santhanam R, Wilson RL (1990) Using the analytic hierarchy process for information system project selection. Inf Manag 18:87–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Yang C, Huang J-B (2000) A decision model for IS outsourcing. Int J Inf Manage 20:225–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Wang J-J, Yang D-L (2007) Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing. Comput Oper Res 34:3691–3700

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Wei C-C, Chien C-F, Wang M-JJ (2005) An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection. Int J prod econ 96:47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ahn BS, Choi SH (2007) ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean homeshopping company. J Oper Res Soc 59:322–330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Yazgan HR, Boran S, Goztepe K (2009) An ERP software selection process with using artificial neural network based on analytic network process approach. Expert Syst Appl 36:9214–9222

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chang S-I, Yen DC, Ng CS-P, Chang I-C, Yu S-Y (2010) An ERP system performance assessment model development based on the balanced scorecard approach. Inf Sys Front 13:429–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Sarkis J, Sundarraj RP (2003) Evaluating Componentized Enterprise Information Technologies: A Multiattribute Modeling Approach. Inf Sys Front 5:303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Chang C-W, Wu C-R, Lin C-T, Lin H-L (2007) Evaluating digital video recorder systems using analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes. Inf Sci 177:3383–3396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ngai EWT, Chan EWC (2005) Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. Expert Syst Appl 29:889–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ossadnik W, Lange O (1999) AHP-based evaluation of AHP-Software. Eur J Oper Res 118:578–588

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Yuen KKF, Lau HCW (2011) A fuzzy group analytical hierarchy process approach for software quality assurance management: Fuzzy logarithmic least squares method. Expert Syst Appl 38:10292–10302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Razavi M, Shams Aliee F, Badie K (2010) An AHP-based approach toward enterprise architecture analysis based on enterprise architecture quality attributes. Knowl Inf Syst 28:449–472

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ecer F (2020) Multi-criteria decision making for green supplier selection using interval type-2 fuzzy AHP: a case study of a home appliance manufacturer. Oper Res. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-020-00552-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Belton V, Gear T (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11:228–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Harker PT, Vargas LG (1987) The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process. Manage Sci 33:1383–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Dyer JS (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 36:249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Forman EH (1993) Facts and fictions about the analytic hierarchy process. Math Comput Model 17:19–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Smith JE, Dv W (2004) Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science. Manag Sci 50:561–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gass SI (2005) Model world: The great debate - MAUT versus AHP. Interfaces 35:308–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Barzilai J (1998) On the decomposition of value functions11Research supported in part by NSERC. Oper Res Lett 22:159–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Whitaker R (2007) Criticisms of the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Why they often make no sense. Math Comput Model 46:948–961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Koczkodaj WW, Mikhailov L, Redlarski G, Soltys M, Szybowski J, Tamazian G et al (2016) Important Facts and Observations about Pairwise Comparisons. Fundamenta Informaticae 144:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Yuen KKF (2009) Cognitive network process with fuzzy soft computing technique for collective decision aiding. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Ph.D. thesis.

  29. Yuen KKF (2012) Pairwise opposite matrix and its cognitive prioritization operators: Comparisons with pairwise reciprocal matrix and analytic prioritization operators. J Oper Res Soc 63:322–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yuen KKF (2014) The Primitive Cognitive Network Process in healthcare and medical decision making: Comparisons with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Appl Soft Comput. 14:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Brans J-P, Mareschal B. (2005) Promethee methods. In: Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer: New York. (pp. 163–86).

  32. Brans J-P (1982) L’ingénierie de la décision. L’élaboration d’instruments d’aide à la décision. University Laval, Quebec

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin Kam Fung Yuen.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Tables 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.

Table 14 Pairwise reciprocal matrices (Muralidhar et al. 1990) and consistence ratios (CRs) for IS project comparisons (Case 1)
Table 15 Prioritization results, aggregation results, and ranks using AHP (Case 1)
Table 16 Pairwise reciprocal matrices (Yang and Huang 2000) and consistence ratios (CRs) for Case 2
Table 17 Aggregation of weights from AHP results (Case 2)
Table 18 Absolute measurement score (Yang and Huang 2000), weighted decision table with aggregation results and ranks using AHP (Case 2)
Table 19 Pairwise reciprocal matrix (Wang and Yang 2007) and weight (CR = 0.036) (Case 3)
Table 20 PROMETHEE flows with AHP (Case 3)

Appendix 2: (PROMETHEE II).

On the basis of (Brans et al. 2005), the notations and details of PROMETHEE II used in this paper are presented as below.

Step 1: Formulate decision matrix

A typical m by n decision matrix O is shown Eq. (3).

Step 2: Calculate aggregated preference indices

\(P_{j} \left( {T_{i} ,T_{k} } \right) = P_{j} \left( {d\left( {T_{i} ,T_{k} } \right)} \right) = P_{j} \left( {r_{ij} - r_{kj} } \right)\) is a preference function to measure how much \(T_{i}\) prefers to \(T_{k}\) with respect to \(c_{j}\). Six types of preference functions \(P\left( d \right)\)’s were proposed in (Brans et al. 2005). Aggregated preference index \(\pi \left( {T_{i} ,T_{k} } \right)\) shown as below indicates the degree of how \(T_{i}\) is preferred to \(T_{k}\) over all the criteria.

$$\pi \left( {T_{i} ,T_{k} } \right) = \frac{{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} {P_{j} \left( {T_{i} ,T_{k} } \right) \cdot w_{j} } }}{{\sum\limits_{j = 1}^{n} {w_{j} } }}\forall T_{i} ,T_{k} \in T\;and\;i \ne k$$
(A1)

Step 3: Calculate outranking flow

In order to rank the alternatives, the outranking flows are defined as follows.

The positive outranking flow is of the form:

$$\phi^{ + } \left( {T_{i} } \right) = \frac{1}{m - 1}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{m} {\pi \left( {T_{i} ,T_{k} } \right)}$$
(A2)

The negative outranking flow is of the form:

$$\phi^{ - } \left( {T_{i} } \right) = \frac{1}{m - 1}\sum\limits_{k = 1}^{m} {\pi \left( {T_{k} ,T_{i} } \right)}$$
(A3)

The net outranking flow is applied and is of the form:

$$\phi \left( {T_{i} } \right) = \phi ^{ + } \left( {T_{i} } \right) - \phi ^{ - } \left( {T_{i} } \right),\quad \forall i \in \left\{ {1, \ldots ,m} \right\}$$
(A4)

Appendix 3

See Table 21.

Table 21 Summary of Notations: See 21

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yuen, K.K.F. Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process. Oper Res Int J (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-021-00628-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Information system engineering
  • Pairwise comparison
  • Primitive cognitive network process
  • Analytic hierarchy process
  • PROMETHEE