Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (hereafter AHP) is a popular multi-criteria decision-making technique. The extant AHP literature usually depicts the geometric mean or the arithmetic mean as a measure of aggregation to process group decisions. However, both these measures are subject to the influence of extreme opinions, and aggregations based on them may not accurately portray the true group preference. In this paper, we propose the Common Priority Vector Procedure, which accentuates the majority group preference and diminishes the influence of extreme individual opinions. The method has been further extended to deal with multi-actor, multi-criteria and multi-group decisions. The development of Common Priority Vector Procedure, presented here, has been motivated by a real case study presented towards the end of the paper.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aczel, J., & Saaty, T. (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7, 93–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguaron, J., Escobar, M., & Moreno-Jimenéz, J. (2016). The precise consistency consensus matrix in a local AHP-group decision making context. Annals of Operations Research, 245, 245–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J., & Pérez-García, R. (2011). Achieving matrix consistency in ahp through linearization. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35, 4449–4457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benítez, J., Delgado-Galván, X., Izquierdo, J., & Pérez-García, R. (2012). An approach to AHP decision in a dynamic context. Decision Support Systems, 53, 499–506.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bozóki, S., & Lewis, R. (2005). Solving the least squares method problem in the ahp for 3 \(\times \) 3 and 4 \(\times \) 4 matrices. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 13, 255–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunelli, M., Canal, L., & Fedrizzi, M. (2013). Inconsistency indices for pairwise comparison matrices: A numerical study. Annals of Operations Research, 211, 493–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunelli, M., & Fedrizzi, M. (2018). A general formulation for some inconsistency indices of pairwise comparisons. Annals of Operations Research.,. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2936-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, J., & Chang, J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart–Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 283–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, K., Kou, G., Tarn, M., & Song, Y. (2015). Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices. Annals of Operations Research, 235, 155–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csató, L. (2018). Characterization of an inconsistency ranking for pairwise comparison matrices. Annals of Operations Research, 261, 155–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, A., Kalaba, R., & Spingarn, K. (1979). A comparison of two methods for determining the weight belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, 4, 531–538.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo, M. G., Piva, E., & Rossi-Lamastra, C. (2014). Open innovation and within-industry diversification in small and medium enterprises: The case of open source software firms. Research Policy, 43(5), 891–902.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corradini, C., Demirel, P., & Battisti, G. (2016). Technological diversification within UK’s small serial innovators. Small Business Economics, 47(1), 163–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Y., Xu, H., & Dai, M. (2008). A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in ahp. European Journal of Operational Research, 186, 229–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J., & Forman, E. (1992). Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decision Support Systems, 8, 99–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farkas, A. (2016). Balancing pairwise comparison matrices by transitive matrices. Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3–4), 397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E., & Peniwati, K. (1998). Aggregating individual judgements and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108, 165–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gass, S., & Rapcsak, T. (2004). Singular value decomposition in ahp. European Journal of Operational Research, 154, 573–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gentle, J. E. (2007). Matrix algebra. Theory, computations, and applications in statistics. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. (2016). Multiple criteria decision analysis. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Groselj, P., Stirn, L., Ayrilmis, N., & Kuzman, M. (2015). Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 2198–2204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanafi, M., Mazerolles, G., Dufour, E., & Qannari, E. (2006). Common components and specific weight analysis and multiple co-inertia analysis applied to the coupling of several measurement techniques. Journal of Chemometrics, 20(5), 172–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011). Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 7317–7325.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Lusti, M. (2006). How to derive priorities in ahp: A comparative study. Central European Journal of Operational Research, 14(4), 387–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis methods and software. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazibudzki, P. (2016). An examination of performance relations among selected consistency measures for simulated pairwise judgments. Annals of Operations Research, 244, 525–544.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Kou, G., & Ergu, D. (2013a). A heuristic approach for deriving the priority vector in ahp. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37(8), 5828–5836.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C., Kou, G., & Ergu, D. (2013b). An improved statistical approach for consistency test in AHP. Annals of Operations Research, 211, 289–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linares, P., Lumbreras, S., Santamaria, A., & Veiga, A. (2016). How relevant is the lack of reciprocity in pairwise comparisons? An experiment with AHP. Annals of Operations Research, 245, 227–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madu, C., & Kuei, C. (1995). Stability analyses of group decision making. Computers and Industrial Engineering, 28, 881–892.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, G., Neck, H., & Meeks, M. (2002). The entrepreneurship-strategic management interface. In M. Hitt, R. Ireland, S. Camp, & D. Sexton (Eds.), Strategic entrepreneurship: Creating a new mindset (pp. 19–44). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jimenéz, J., Salvador, M., Gargallo, P., & Altuzarrra, A. (2016). Systemic decision making in AHP: A Bayesian approach. Annals of Operations Research, 245, 261–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ortega, J. M. (1968). The Newton–Kantorovich Theorem. The American Mathematical Monthly, 75(6), 658–660.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira, V., & Costa, H. (2015). Nonlinear programming applied to the reduction of inconsistency in the AHP method. Annals of Operations Research, 229, 635–655.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qannari, E., Wakeling, I., Courcoux, P., & MacFie, H. (2000). Defining the underlining sensory dimensions. Food Quality and Preference, 11(1–2), 151–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in ahp: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79, 249–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T., & Vargas, L. (2007). Dispersion of group judgments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46, 918–925.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandulli, F., Fernández-Menéndez, J., Rodríguez-Duarte, A., & López-Sánchez, J. I. (2012). The productivity payoff of information technology in multimarket SMEs. Small Business Economics, 39(1), 99–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Honert, R., & Lootsma, F. (1996). Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative ahp. The model of the group decision process and pareto optimality. European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 363–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargas, L. (2009). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, X., Hub, Y., Deng, Y., Chan, F., & Ishizaka, A. (2018). A DEMATEL-based completion method for incomplete pairwise comparison matrix in AHP. Annals of Operations Research. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-018-2769-3.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sannio, Benevento, Italy

    Pietro Amenta, Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli

  2. Faculty of Business & Law, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, PO1 3DE, UK

    Alessio Ishizaka & Vijay Vyas

Authors
  1. Pietro Amenta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessio Ishizaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonio Lucadamo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gabriella Marcarelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Vijay Vyas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriella Marcarelli.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands (http://kapis.wkap.nl/kaphtml.htm/IFA0254-5330).

Appendix

Appendix

figure b
figure c
figure d
figure e

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Amenta, P., Ishizaka, A., Lucadamo, A. et al. Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context. Ann Oper Res 284, 33–62 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03258-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03258-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation