Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

PL EN

• # Article details

## Multiple Criteria Decision Making

2013 | 8 | 143-159

## Estimating Priorities in Group AHP Using Interval Comparison Matrices

EN

### Abstracts

EN
In this paper analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a well-known approach for handling multi-criteria decision making problems, is discussed. It is based on pairwise comparisons. The methods for deriving the priority vectors from comparison matrices are examined. The existing methods for aggregating the individual comparison matrices into a group comparison matrix are revised. A method for aggregation, called WGMDEA, is proposed for application in the case study. Because exact (crisp) values cannot always express the subjectivity and the lack of information on the part of a decision maker, the interval judgments are more suitable in such cases. Two main methodological problems emerge when dealing with interval comparison matrices in group AHP: a) to aggregate individual crisp preferences into the joint interval matrix, b) to calculate the weights from the joint interval comparison matrix. In the paper we first discuss the already proposed approaches to the aggregation of individual matrices, and the derivation of weights from interval comparison matrices, pertained to AHP group decision making methodology. Then, a new method, ADEXTREME, for generating the interval group judgments from individual judgments is proposed. A numerical example based on Rural Development Program of the Republic of Slovenia in 2007-2013 is presented to illustrate the new methodology for deriving the weights from interval comparison matrices. The results obtained by WGMDEA, MEDINT and ADEXTREME methods are compared.

EN
PL

143-159

author
author

### References

• Arbel A., Vargas L. (2007), Interval Judgments and Euclidean Centers, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46(7-8), p. 976-984.
• Arbel A., Vargas L.G. (1993), Preference Simulation and Preference Programming: Robustness Issues in Priority Derivation, European Journal of Operational Research 69(2), p. 200-209.
• Bryson N. (1995), A Goal Programming Method for Generating Priority Vectors, Journal of Operational Research Society, 46(5), p. 641-648.
• Biyson N., Joseph A. (1999), Generating Consensus Priority Point Vectors: A Logarithmic Goal Programming Approach, Computers & Operations Research 26(6), p. 637-643.
• Chandran B., Golden B., Wasil E. (2005), Linear Programming Models for Estimating Weights in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Computers & Operations Research 32(9), p. 2235-2254.
• Chiclana F., Herrera F., Herrera-Viedma E. (2000), The Ordered Weighted Geometric Operator: Properties and Application, in: Proceedings of 8th Conference on Information Processing and Management of Uncertainty in Knowledgebased Systems (IPMU 2000), eds. T. Calvo, R. Mesiar, B.D. Baets, Springer, Madrid, Spain, p. 985-991.
• Cho Y.-G., Cho K.-T. (2008), A Loss Function Approach to Group Preference Aggregation in theAHP, Computers & Operations Research 35(3), p. 884-892.
• Chu A.T.W., Kalaba R.E., Spingarn K. (1979), A Comparison of Two Methods for Determining the Weights of Belonging to Fuzzy Sets, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 27(4), p. 531-538.
• Conde E., de la Paz Rivera Perez M. (2010), A Linear Optimization Problem to Derive Relative Weights Using an Interval Judgment Matrix, European Journal of Operational Research 201(2), p. 537-544.
• Cook W.D., Kress M. (1988), Deriving Weights from Pairwise Comparison Ratio Matrices: An Axiomatic Approach, European Journal of Operational Research 37(3), p. 355-362.
• Cox M.A.A. (2007), Examining Alternatives in the Interval Analytic Hierarchy Process Using Complete Enumeration, European Journal of Operational Research 180(2), p. 957-962.
• Crawford G., Williams C. (1985), A Note on the Analysis of Subjective Judgment Matrices, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29(4), p. 387-405.
• Entani T., Inuiguchi M. (2010), Group Decisions in Internal AHP Based on Interval Regression Analysis, in: Integrated Uncertainty' Management and Applications, eds. V.N. Huynh, Y. Nakamori, J. Lawry & M. Inuiguchi, Springer, Berlin, p. 269-280.
• Escobar M.T., Moreno-Jimenez J.M. (2007), Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in AHP-Group Decision Making, Group Decision and Negotiation 16(4), p. 287-301.
• Facchinetti G., Ricci R.G., Muzzioli S. (1998), Note on Ranking Fuzzy Triangular Numbers, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 13(7), p. 613-622.
• Forman E., Peniwati, K. (1998), Aggregating Individual Judgments and Priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research 108(1), p. 165-169.
• Gass S.I., Rapcsak T. (2004), Singular Value Decomposition in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 154(3), p. 573-584.
• Groselj P., Pezdevsek Malovrh S., Zadnik Stirn L. (2011), Methods Based on Data Envelopment Analysis for Deriving Group Priorities in Analytic Hierarchy Process, Central European Journal of Operations Research 19(3), p. 267-284.
• Groselj P., Zadnik Stirn L. (2011), Interval Comparison Matrices in Group AHP, in: SOR '11 proceedings/The 11th International Symposium on Operational Research in Slovenia, eds. L. Zadnik Stirn, J. Zerovnik, J. Povh, S. Drobne, A. Lisec, Slovenian Society Informatika (SDI), Section for Operational Research (SOR), Dolenjske Toplice, Slovenia, p. 143-148.
• Hosseinian S., Navidi H., Hajfathaliha A. (2009), A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation and Group Decision Making in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Group Decision and Negotiation 21(3), p. 1-22.
• Huang Y.S., Liao J.T., Lin Z.L. (2009), A Study on Aggregation of Group Decisions, Systems Research and Behavioral Science 26(4), p. 445-454.
• Lan J., Lin J., Cao L. (2009), An Information Mining Method for Deriving Weights from an Interval Comparison Matrix, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 50(3-4), p. 393-400.
• Liu F. (2009), Acceptable Consistency Analysis of Interval Reciprocal Comparison Matrices, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 160(18), p. 2686-2700.
• Mikhailov L. (2000), A Fuzzy Programming Method for Deriving Priorities in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, The Journal of the Operational Research Society 51(3), p. 341-349.
• Mikhailov L. (2004), Group Prioritization in the AHP by Fuzzy Preference Programming Method, Computers & Operations Research 31(2), p. 293-301.
• Moreno-Jimenez J.M., Aguaron J., Escobar M.T. (2008), The Core oj Consistency in AHP-group Decision Making, Group Decision and Negotiation 17(3), p. 249-265.
• Peniwati K. (2007), Criteria for Evaluating Group Decision-making Methods, Mathematical and Computer Modelling 46(7-8), p. 935-947.
• PRP (2007), Program razvoja podezelja Republike Slovenije za obdobje 2007- 2013 (Rural Development Programme of the Republic of Slovenia 2007-2013), g.i.p. Ministrstvo za kmetijstvo, Republic Slovenia, Ljubljana.
• Ramanathan R., Ganesh L.S. (1994), Group Preference Aggregation Methods Employed in AHP: An Evaluation and an Intrinsic Process for Deriving Members' Weightages. European Journal of Operational Research 79(2), p. 249-265.
• Regan H.M., Colyvan M., Markovchick-Nicholls L. (2006), A Formal Model for Consensus and Negotiation in Environmental Management, Journal of Environmental Management 80(2), p. 167-176.
• Saaty T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Saaty T.L. (2006), Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
• Saaty T.L., Peniwati K. (2008), Group Decision Making: Drawing Out and Reconciling Differences, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
• Sun L., Greenberg B. (2006), Multicriteria Group Decision Making: Optimal Priority Synthesis from Pairwise Comparisons, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 130(2), p. 317-339.
• Vaidya O.S., Kumar S. (2006), Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Overview of Applications, European Journal of Operational Research 169(1), p. 1-29.
• Wang Y.M., Chin K.S. (2009), A New Data Envelopment Analysis Method for Priority Determination and Group Decision Making in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research 195(1), p. 239-250.
• Wang Y.-M., Yang J.B., Xu D.L. (2005a), Interval Weight Generation Approaches Based on Consistency Test and Interval Comparison Matrices, Applied Mathematics and Computation 167(1), p. 252-273.
• Wang Y.-M., Yang J.B., Xu D.L. (2005b), A Two-Stage Logarithmic Goal Programming Method for Generating Weights from Interval Comparison Matrices, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 152(3), p. 475-498.
• Xu Z., Chen J. (2008), Some Models for Deriving the Priority Weights from Interval Fuzzy Preference Relations, European Journal of Operational Research 184(1), p. 266-280.
• Xu Z.S., Da Q.L. (2002), The Uncertain OWA Operator, International Journal of Intelligent Systems 17(6), p. 569-575.
• Yang W., Ge Y., Xiong B. (2010), Group Decision Support Systems with Probability Density Functions for Deriving Priorities from Consistent Interval Judgments, Journal of Computational Information Systems 6(14), p. 4811- 4818.
• Zahedi F. (1986), A Simulation Study of Estimation Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 20(6), p. 347-354.
• Zu Z.S. (2000), Generalized Chi Square Method for the Estimation of Weights, Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications 107(1), p. 183-192.

ISSN
2084-1531

### YADDA identifier

bwmeta1.element.desklight-04fda250-570f-4554-9fac-e7cc469e40fa
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.