Using an Analytic Hierarchy Process to develop a scoring system for a set of continuous feasible alternatives in negotiation
Selected contents from this journal
Languages of publication
The use of an Analytic Hierarchy Approach (AHP) for scoring offers in continuous negotiation problems has been studied. AHP has already proven its usefulness in constructing a ranking of alternatives in discrete decision making problems. In negotiations, however, some issues may have a quantitative character and be defined by feasible ranges, which results in uncountably large sets of feasible offers. This is a problem to which AHP cannot be applied in its original form. Therefore we propose an approach to building a scoring system that operates within AHP and a predefined discrete subset of feasible alternatives, then a method for determining global scores for all the feasible alternatives is proposed. When this subset has been built, the notion of border alternatives is applied. Assuming that these border alternatives have been ranked, single-issue utility functions are constructed using linear interpolation over the set of selected border alternatives. Single-issue utility functions are then aggregated using issue weights in order to form the final utility function. The issue weights are also determined using AHP. Such an approach means that a relatively small number of comparisons are required for a negotiator in AHP process to build a comprehensive scoring system, which makes the process of eliciting the negotiator’s preferences simple and rapid.
- Silesian University of Technology, Institute of Mathematics, 44-100 Gliwice, ul. Kaszubska 23, Poland
- Faculty of Economics and Management, University of Bialystok, ul. Warszawska 63, 15-062 Białystok, Poland
- Department of Operations Research, University of Economics in Katowice, ul. Bogucicka 14, 40-287 Katowice, Poland
- BRANS J.P., L’ingenierie de la décision. Elaboration d’instruments d'aide a la décision. Méthode PROMETHEE, [in:] R. Nadeau, M. Landry (Eds.), L'aide a la decision: Nature, Instruments et perspectives d’Avenir, Presses de l’Universite Laval, Quebec 1982, 183–213.
- BRANS J.P., VINCKLE P., A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method for MCD, International Journal of Management Science, 1985, 31 (6), 647–656.
- BRZOSTOWSKI J., WACHOWICZ T., Conceptual Model of eNS for Supporting Preference Elicitation and Counterpart Analysis, [in:] D.M. Kilgour, Q. Wang (Eds.), Proceedings of GDN 2009, An International
- Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation, Wilfried Laurier University, Waterloo 2009, 182–186.
- CHEN Y.M., HUANG P., Bi-negotiation integrated AHP in suppliers selection, International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 1999, 27, 1254–1274.
- FORMAN E., SELLY M.A., Decision by Objectives, World Scientific Publishing, Singapore 2001.
- HO W., Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications. A Literature review, European Journal of Operations Research, 2008, 186 (1), 211–228.
- KIM J.S., Negotiation support in electronic commerce using fuzzy membership functions and AHP, Proceedings of the International Conference of Korea Intelligent Information Systems Society (ICKIISS), Seoul (Korea), 2003, 99–104.
- KEENEY R., RAIFFA H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Cambridge University Press, New York 1976.
- KERSTEN G.E., NORONHA S.J., WWW-based negotiation support: Design, implementation and use, Decision Support Systems, 1999, 25, 135–154.
- LOOTSMA F.A., SCHUIJT H., The Multiplicative AHP, SMART, and ELECTRE in a Common Context, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1997, 6, 185–196.
- NGAI E.W.T., CHAN E.W.C., Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, 2005, 29, 889–899.
- OSUNA E.E., COELLO E.E., AHP as a tool for conflict resolution, ISAHP 2001, Berne, Switzerland, August 2–4, 2001, 304–314.
- PRATT J.W., Risk aversion in the small and in the large, Econometrica, 32, January–April 1964, 122–136.
- ROSZKOWSKA E., BRZOSTOWSKI J., WACHOWICZ T., Supporting the ill-structured negotiation problems, [in:] W. Pedrycz, P. Guo (Eds.), Human-Centric Decision-Making Models for Social Sciences, Springer, Berlin 2013.
- ROY B., BOUYSSOU D., Aide multicritere a la decision: Methodes et cas, Economica, Paris 1993.
- ROY B., The outranking approach and foundation of ELECTRE METHODS, Theory and Decision, 1991, 31, 49–73.
- SAATY T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, McGraw-Hill, New York 1980.
- SAATY T.L., ALEXANDER J.M., Conflict Resolution: The Analytic Hierarchy Approach, Praeger, New York 1989.
- SAATY T.L., Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 1994, 74, 426–447.
- SAATY T.L., How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operations Research, 1994, 48, 9–26.
- SAATY T.L., Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International of Journal of Service Sciences, 2008, 1 (1), 83–98.
- SAATY T.L., The analytic hierarchy and analytic network measurement processes: Applications to decisions under risk, Honorary invited paper, European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, 2008, 1, 122–196.
- SCHOOP M., JERTILA A., LIST T., Negoisst: a negotiation support system for electronic business to business negotiations in e-commerce, Data and Knowledge Engineering, 2003, 47, 371–401.
- THIESSEN E.M., SOBERG A., Smartsettle described with the Montreal taxonomy, Group Decision and Negotiation, 2003, 12, 165–170.
- THOMPSON L., The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator, Prentice Hall, New Jersey 1998.
- VAIDYA O.S., KUMAR S., Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications, Journal of Operations Research, 2006, 169 (1), 1–29.
Publication order reference