The Additive and the Multiplicative AHP
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) of Saaty (1980) is a widely used method for MCDA, presumably because it elicitates preference information from the decision makers in a manner which they find easy to understand. The basic step is the pairwise comparison of two so-called stimuli, two alternatives under a given criterion, for instance, or two criteria. The decision maker is requested to state whether he/she is indifferent between the two stimuli or whether he/she has a weak, strict, strong, or very strong preference for one of them. The original AHP has been criticized in the literature because the algorithmic steps do not properly take into account that the method is based upon ratio information. The shortcomings can easily be avoided in the Additive and the Multiplicative AHP to be discussed in the present chapter. The Additive AHP is the SMART procedure with pairwise comparisons on the basis of difference information. The Multiplicative AHP with pairwise comparisons on the basis of ratio information is a variant of the original AHP. There is a logarithmic relationship between the Additive AHP (SMART) and the Multiplicative AHP. Both versions can easily be fuzzified. The reasons why we deviate from the original AHP will be explained at the end of this chapter.
KeywordsFuzzy Logic Analytic Hierarchy Process Criterion Weight Final Grade Indifference Curve
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References to Chapter 5
- 4.Barzilai, J., and Lootsma FA., “Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART”. To appear in the Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1997. In the same issue there will be critical comments by P. Korhonen, O. Larichev, and L.G. Vargas, and a response by F.A. Lootsma and J. Barzilai.Google Scholar
- 7.Budescu, D.V., Crouch, B.D., and Morera, O.F., “A Multi-Criteria Comparison of Response Scales and Scaling Methods in the AHP”. In W.C. Wedley (ed.), Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on the AHP. Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada, 1996, pp. 280–291.Google Scholar
- 13.Gennip, C.G.E. van, Hulshof, J.A.M., and Lootsma, F.A., “A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Diseases in a Study for Public-Health Planning”. To appear in the European Journal of Operational Research, 1997.Google Scholar
- 15.Keeney, R., and Raiffa, H., “Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs”. Wiley, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
- 23.Mintzberg, H., “Power in and around Organizations”. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1983.Google Scholar
- 25.Saaty, T.L., “The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority Setting, and Resource Allocation”. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
- 28.Takeda, E., Cogger, K.O., and Yu, P.L., “Estimating Criterion Weights using Eigenvectors: a Comparative Study”. Omega 20, 569–586, 1987.Google Scholar