Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Extensions

  • Alessio IshizakaEmail author
Part of the Multiple Criteria Decision Making book series (MCDM)


Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a popular and long used multi-criteria decision analysis method. Despite this fact, there are still space for new research in all its methodological steps. These include problem structuring, pairwise comparisons, priorities derivation, consistency and reduction techniques of pairwise comparisons. Moreover, future research agenda can also be found in the extensions of AHP: Analytic Network Process (for dealing with interactions) and AHPSort (for sorting problems). Finally, we discuss visualisation techniques for the Analytic Hierarchy Process.


  1. Barzilai, J. (1998). On the decomposition of value functions. Operations Research Letters, 22(4), 159–170.Google Scholar
  2. Benítez, J., Izquierdo, J., Pérez-García, R., & Ramos-Martínez, E. (2014). A simple formula to find the closest consistent matrix to a reciprocal matrix. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(15–16), 3968–3974.Google Scholar
  3. Bozóki, S., Fülöp, J., & Rónyai, L. (2010). On optimal completion of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 52(1), 318–333.Google Scholar
  4. Brunelli, M., & Fedrizzi, M. (2014). Axiomatic properties of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 66(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  5. Budescu, D., Zwick, R., & Rapoport, A. (1986). A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric mean procedure for ratio scaling. Applied Psychological Measurement, 10(1), 69–78.Google Scholar
  6. Carmone, F., Kara, A., & Zanakis, S. (1997). A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 102(3), 538–553.Google Scholar
  7. Cho, E., & Wedley, W. (2004). A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research, 31(6), 893–908.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, A., Ishizaka, A., & Snowball, J. (2017). Film production incentives, employment transformation and domestic expenditure in South Africa: Visualizing subsidy effectiveness. International Journal of Cultural Policy.
  9. Corrente, S., Greco, S., & Ishizaka, A. (2016). Combining analytical hierarchy process and Choquet integral within non-additive robust ordinal regression. Omega (61), 2–18.Google Scholar
  10. Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(4), 387–405.Google Scholar
  11. Csató, L., & Rónyai, L. (2016). Incomplete pairwise comparison matrices and weighting methods. Fundamenta Informaticae, 309320(3–4).Google Scholar
  12. Dodd, F., & Donegan, H. (1995). Comparison of priotization techniques using interhierarchy mappings. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46(4), 492–498.Google Scholar
  13. Dung, T., Luan, N., & Quoc, L. (2016). The analytic approach in green supplier selection: a literature review. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 11(11), 6754–6762.Google Scholar
  14. Fedrizzi, M., & Giove, S. (2007). Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 183(1), 303–313.Google Scholar
  15. Forman, E., & Gass, S. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process—An exposition. Operations Research, 49(4), 469–486.Google Scholar
  16. Golany, B., & Kress, M. (1993). A multicriteria evaluation of the methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 69(2), 210–220.Google Scholar
  17. Golden, B., Wasil, E., & Harker, P. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  18. Gomez-Ruiz, J., Karanik, M., & Peláez, J. (2010). Estimation of missing judgments in AHP pairwise matrices using a neural network-based model. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 216(10), 2959–2975.Google Scholar
  19. Grošelj, P., Zadnik Stirn, L., Ayrilmis, N., & Kuzman, M. (2015). Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(4), 2198–2204.Google Scholar
  20. Harker, P. (1987). Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling, 9(11), 837–848.Google Scholar
  21. Harker, P., & Vargas, L. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 33(11), 1383–1403.Google Scholar
  22. Herman, M., & Koczkodaj, W. (1996). A Monte Carlo study of pairwise comparison. Information Processing Letters, 57(11), 25–29.Google Scholar
  23. Ho, W. (2008). Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 186(1), 211–228.Google Scholar
  24. Ihrig, S., Ishizaka, A., & Mohnen, A. (2017). Target setting for indirect processes: A new hybrid method for the continuous improvement management of indirect processes. Production Planning & Control, 28(3), 220–231.Google Scholar
  25. Ishizaka, A. (2012). A multicriteria approach with AHP and clusters for the selection among a large number of suppliers. Pesquisa Operacional, 32(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  26. Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D., & Kaplan, T. (2010). Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 700–710.Google Scholar
  27. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22(4), 201–220.Google Scholar
  28. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011a). Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336–14345.Google Scholar
  29. Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2011b). Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(6), 7317–7325.Google Scholar
  30. Ishizaka, A., & López, C. (2018). Cost-benefit AHPSort for performance analysis of offshore providers. International Journal of Production Research.
  31. Ishizaka, A., & Lusti, M. (2006). How to derive priorities in AHP: A comparative study. Central European Journal of Operations Research, 14(4), 387–400.Google Scholar
  32. Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis. Chichester (United Kingdom): Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P., & Pearman, C. (2012). AHPSort: An AHP based method for sorting problems. International Journal of Production Research, 50(17), 4767–4784.Google Scholar
  34. Ishizaka, A., Siraj, S., & Nemery, P. (2016). Which energy mix for the UK? An evolutive descriptive mapping with the integrated GAIA-AHP visualisation tool. Energy, 95, 602–611.Google Scholar
  35. Jandova, V., Krejci, J., Stoklasa, J., & Fedrizzi, M. (2017). Computing interval weights for incomplete pairwise-comparison matrices of large dimension—A weak consistency based approach. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, PP(99), 1–1.Google Scholar
  36. Jones, D., & Mardle, S. (2004). A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 55(8), 869–875.Google Scholar
  37. Kainulainen, T., Leskinen, P., Korhonen, P., Haara, A., & Hujala, T. (2009). A statistical approach to assessing interval scale preferences in discrete choice problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 60(2), 252–258.Google Scholar
  38. Krejčí, J., & Ishizaka, A. (2018). FAHPSort: A fuzzy extension of the AHPSort method. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 17(04), 1119–1145.Google Scholar
  39. Kumar, S., & Vaidya, O. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  40. Kun, C., Gang, K., Tarn, M., & Yan, S. (2015). Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices. Annals of Operations Research, 235(1), 155–175.Google Scholar
  41. Liberatore, M., & Nydick, R. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1), 194–207.Google Scholar
  42. Lootsma, F. (1989). Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions. European Journal of Operational Research, 40(1), 109–116.Google Scholar
  43. López, C., & Ishizaka, A. (2017). GAHPSort: A new group multi-criteria decision method for sorting a large number of the cloud-based ERP solutions. Computers in Industry, 92–93, 12–24.Google Scholar
  44. Ma, D., & Zheng, X. (1991). 9/9–9/1 scale method of AHP. In Proceedings of 2nd International Symposium on the AHP (Vol. 1, pp. 197–202). Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  45. Mareschal, B., & Brans, J.-P. (1988). Geometrical representations for MCDA. European Journal of Operational Research, 34(1), 69–77.Google Scholar
  46. Marttunen, M., Lienert, J., & Belton, V. (2017). Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: A literature review of method combinations. European Journal of Operational Research, 263(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  47. Meesariganda, B., & Ishizaka, A. (2017). Mapping verbal AHP scale to numerical scale for cloud computing strategy selection. Applied Soft Computing, 53, 111–118.Google Scholar
  48. Mikhailov, L., & Singh, M. G. (1999). Comparison analysis of methods for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. In IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  49. Nemery, P., Ishizaka, A., Camargo, M., & Morel, L. (2012). Enriching descriptive information in ranking and sorting problems with visualizations techniques. Journal of Modelling in Management, 7(2), 130–147.Google Scholar
  50. Omkarprasad, V., & Sushil, K. (2006). Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1), 1–29.Google Scholar
  51. Pöyhönen, M., Hamalainen, R., & Salo, A. (1997). An experiment on the numerical modelling of verbal ratio statements. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  52. Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.Google Scholar
  53. Saaty, T. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281.Google Scholar
  54. Saaty, T. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  55. Saaty, T. (2001). The analytic network process. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  56. Saaty, T., & Forman, E. (1992). The hierarchon: A dictionary of hierarchies. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.Google Scholar
  57. Saaty, T., & Takizawa, M. (1986). Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(2), 229–237.Google Scholar
  58. Salo, A., & Hamalainen, R. (1997). On the measurement of preference in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(6), 309–319.Google Scholar
  59. Shim, J. (1989). Bibliography research on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 23(3), 161–167.Google Scholar
  60. Sipahi, S., & Timor, M. (2010). The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: An overview of applications. Management Decision, 48(5), 775–808.Google Scholar
  61. Stillwell, W., von Winterfeldt, D., & John, R. (1987). Comparing hierarchical and non-hierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multiattribute value models. Management Science, 33(4), 442–450.Google Scholar
  62. Vargas, L. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2–8.Google Scholar
  63. Weber, M., Eisenführ, F., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1988). The effects of spitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science, 34(4), 431–445.Google Scholar
  64. Zahedi, F. (1986). The analytic hierarchy process: A survey of the method and its applications. Interface, 16(4), 96–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Portsmouth Business SchoolCentre for Operational Research and Logistics, University of PortsmouthPortsmouthUK

Personalised recommendations