The AHP, Pairwise Comparisons
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) of Saaty (1980) is a widely used method for MCDA, presumably because it efcitates 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 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 ARP 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 ARP with pairwise comparisons on the basis of ratio information is a variant of the original AHP. There is a logarithmic relationship between the two methods that we will extensively employ in the elicitation of preference information.
KeywordsDecision Maker Analytic Hierarchy Process Criterion Weight Indifference Curve Impact Score
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References to Chapter 3
- 1.Bana e Costa, C.A., and Vansnick, J.C., “A Theoretical Framework for Measuring Attractiveness by a Category Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH)”. In J. Climaco (ed.), “Multicriteria Analysis”, Springer, Berlin, 1997, pp. 15–24.Google Scholar
- 5.Barzilai, J., and Lootsma, F.A., “Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 155–165, 1997. In the same issue there are comments by O. Larichev (166), P. Korhonen (167–168), and L. Vargas (169–170), as well as a response by F.A. Lootsma and J. Barzilai (171–174).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- l0.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.David, H.A., “The Method of Paired Comparisons”. Griffin, London, 1963.Google Scholar
- 17.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
- 24.Pöyhönen, M., and Hämäläinen, R.P., “Notes on the Weighting Biases in Value Trees”. To appear in the Journal of Behavioural Decision Making, 1998.Google Scholar
- 27.Saaty, T.L., “The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority Setting, and Resource Allocation”. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.Google Scholar
- 30.Takeda, E., Cogger, K.O., and Yu, P.L., “Estimating Criterion Weights using Eigenvectors: a Comparative Study”. Omega 20, 569–586, 1987.Google Scholar
- 33.Torgerson, W.S., “Distances and Ratios in Psycho-Physical Scaling”. Acta Psychologica XIX, 201–205, 1961.Google Scholar
- 35.Winterfeldt, D. von, and Edwards, W., “Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1986.Google Scholar