Abstract
The implications of qualitative distinctions between multiple criteria are considered. Some contributions to theory about the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) are challenged. Experiments on alternative criteria structures are reported. These suggest that confusing structures are bad, but good structures are better than none. Guidelines on how to develop a structure are given for a well known case of the purchase of a house. It is suggested that differences between decision alternatives should provide a first phase basis for discovering criteria. A criteria tree should be structured ’top down’ as a second phase by clustering criteria on the basis of qualitative difference. On any level the differences between criteria should follow relatively simple patterns. The rules used suggest the relevance of work on the structure of qualitative decision-making which is determined by Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind. Implications are considered for weighting trade-offs between homogeneous clusters of criteria. This should be done as a later ’bottom up’ phase. The AHP scoring system is challenged. Some tests of alternative scoring methods are reported.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barzilai, J.; Cook, W. D. and Golany, B. (1987) Consistent Weights for Judgements Matrices of the Relative Importance of Alternatives, Operations Research Letters, 6 (3), 131–134.
Barzilai, J.; Cook, W. D. and Golany, B. (1992) "The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Structure of the Problem and its Solutions" in Systems and Management Science by Extremal Methods, Phillips, F. Y. and Rousseau, J. J. (eds.), Kluwer Academic Publishers, 361–371.
Barzilai, J. and Golany, B. (1994), AHP Rank Reversal, Normalisation and Aggregation Rules, INFOR, 32 (2), 5–64.
Belton, V. and Gear, A. E. (1983), On the Shortcoming of Saaty’s method of Analytic Hierarchies, Omega, 11, 228–230.
Belton, V. and Gear, A. E. (1985)The legitimacy of Rank Reversal — A comment, Omega, 13, 143–144.
Brugha, C. (1998a), The structure of qualitative decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 104 (1), pp 46–62.
Brugha, C. (1998b), The structure of adjustment decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 104 (1), pp 63–76.
Brugha, C. (1998c), The structure of development decision making, European Journal of Operational Research, 104 (1), pp 77–92.
Crawford, G. and Williams, C. (1985) A Note on the Analysis of Subjective Judgement Matrices, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29, 387–405
Dyer, J.S. (1990), Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science, 36 (March), 249–258.
Gescheider, G.A. (1985) Psychophysics Method, Theory, and Application, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, New Jersey.
Hamilton, W. (1877), Lectures on Metaphysics, Vols. 1 and 2, 6th Ed., in Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic, London: William Blackwood and Sons.
Holder, R. D. (1990), Some comments on the Analytical Hierarchy Process, J. Opl. Res. Soc. 41 (11), 1073–1076.
Lootsma, F. A. (1993), Scale sensitivity in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2, 87–110.
Lootsma, F.A. (1996), "A model of the relative importance of the criteria in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART", European Journal of Operational Research, 94, 467–476.
Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L. (1990a), Multicriteria Decision-Making: the Analytic Hierarchy Process, The Analytic Hierarchy Process Series Vol. 1, RWS Publications.
Saaty, T.L. (1990b), How to make a decision: the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 48, 9–26.
Saaty, T.L. (1994), Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 426–447.
Saaty, T.L. (1996), "Ratio Scales are Fundamental in Decision Making", ISAHP 1996 Proceedings, Vancouver, Canada, July 12–15, 146–156.
Schenkerman, Stan (1994), Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models, European Journal of Operational Research, 74, 407–419.
Schoner, B. and Wedley, W.C. (1989), Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences and solutions, Decision Sciences, 20, 462–475.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1998 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Brugha, C.M. (1998). Structuring and Weighting Criteria in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). In: Stewart, T.J., van den Honert, R.C. (eds) Trends in Multicriteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 465. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45772-2_19
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-45772-2_19
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-64741-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-45772-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive