Advertisement

The Stability of AHP Rankings in the Presence of Stochastic Paired Comparisons

  • Antonie Stam
  • A. Pedro Duarte Silva
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems book series (LNE, volume 465)

Abstract

This paper develops a methodology for analyzing the stability of AHP rankings for decision problems in which the paired comparison judgments are stochastic. Multivariate statistical techniques are used to obtain both point estimates and confidence intervals of rank reversal probabilities. We show how simulation experiments can be used to assess the stability of the preference rankings under uncertainty. High likelihoods of rank reversal imply that the AHP rankings are unstable, and that additional analysis of the decision problem may be in order.

Keywords

Multi-criteria Decision Making Decision Analysis Analytic Hierarchy Process Uncertainty Preference Judgments 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arbel, A., “Approximate Articulation of Preference and Priority Derivation,” European Journal of Operational Research, 43 (1989), 317–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbel, A. and L. G. Vargas, “The Analytic Hierarchy Process with Interval Judgments,” in Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Proceedings of the IXth International Conference: Theory and Applications in Business, Industry and Government, A. Goicoechea, L. Duckstein and S. Zionts (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1992, 61–70.Google Scholar
  3. Arbel, A. and L. G. Vargas, “Preference Simulation and Preference Programming: Robustness Issues in Priority Derivation,” European Journal of Operational Research, 69 (1993), 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barzilai, J. and B. Golani, “AHP Rank Reversal, Normalization and Aggregation,” INFOR, 32, 1994, 57–63.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, C. J. and E. S. Pearson, “The Use of Confidence or Fiducial Limits Illustrated in the Case of the Binomial,” Biometrika, 26 (1934), 406–413.Google Scholar
  6. Dyer, J. S., “Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Management Science, 36, 3 (1990), 249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Moreno-Jimenez, J. M. and L. G. Vargas, “A Probabilistic Study of the Preference Structures in the Analytic Hierarchy Process with Interval Judgments,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17 (1993), 73–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Neter, J., W. Wasserman and M. H. Kutner, Applied Linear Statistical Models, Second Edition, Irwin, New York, NY 1985.Google Scholar
  9. Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1980.Google Scholar
  10. Saaty, T. L., “An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process,’” Management Science, 36, 3 (1990), 259–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Saaty, T. L. and L. G. Vargas, “Uncertainty and Rank Order in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, 32 (1987), 107–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Salo, A. A., “Inconsistency Analysis by Approximately Specified Priorities,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 17 (1993), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hamalainen, “Processing Interval Judgments in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” inMultiple Criteria Decision Making: Proceedings of the IXth International Conference: Theory and Applications in Business, Industry and Government, A. Goicoechea, L. Duckstein and S. Zionts (Eds.), Springer-Verlag, New York, NY, 1992, 359–372.Google Scholar
  14. Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hamalainen, “Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ration Statements,” Operations Research, 40 (1992), 1053–1061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hamalainen, “Preference Programming Through Approximate Ratio Comparisons,” European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 1994, 458–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schoner, B., W. C. Wedley and E. U. Choo, “A Rejoinder to Forman on AHP, With Emphasis on the Requirements of Composite Ratio Scales,” Decision Sciences, 23, 1992, 509–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schoner, B., W. C. Wedley and E. U. Choo, “A Unified Approach to AHP with Linking Pins,” European Journal of Operational Research, 64, 1993, 384–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stam and Duarte Silva, “Stochastic Judgments in the AHP: The Measurement of Rank Reversal Probabilities, Decision Sciences, 28, 1997, 655–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Vargas, L. G., “Reciprocal Matrices with Random Coefficients,” Mathematical Modelling, 3 (1982), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zahir, M. S., “Incorporating the Uncertainty of Decision Judgements in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research, 53 (1991), 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antonie Stam
    • 1
  • A. Pedro Duarte Silva
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of ManagementTerry College of Business, The University of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Universidade Católica Portuguesa, Centro Regional do Porto, Curso de Administraçáo e Gestáo de EmpresasPortoPortugal

Personalised recommendations