Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Information Sciences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ins
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: The lack of consistency in decision making can lead to inconsistent conclusions. In fuzzy
Received 26 April 2007 analytic hierarchy process (fuzzy AHP) method, it is difcult to ensure a consistent pair-
Received in revised form 31 March 2008 wise comparison. Furthermore, establishing a pairwise comparison matrix requires nn1 2
Accepted 30 May 2008
judgments for a level with n criteria (alternatives). The number of comparisons increases
as the number of criteria increases. Therefore, the decision makers judgments will most
likely be inconsistent. To alleviate inconsistencies, this study applies fuzzy linguistic pref-
erence relations (Fuzzy LinPreRa) to construct a pairwise comparison matrix with additive
Keywords:
Fuzzy AHP
reciprocal property and consistency. In this study, the fuzzy AHP method is reviewed, and
Consistency then the Fuzzy LinPreRa method is proposed. Finally, the presented method is applied to
Fuzzy linguistic preference relations the example addressed by Kahraman et al. [C. Kahraman, D. Ruan, I. Dogan, Fuzzy group
Fuzzy LinPreRa decision making for facility location selection, Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135
Decision making 153]. This study reveals that the proposed method yields consistent decision rankings from
only n 1 pairwise comparisons, which is the same result as in Kahraman et al. research.
The presented fuzzy linguistic preference relations method is an easy and practical way to
provide a mechanism for improving consistency in fuzzy AHP method.
2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is one of the extensively used multi-criteria decision making methods. Though this
method is easier to understand and it can model expert opinions, however, the conventional AHP still cannot process impre-
cise or vague knowledge. Zadeh [51] introduced fuzzy sets theory, to rationalize uncertainty associated with impression or
vagueness, and in a manner analogous to human thought. Thus, fuzzy AHP, a fuzzy extension of AHP [35], was developed to
solve imprecise hierarchical problems. Of the many fuzzy AHP methods developed by various authors, most propose system-
atic approaches to the alternative selection and justication problem using the concepts of fuzzy set theory and hierarchical
structure analysis [2,47,11,14,16,29,30,33,34].
The study of consistency is crucial for avoiding misleading solutions. As part of the AHP procedure, a consistency check is
required to identify inconsistency matrix. For comparison matrix which fails the consistency test, the decision maker must
redo the ratios. Unlike the AHP method, the ratios are point estimates and the comparison ratios in fuzzy AHP method are
given by fuzzy numbers. The likelihood of having inconsistent ratios within the given fuzzy numbers is therefore far greater.
0020-0255/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ins.2008.05.028
3756 T.-C. Wang, Y.-H. Chen / Information Sciences 178 (2008) 37553765
To expect the decision maker to provide the comparison ratios such that the fuzzy numbers include only consistency would
be laborious and highly unrealistic. The critical void is not only the need to have a consistency test to accept consistent
matrices, but also a mechanism to lter out inconsistent information within a consistent matrix. Thus, Leung and Cao
[37] proposed setting deviation tolerances when performing fuzzy consistency analysis and determining whether a fuzzy
positive reciprocal matrix is consistent based on R I < 0.1 [39]. However, establishing a pairwise comparison matrix requires
nn1
2
judgments for a level with n criteria (alternatives), the number of comparisons increases as the number of criteria
(alternatives) increases. Consequently, the decision makers judgments will most likely be inconsistent.
Preference relations are the most common representation of information used for solving decision making problems due
to their effectiveness in modeling decision processes. Generally, these preference relations can be categorized into multipli-
cative preference relations [15,19,44], fuzzy preference relations [1,810,13,15,24,38,4147] and linguistic preference rela-
tions [17,18,2023,25,26,4850,52]. Herrera-Viedma et al. [24] proposed a new concept of consistency based on the additive
transitivity property of fuzzy preference relations (Fuzzy LinPreRa) to avoid misleading conclusions. This new characteriza-
tion simplies the analysis of consistency among expert opinions. Based on this new characterization, this study proposes a
method for constructing consistent fuzzy preference relations from a set of n 1 preference data. However, all of the above
attempts focus on the decision matrix with crisp values, which cannot reect expert opinions when modeling imprecise
judgments. Crisp data are inadequate to model real-life situations. Since human judgments including preferences are often
vague and cannot estimate human preference with an exact numerical value.
To solve the above problems, Wang and Chen [42] proposed a method using fuzzy linguistic assessment variables to con-
struct fuzzy linguistic preference relation (Fuzzy LinPreRa) matrices based on consistent fuzzy preference relations [24]. In
[42], this paper only illustrates how to construct a Fuzzy LinPreRa matrix, not explains the applications of the proposed
method. Thus, this study applies Fuzzy LinPreRa method to enhance the consistency of the fuzzy AHP method. The proposed
method yields decision matrices for making pairwise comparisons using additive reciprocal property and consistency. In
addition, it required only n 1 comparison judgments to ensure consistency for a level with n criteria (alternatives).
This study is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews consistent fuzzy preference relations. Section 3 describes triangular
fuzzy numbers. Section 4 reviews the fuzzy AHP method. Section 5 proposes the Fuzzy LinPreRa method. Section 6 presents
an illustrative example. Finally, Section 7 draws the conclusions.
For a set of criteria and a set of alternatives, fuzzy preference relations provide decision makers with values representing
varying degrees of preference for one alternative over another. The following briey describes some denitions and propo-
sitions presented in [8,9,1723,25].
Given A = {a1, a2, . . . , an}, with n P 2 is a nite set of alternatives to be pairwise assessed by experts (E = {e1, e2, . . . , em}, with
m P 2). Expert preferences for the set of alternatives A may be expressed as follows [10]:
(a) Multiplicative preference relations: a multiplicative preference relation R in terms of a set of alternatives A, repre-
sented by a matrix R : A A ! R, rij = R(ai, aj), where rij is the preference ratio of alternative ai to aj. Saaty [39,40] sug-
gests measuring rij using a ratio scale, and the dened 19 scale. Herein, rij = 1 represents the absence of a difference
between ai and aj; rij = 9 denotes that ai is maximally better than aj. In this case, the preference relation R is typically
assumed to be a multiplicative reciprocal, aij aji = 1 "i, j 2 {1, . . ., n}.
(b) Fuzzy preference relations: a fuzzy preference relation P on a set of alternatives A is a fuzzy set on the product set
A A with membership function P : A A ? [0, 1]. The preference relation is represented by the n n matrix
P = (pij), where pij = P(ai, aj) "i,j 2 {1, . . . , n}. Herein, pij is the preference ratio of alternative ai to aj: pij = 1/2 means that
no difference exits between ai and aj, pij = 1 indicates that ai is absolutely better than aj, and pij > 1/2 indicates that ai
is better than aj. In this case, the preference matrix P is generally assumed to be an additive reciprocal of
pij + pji = 1 "i, j 2 {1, . . . , n}.
Herrera-Viedma et al. [24] proposed consistent fuzzy preference relations to construct the decision matrices of pairwise
comparisons based on additive transitivity. Wang and Chen [43] applied consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership
selection. Wang and Chang [41] applied consistent fuzzy preference relations to forecast the probability of successful know-
ledge management. In [24], they developed some important propositions given below.
Proposition 2.1 [9,17,24,27,28]. Consider a set of alternatives, X = {x1, . . . , xn}, associated with a reciprocal multiplicative
preference relation A = (aij) for aij 2 [1/9, 9]. Then, the corresponding reciprocal fuzzy preference relation, P = (pij) with pij 2 [0, 1]
associated with A is given as pij gaij 12 1 log9 aij .
log9aij is considered when aij is between 1/9 and 9. If aij is between 1/7 and 7, then log7aij is used.
Proposition 2.2 [24]. For a reciprocal fuzzy preference relation P = (pij), the following statements are equivalent;
Proposition 2.3 [24]. For a reciprocal fuzzy preference relation P = (pij), the following statements are equivalent;
Proposition 2.3 is very important because it can be used to construct a consistent fuzzy preference relation from the set of
n 1 values {p12, p23, . . . , pn1n}. Accordingly, experts are able to express consistent preferences in decision processes. A deci-
sion matrix with entries in the interval [k, 1 + k], k > 0 besides the interval [0, 1], can be constructed by transforming the
obtained values using a transformation function that preserves reciprocity and additive consistency. The transforming func-
xk
tion is f : [k, 1 + k] ? [0, 1], f x 12k .
The drawback of consistent fuzzy preference relations is that the values in consistent fuzzy preference relation matrix are
crisp, which cannot reect expert opinions when modeling imprecise judgments.
The fuzzy set theory [51] is designed to deal with the extraction of the primary possible outcome from a multiplicity of
information vaguely and imprecisely. Fuzzy set theory treats vague data as possibility distributions in terms of set member-
ships. Once determined and dened, the sets of memberships in possibility distributions can be effectively used in logical
reasoning. Triangular fuzzy numbers are one of the major components. According to the denition of Laarhoven and Pedrycz
[35], a triangular fuzzy number (TFN) should possess the following basic features.
Denition 3.1. A fuzzy number A on R to be a TFN if its membership function leA x : R ! 0; 1 is equal to
2
x l=m l; l 6 x 6 m;
leA x 4 u x=u m; m 6 x 6 u; 1
0; otherwise:
where l and u represent the lower and upper bounds of the fuzzy number A, e respectively, and m is the median value. The TFN
is denoted as Ae l; m; u and the following is the operational laws of two TFNs Ae 1 l1 ; m1 ; u1 and A
e 2 l2 ; m2 ; u2 , as
shown [31,32]:
Fuzzy number addition :
A e 2 l1 ; m1 ; u1 l2 ; m2 ; u2 l1 l2 ; m1 m2 ; u1 u2 :
e1 A 2
Fuzzy number subtraction :
A e 2 l1 ; m1 ; u1 l2 ; m2 ; u2 l1 u2 ; m1 m2 ; u1 l2 :
e1 A 3
Fuzzy number multiplication :
e1 A
A e 2 l1 ; m1 ; u1 l2 ; m2 ; u2 l1 l2 ; m1 m2 ; u1 u2 for li > 0; mi > 0; ui > 0: 4
Fuzzy number division :
e 1A
A e 2 l1 ; m1 ; u1 l2 ; m2 ; u2 l1 =u2 ; m1 =m2 ; u1 =l2 for li > 0; mi > 0; ui > 0: 5
Fuzzy number logarithm:
e log l; log m; log u n is base:
logn A 6
n n n
With the AHP not being able to overcome the deciency of the fuzziness during decision making, Laarhoven and Pedrycz
[35] have evolved Saatys AHP into the fuzzy AHP, bringing the triangular fuzzy number of the fuzzy set theory directly into
the pairwise comparison matrix of the AHP. The purpose is to solve vague problems, which occur during the analysis of
criteria and judgment process. The procedure of the fuzzy AHP is described as follows:
Table 1
Membership function of linguistic scale
where
8
~ 3;
< 1; ~ 5;
~ 7; ~ criterion i is relative importance to criterion j;
~ 9;
~ i j;
~cij 1;
: ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1
1 ; 3 ; 5 ; 7 ; 9 ; criterion i is relative less importance to criterion j:
Step 3: Calculating fuzzy weights of each criterion.
The fuzzy weights of each criterion are calculated by Buckley [3] as follows:
1
~r i ~ci1 ~ci2 ~cin n 8i 1; 2; . . . ; n;
~r i 8
~i
w ;
~r1 ~rn
where ~cij is the fuzzy comparison value of criterion i to criterion j, ~r i is the geometric mean of fuzzy comparison
~ i is the fuzzy weight of the ith criterion.
value of criterion i to each criterion, and w
Step 4: Hierarchical layer sequencing.
The nal fuzzy weight value of each alternative is calculated by hierarchical layer sequencing as
X
n
ei
U ~ j ~rij ;
w 9
j1
where ~rij is the fuzzy weight value of the jth criterion to the ith alternative. U e i can be indicated by a TFN,
e i l; m; u.
U
Step 5: Ranking alternatives.
The nal fuzzy weight values of alternatives are represented in terms of fuzzy numbers. It is necessary to dene a
method for building a crisp value from the fuzzy number to choose the optimum alternative. Therefore, a defuzz-
ication process needs to be adopted, which arranges the fuzzy numbers for ranking. The fuzzy mean and spread
method [36] is adopted to defuzzify and rank the fuzzy numbers. This method ranks fuzzy numbers by means of the
e i is a TFN (l,m,u) with uniform distribution. Its mean x U
probabilities of fuzzy events, assuming that U e i is dened as
e i l m u=3:
x U 10
e 1; U
The fuzzy numbers U e 2; . . . ; U
e m can be ranked according to the value of the fuzzy mean x U
e i to determine the
optimum alternative.
From the above procedure, constructing a pairwise comparison matrix requires nn1 2
judgments to be made for a level
with n criteria or alternatives and lacks consistency test. The number of comparisons increases as the number of criteria or
alternatives increases. Therefore, the number of inconsistent conditions is also likely to increase.
To solve the above problems regarding the inconsistency in decision making process, this study applies the Fuzzy LinPreRa
method [42] to enhance the consistency of fuzzy AHP method. The proposed method establishes fuzzy preference relations
e p
matrices P ~ij pLij ; pM R
ij ; pij based on consistent fuzzy preference relations and fuzzy linguistic assessment variables. The
matrices thus were termed the Fuzzy linguistic preference relations. Table 2 lists the fuzzy linguistic assessment variables.
T.-C. Wang, Y.-H. Chen / Information Sciences 178 (2008) 37553765 3759
e a
Denition 5.2 [3]. A fuzzy positive reciprocal matrix A ~ij is consistent if and only if ij jk
ik.
Proposition 5.1. Given that a set of alternatives, X = {x1, . . . , xn} associated with a fuzzy reciprocal multiplicative preference matrix
e a
A ~ij with a
~ij 2 1=9; 9, and the corresponding fuzzy reciprocal linguistic preference relation, P e p
~ij with p
~ij 2 0; 1, veries
the additive reciprocal, then, the following statements are equivalent.
Adding 2 by Eq. (2) and dividing 2 by Eq. (5) on both sides then
1 1 ~ 8i; j 2 f1; . . . ; ng
~ij 1 log9 a
1 log9 a ~ji
1
2 2
Applying Proposition 2.1,
~ij p
p ~ 8i; j 2 f1; . . . ; ng
~ji
1
pLij ; pM R ~
ij ; pij pji
1 1; 1; 1
~ji
1 pLij ; pM
p R R M L
ij ; pij 1 pij ; 1 pij ; 1 pij
pLji ; pM R R M L
ji ; pji
1 pij ; 1 pij ; 1 pij
pLij pRji 1; pM M
ij pji 1; pRij pLji 1 8i; j; k
e p
Proposition 5.2. According to Propositions 2.2 and 2.3, for a reciprocal fuzzy linguistic preference relation P ~ij pLij ; pM R
ij ; pij
to be consistent, veries the additive consistency, then, the following statements must be equivalent:
e a
Proof. By Denition 5.2, for A ~ij being consistent then ij jk ik "i, j, k.
Taking logarithms by Eq. (6) on both sides yields
~ij log9 a
log9 a ~jk log9 a
~ik 8i; j; k;
~ ~ ~ ~
log9 aij log9 ajk log9 aik 0;
log a~ij log a~jk log a ~
~ki 0:
9 9 9
Table 2
Fuzzy linguistic assessment variables
Adding 3 by Eq. (2) and dividing 2 by Eq. (5) on both sides then
1 1 1 ~
3
~ij 1 log9 a
1 log9 a ~jk 1 log9 a
~ki 8i; j; k:
2 2 2 ~
2
Applying Proposition 2.1,
~ 3 3 3
3
p ~jk p
~ij p ~ki ; ; ;
~
2 2 2 2
3 3 3
pLij ; pM
ij ; pR
ij pL
jk ; pM
jk ; pR
jk ~
p ki ; ; ;
2 2 2
3 3 3
~ki
p ; ; pLij pLjk ; pM M R R
ij pjk ; pij pjk ;
2 2 2
3 3 M 3
~ki pLki ; pM
p R
ki ; pki pRij pRjk ; pM L L
ij pjk ; pij pjk ;
2 2 2
3 3 3
) pLij pLjk pRki ; pM pM M
jk pki ; pR pRjk pLki :
2 ij 2 ij 2
Thus the expressions (a), (b) and (c) are obtained. h
If i < j and k = j i, the expression (d) can be rewritten as
n1
PLii1 PLi1i2 P Lin1in PRini 8i < j:
2
Mathematical induction is used to prove this part of the proposition. The base clause is clearly true for k = 1. The recursion
clause requires it to be demonstrated that the hypothesis is true for k = n
n1
PLii1 PLi1i2 P Lin1in PRini ;
2
then it is true for k = n + 1:
(a) f(c) = 0.
(b) f(1 + c) = 1.
(c) f(xL) + f(xR) = 1 "x 2 [c,1 + c].
(d) f(xM) + f(xM) = 1 "x 2 [c,1 + c].
(e) f(xR) + f(xL) = 1 "x 2 [c,1 + c].
(f) f xL f yL f zR 32 8xL ; yL ; zR 2 c; 1 c such that xL yL zR 32.
(g) f xM f yM f zM 32 8xM ; yM ; zM 2 c; 1 c such that xM yM zM 32.
(h) f xR f yR f zL 32 8xR ; yR ; zL 2 c; 1 c such that xR yR zL 32.
The linear solution verifying (a) and (b) has the form
f xL a xL b, being a; :b 2 R.
f xM a xM b, being a; :b 2 R.
f xR a xR b; beinga; :b 2 R. These functions are
1 c xL c
f xL xL ;
1 2c 1 2c 1 2c
1 c xM c
f xM xM ;
1 2c 1 2c 1 2c
1 c xR c
f xR xR :
1 2c 1 2c 1 2c
T.-C. Wang, Y.-H. Chen / Information Sciences 178 (2008) 37553765 3761
6. Illustrative example
The proposed method is demonstrated here using an example presented earlier in Kahraman et al. [30]. In this example,
NEKYEK, a automobile manufacturer, is considering investing in a new factory and must select the optimum location from
among various alternatives. The criteria considered in this decision are environmental regulation (C1), host community (C2),
competitive advantage (C3) and political risk (C4). The location alternatives are Istanbul (P1), Ankara (P2) and Izmir (P3).
Fig. 1 shows the hirerarchy structure.
Table 3 lists the fuzzy linguistic assessment variables. The decision-maker expresses according to one of the opinions con-
tained in Table 3. The decision maker can also add or remove linguistic terms according to a specic situation. For example,
the accuracy and the number of terms are increased as more detailed information becomes available. Table 4 lists the pair-
wise comparison matrix for the goal and all criteria. Table 5 displays the pairwise comparison matrix for all criteria and
alternatives.
For example, Table 4 has four criteria, and only n 1 = 4 1 = 3 comparison judgments (p12, p23, p34) are required to con-
struct the fuzzy preference relation decision matrix. According to Propositions 5.1 and 5.2, the entire calculation is as
follows:
pL31 1:5 pR12 pR23 1:5 0:9 0:3 0:3;
pL41 2 pR12 pR23 pR34 2 0:9 0:3 1 0:2;
pL42 1:5 pR23 pR34 1:5 0:3 1 0:2;
pM M M
31 1:5 p12 p23 1:5 0:7 0:1 0:7;
p41 2 p12 p23 pM
M M M
34 2 0:7 0:1 0:9 0:3;
pM M M
42 1:5 p23 p34 1:5 0:1 0:9 0:5;
pR31 1:5 pL12 pL23 1:5 0:5 0 1:0;
pR41 2 pL12 pL23 pL34 2 0:5 0 0:7 0:8;
pR42 1:5 pL23 pL34 1:5 0 0:7 0:8:
Goal
C1 C2 C3 C4
P1 P2 P3
Table 3
Fuzzy linguistic assessment variables
Table 4
Pairwise comparison of four criteria with respect to the goal
Goal C1 C2 C3 C4
C1 MG
C2 P
C3 G
C4
Table 5
Pairwise comparison of three alternatives with respect to four criteria
P1 P2 P3
C1
P1 MP
P2 MP
P3
C2
P1 MP
P2 M
P3
C3
P1 MP
P2 M
P3
C4
P1 MP
P2 M
P3
Table 6
Fuzzy linguistic preference relation decision matrix of four criteria
Goal C1 C2 C3 C4
C1 (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.0, 0.3, 0.7) (0.2, 0.7, 1.2)
C2 (0.1, 0.3, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0, 0.1, 0.3) (0.8, 0.5, 0.8)
C3 (0.3, 0.7, 1.0) (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.7, 0.9, 1)
C4 (0.2, 0.3, 0.8) (0.2, 0.5, 0.8) (0, 0.1, 0.3) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5)
Table 7
Transforming results of the four criteria matrix from Table 5
Table 8
Fuzzy linguistic preference relation matrix of alternatives in C1
C1 P1 P2 P3
P1 (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) (0.3, 0.1, 0.5)
P2 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5)
P3 (0.5, 0.9, 1.3) (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5)
Table 9
Transforming results of the matrix of alternatives in C1
C1 P1 P2 P3 Average Weight
P1 (0.50, 0.50, 0.50) (0.25, 0.38, 0.50) (0.00, 0.25, 0.50) (0.25, 0.38, 0.50) (0.14, 0.25, 0.43)
P2 (0.50, 0.62, 0.75) (0.50, 0.50, 0.50) (0.25, 0.38, 0.50) (0.42, 0.50, 0.58) (0.23, 0.33, 0.50)
P3 (1.00, 0.75, 0.50) (0.50, 0.62, 0.75) (0.50, 0.50, 0.50) (0.50, 0.63, 0.75) (0.27, 0.42, 0.64)
Table 10
Fuzzy linguistic preference relations matrix of alternatives in C2, C3, C4
C2, C3, C4 P1 P2 P3
P1 (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) (0.1, 0.3, 0.7)
P2 (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7)
P3 (0.3, 0.7, 1.1) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5)
Table 11
Transforming results of the matrix of alternatives in C2, C3, C4
Table 12
Decision table
P1 P2 P3
C1 (0.14, 0.27, 0.52) (0.14, 0.25, 0.43) (0.23, 0.33, 0.50) (0.27, 0.42, 0.64)
C2 (0.11, 0.20, 0.37) (0.11, 0.26, 0.53) (0.23, 0.37, 0.63) (0.20, 0.37, 0.68)
C3 (0.21, 0.34, 0.54) (0.11, 0.26, 0.53) (0.23, 0.37, 0.63) (0.20, 0.37, 0.68)
C4 (0.09, 0.20, 0.41) (0.11, 0.26, 0.53) (0.23, 0.37, 0.63) (0.20, 0.37, 0.68)
Group integration (0.07, 0.26, 0.92) (0.12, 0.36, 1.09) (0.12, 0.38, 1.23)
Defuzzication 0.41 0.53 0.58
Table 6 lists the fuzzy linguistic preference relation decision matrix for four main criteria. The matrix has entries that
are not included in the interval [0, 1]; thus the following transforming P functions
are applied:
xL c M c xR c n
f xL 12c ; f xM x12c ; f xR 12c . The average (Ai) in Table 7 is calculated as Ai 1n j1 pij , and the weight (Wi) is
P
calculated as W i Ai = ni1 Ai . Similarly, Tables 8 and 10 present the decision matrices of alternatives determined by applying
each criterion. The entries in Tables 8 and 10 are not included in the interval [0, 1], so these transforming functions convert
Tables 8 and 10 into Tables 9 and 11. Finally, Table 12 shows the results obtained by group integration and defuzzication
using Eq. (10). The ranking of the three alternatives is P3 > P2 > P1. The result of the calculation is the same as in the original
example.
7. Conclusions
In this study, the fuzzy linguistic preference relations are used to derive pairwise comparison matrices. The presented
method is applied to the example employed by Kahraman et al. [30]. The study reveals that the proposed method yields
the same result as that of Kahraman et al., however, we can reduce the number of pairwise comparisons. The illustrative
example involves four criteria requiring three comparison judgments and three alternatives involving two comparisons.
Therefore, the number of pairwise comparisons can be reduced by C 42 3 4 C 32 2 7 times while ensured
3764 T.-C. Wang, Y.-H. Chen / Information Sciences 178 (2008) 37553765
consistency. When the number of criteria or alternatives increases, the number of comparisons required can be reduced by
the method introduced here. For instance, seven criteria require six comparisons, which the number of comparisons can be
reduced by C 72 6 15 times. The method not only enhances the quality of decision making in imprecise or vague envi-
ronments, but also resolves the problem of consistency of the fuzzy AHP. This study provides a set of mechanisms for iden-
tifying consistent fuzzy rankings.
In the future research, we may apply this method to different real-life problems. For example, the proposed method, may
be particularly useful in formulating a national energy policy given the uncertainty and vagueness of information related to
such decisions.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the editor, Professor Witold Pedrycz, and the anonymous referees for their constructive
comments and suggestions that led to an improved version of this paper.
References
[1] R.C. Berredo, P.Y. Ekel, R.M. Palhares, Fuzzy preference relations in models of decision making, Nonlinear Analysis 63 (2005) e735e741.
[2] F.T. Bozbura, A. Beskese, Prioritization of organizational capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP, International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning 44 (2007) 124147.
[3] J.J. Buckley, Fuzzy hierarchical analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 17 (3) (1985) 233247.
[4] F.T.S. Chan, H.J. Qi, A fuzzy basis channel-spanning performance measurement method for supply chain management, Proceedings of The Institution of
Mechanical Engineers Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture 216 (8) (2002) 11551167.
[5] F.T.S. Chan, H.J. Qi, Feasibility of performance measurement system for supply chain: a process-based approach and measures, International Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management: Integrated Manufacturing Systems 14 (3) (2003) 179190.
[6] F.T.S. Chan, H.J. Qi, H.K. Chan, H.C.W. Lau, R.W.L. Ip, A conceptual model of performance measurement for supply chains, Management Decision 41 (7)
(2003) 635642.
[7] C.H. Cheng, D.L. Mon, Evaluating weapon system by analytical hierarchy process based on fuzzy scale, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 63 (1994) 110.
[8] F. Chiclana, F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference
relations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 97 (1998) 3348.
[9] F. Chiclana, F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, Integrating multiplicative preference relations in a multipurpose decision-making model based on fuzzy
preference relations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122 (2001) 277291.
[10] F. Chiclana, F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, L. Martinez, A note on the reciprocity in the aggregation of fuzzy preference relations using OWA operators,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137 (2003) 7783.
[11] H.K. Chiou, G.H. Tzengm, Fuzzy hierarchy evaluation with grey relation model of green engineering for industry, International Journal of Fuzzy Systems
3 (2001) 466475.
[12] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Academic press, New York, 1980.
[13] P.Y. Ekel, M.R. Silva, F.S. Neto, R.M. Palhares, Fuzzy preference modeling and its application to multiobjective decision making, Computers and
Mathematics with Applications 52 (2006) 179196.
[14] Y.C. Erensal, T. ncan, M.L. Demircan, Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of
Turkey, Information Sciences 176 (2006) 27552770.
[15] Z.P. Fan, J. Ma, Y.P. Jiang, Y.H. Sun, L. Ma, A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and
fuzzy preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research 174 (2006) 311321.
[16] X. Gu, Q. Zhu, Fuzzy multi-attribute decision-making method based on eigenvector of fuzzy attribute evaluation space, Decision Support Systems 41
(2006) 400410.
[17] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, Choice functions and mechanisms for linguistic preference relations, European Journal of Operational Research 120
(2000) 144161.
[18] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
115 (2000) 6782.
[19] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Chiclana, Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations, European Journal of Operational
Research 129 (2001) 372385.
[20] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, J.L. Verdegay, A sequential selection process in group decision making with linguistic assessment, Information Sciences
85 (1995) 223239.
[21] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, J.L. Verdegay, A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 78
(1996) 7387.
[22] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, J.L. Verdegay, Direct approach process in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
79 (2) (1996) 175190.
[23] F. Herrera, E. Herrera-Viedma, J.L. Verdegay, A rational consensus model in group decision making using linguistic assessments, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 88 (1997) 3149.
[24] E. Herrera-Viedma, F. Herrera, F. Chiclana, M. Luque, Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations, European Journal of Operational
Research 154 (2004) 98109.
[25] F. Herrera, L. Martinez, A model based on linguistic 2-tuples for dealing with multigranular hierarchical linguistic contexts in multi-expert decision-
making, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics 31 (2001) 227234.
[26] F. Herrera, L. Martinez, P.J. Sanchez, Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making, European Journal of Operational Research 166
(2005) 115132.
[27] J. Kacprzyk, M. Fedrizzi, Multiperson Decision Making Models Using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1990.
[28] J. Kacprzyk, M. Fedrizzi, On a consensus measure in a group MCDM problem, in: J. Kacprzyk, M. Fedrizzi (Eds.), Multiperson Decision Making Models
using Fuzzy Sets and Possibility Theory, Kluwer, 1990, pp. 231241.
[29] C. Kahraman, U. Cebeu, D. Ruan, Multi-attribute comparison of catering service companies using fuzzy AHP: the case of Turkey, International Journal of
Production Economics 87 (2004) 171184.
[30] C. Kahraman, D. Ruan, I. Dogan, Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection, Information Sciences 157 (2003) 135153.
[31] A. Kaufmann, M.M. Gupta, Fuzzy Mathematical Models in Engineering and Management Science, North Holland, Amsterdam, 1988.
[32] A. Kaufmann, M.M. Gupta, Introduction to Fuzzy Arithmetic, Van Nostrand, New York, 1991.
[33] O. Kulak, C. Kahraman, Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process,
Information Sciences 170 (2005) 191210.
T.-C. Wang, Y.-H. Chen / Information Sciences 178 (2008) 37553765 3765
[34] M.S. Kuo, G.S. Liang, W.C. Huang, Extensions of the multicriteria analysis with pairwise comparison under a fuzzy environment, International Journal of
Approximate Reasoning 43 (2006) 268285.
[35] P.J.M. Laarhoven, W. Pedrycz, A fuzzy extension of Saatys priority theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11 (1-3) (1983) 229241.
[36] E.S. Lee, R.L. Li, Comparison of fuzzy numbers based on the probability measure of fuzzy events, Computational Mathematics and Application 15 (10)
(1988) 887896.
[37] L.C. Leung, D. Cao, On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 124 (2000) 102113.
[38] J. Ma, Z.P. Fan, Y.P. Jiang, J.Y. Mao, L. Ma, A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157 (2006) 20
33.
[39] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
[40] T.L. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research 148 (1990) 926.
[41] T.C. Wang, T.H. Chang, Forecasting the probability of successful knowledge management by consistent fuzzy preference relations, Expert Systems with
Applications 32 (3) (2007) 801813.
[42] T.C. Wang, Y.H. Chen, A new method on decision-making using fuzzy linguistic assessment variables and fuzzy preference relations, in: The
Proceedings of the 9th World Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, Orlando 2005, pp. 360363.
[43] T.C. Wang, Y.H. Chen, Applying consistent fuzzy preference relations to partnership selection, Omega 35 (4) (2007) 384388.
[44] Y.M. Wang, Z.P. Fan, Fuzzy preference relations: aggregation and weight determination, Computers & Industrial Engineering 53 (2007) 163172.
[45] Y.M. Wang, Z.P. Fan, Z. Hua, A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations, European Journal of
Operational Research 182 (2007) 356366.
[46] Y.M. Wang, C. Parkan, A general multiple attribute decision-making approach for integrating subjective preferences and objective information, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 157 (2006) 13331345.
[47] Z.S. Xu, Goal programming models for obtaining the priority vector of incomplete fuzzy preference relation, International Journal of Approximate
Reasoning 36 (2004) 261270.
[48] Z.S. Xu, Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making, Omega 33 (2005) 249254.
[49] Z.S. Xu, An approach based on the uncertain LOWG and induced uncertain LOWG operators to group decision making with uncertain multiplicative
linguistic preference relations, Decision Support Systems 41 (2) (2006) 488499.
[50] Z.S. Xu, Intuitionistic preference relations and their application in group decision making, Information Sciences 177 (2007) 23632379.
[51] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (3) (1965) 338353.
[52] L.A. Zadeh, Toward a generalized theory of uncertainty (GTU) an outline, Information Sciences 172 (2005) 140.