0 Voturi pozitive0 Voturi negative

0 (de) vizualizări14 paginiChapter 7 AHP

Feb 18, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

Chapter 7 AHP

© All Rights Reserved

0 (de) vizualizări

Chapter 7 AHP

© All Rights Reserved

- Clinical Practice Guidelines in Primary Care
- Ob Questionnaire
- Use of Fuzzy AHP
- Vendor
- Bauer 2013
- Planning
- Business Oriented Priorization a Novel Graphicla Technique
- Supply Chain Management in the Textile Industry
- p4373-new
- Application of MCDM model for assessing suitability of JIT Manufacturing
- Data Analytics C20 Roll 36
- 7
- 1-s2.0-S0307904X11006330-main.pdf
- 96127.pdf
- A Hybrid Neutrosophic Group ANP-TOPSIS Framework for Supplier Selection Problems
- Mazur 2000 Integrating QFD (Stage Gate)
- Induced generalized interval neutrosophic Shapley hybrid operators and their application in multi-attribute decision making
- 10Huong..GIS in City Planning - Tieng Anh
- Analysis of Decision Making Factors for Equity Investment by DEMATEL and Analytic Network Process
- 2

Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

Improving Consistency of

Comparison Matrices in

7.1 Introduction

tactics intending to streamline the decision making layouts. This chapter decodes

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

138

derived inﬂuence the choices one makes. Priorities should not only be unique

but should also reﬂect the dominance of the order expressed in the judgments

and responsive to small perturbations. They are highly related to the notion of

could improve the validity of the priorities of a decision. This chapter endeav-

the eﬀects of hypothetical decisions made by the decision makers. The proposed

The concept of pairwise comparisons is more than two hundred years old. Borda(1781)

using only 0 and 1 in the pairwise comparison matrices. The method was eﬃciently

isons for social values in twentieth century. Over the last three decades, a number

of methods have been developed which use pairwise comparisons of the alterna-

tives and criteria for solving MCDM problems. AHP proposed by Saaty(1980) has

been a very popular approach to MCDM that involves pairwise comparisons for

an objective inquisition. It has been applied during the last thirty years in many

decision making situations and a wide range of applications in various ﬁelds. Ad-

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

139

vances in the decision sciences have led to the development of a number approaches

matic scenario. Belton & Gear(1983), and Dyer(1990) gave a critical review on

many interactive multiple criteria decision making scenarios. The decision mak-

ers are required to make holistic binary comparisons among feasible alternatives.

comparisons that have to be made when searching for the best (most preferred)

have been presented. The simplest case of combinatorial consistency was ana-

and Koksalan & Sagala(1992) and many more, but only widely accepted measure

In AHP, the calculated priorities are presumable only if the comparison matri-

ces are consistent or near consistent. This condition is reached if (and only if)

within the pairwise comparison process the transitivity and reciprocity rules are

respected. However it is often assumed that the decision produced by a group will

always be better than that supplied by an individual. This seems plausible because

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

140

multiple participants can bring diﬀering expertise and perspectives to carry out

In this study, it is unveiled that the consistency of a positive reciprocal matrix can

relative error is brought up which not only aspires to minimize the inconsistencies

in decision making. This method can fully retain the eﬀective information of

Decision Makers are more likely to be cardinally inconsistent because they cannot

estimate precisely measurement values even from a known scale and worse when

they deal with intangibles (a is preferred to b twice and b to c three times, but a

⎛ ⎞

⎜ 1 2 3⎟

⎜ ⎟

⎜ ⎟

⎜

A = ⎜1/2 1 a23 ⎟

⎟

⎜ ⎟

⎝ ⎠

1/3 a32 1

141

To fulﬁll the criteria of consistency (explained in section 1.2.1) i.e. aij · ajk = aik ,

a23 = a21 · a13 = 3/2 and consequently a32 = 2/3. So the judgment is consistent

iﬀ a23 = 3/2 and a32 = 2/3. Here the ﬁrst reason of inconsistency appears. The

comparison scale of AHP (Table 1.1) has no such value. To overcome this diﬃculty,

it is more appropriate to use the numbers of the form {a/b : a, b ∈ {I + }}, where

I + represents the set of positive integers excluding 0. This modiﬁed scale allows

the decision maker to present a consistent judgment. This is perhaps the simplest

(a R b and b R c) ⇒ a R c ∀ a, b, c ∈ A.

The same property is respected in pairwise comparisons i.e. if A > B and B > C

B to C but C is preferred to A). One of the apparent reason is, large number

Majority of available software entertain not more than nine attributes at a time.

This is because of the fact that handling of a nine attribute matrix would need

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

142

transitivity goes on increasing with the size of the matrix.

the scale {a/b : a, b ∈ {I + }}. If any two or more criteria are equally signiﬁcant,

obvious priority of one over the other is 1 using the given scale.

can be provided in this manner and represented in a matrix form to provide weights

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

143

this maximum eigenvalue provides the requisite criteria weights. Geometric mean

Step 5: The nodes at each level are compared pairwise with respect to their

contribution to the nodes above them to ﬁnd their respective global weights. We

rank each of the criteria in the ﬁnal set by evaluating it with respect to upper level

attributes separately. The evaluation process ﬁnally generates the global weights

for each requisite criterion of interest. In a realistic scenario, the technique is very

adaptable and can handle any number of attributes in a system. This simpliﬁcation

can reduce the calculation eﬀort for the weights signiﬁcantly, especially when

judgment criteria are large in number and pairwise comparisons are diﬃcult to

be accomplished.

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

144

Q is prioritized 3 times over R, P is prioritized 2 times over Q and S is priori-

the methodology explained in section 7.2.3. Table 7.1 depicts the priorities pro-

cured by the four attributes accorded by the three referees and Table 7.2 portrays

the prioritized weights acquired by the four attributes, subject to their rankings,

P Q R S

R 1 1/4, 1, 1/30

S 1

R1 R2 R3

Table 7.3 shows the ﬁnal rankings evolved by synthesizing the rankings provided

Final ranking is R, Q, S, P with CR approximately zero. Thus the eﬃciency of

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

145

Table 7.3: Aggregated Matrix Showing Final Weights of the Attributes

p Q R S Weights

associated with MCDM problems. AHP apparently arms the judgments which are

narios, only a handful of acceding judgments are taken into account defying the

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

146

(3) A logistic numerical assessment of irrational judgments.

We now illustrate the proposed methodology via an example in which eight referees

attributes P , Q, R and S.

To begin with, we ﬁrst discuss the results working with the classical AHP method-

ology. Tables 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.9, 7.10 and 7.11 exhibit the prioritized

weights procured using AHP accorded by referees respectively. Note each decision

R, S; then Q with R, S; and ﬁnally R with S, using scale from Table 1.1.

P Q R S Weights

Q 9 1 7 3 0.590915

S 6 1/3 5 1 0.283027

P Q R S Weights

P 1 1/5 3 6 0.211829

Q 5 1 7 9 0.657806

147

Table 7.6: Response to Inquisition by Referee R3

P Q R S Weights

R 2 2 1 1/8 0.132531

S 7 7 8 1 0.707129

P Q R S Weights

P 1 1/2 6 4 0.368319

Q 2 1 1/2 5 0.327285

P Q R S Weights

P 1 1/5 4 6 0.292937

Q 5 1 1/2 7 0.425984

R 1/4 2 1 3 0.238303

148

Table 7.9: Response to Inquisition by Referee R6

P Q R S Weights

Q 2 1 5 1/6 0.214766

S 4 6 1/7 1 0.282144

P Q R S Weights

P 1 2 3 1/4 0.266575

R 1/3 5 1 7 0.416396

S 4 6 1/7 1 0.267806

P Q R S Weights

Q 2 1 8 1/6 0.341091

R 3 1/8 1 5 0.272895

S 4 6 1/5 1 0.335659

149

An aggregated reciprocal matrix is developed by taking geometric mean of cor-

responding values of all the eight matrices for further calculations. Table 7.12

depicts the ﬁnal weights of the attributes P , Q, R and S using classical AHP,

Table 7.12: Aggregated Matrix Showing Weights of the Attributes Using AHP

P Q R S Weights

having awarded highest priority, yet not prioritized to S and similar other ob-

servations. Now we illustrate our proposed scheme on the same problem and

seek the priorities for the four attributes P, Q, R, S, in ascending order, from

Table 7.12

times and that of Q over S is 0.67798 times. Awarding the priorities to the

by Table 7.13.

Accepted in International Journal of Current Engineering and Technology

150

Table 7.13: Synthesis of Priorities Accorded by Proposed Methodology

P Q R S Weights

Table 7.13 provides highly commensurate results with all the attributes having

151

- Clinical Practice Guidelines in Primary CareÎncărcat deAditya Rachman Van Der Arjunaquee
- Ob QuestionnaireÎncărcat deimazahra
- Use of Fuzzy AHPÎncărcat defebriwalker
- VendorÎncărcat dePrashant Murari
- Bauer 2013Încărcat demaslinovik5003
- PlanningÎncărcat deEdlyn Esteves
- Business Oriented Priorization a Novel Graphicla TechniqueÎncărcat de18085012
- Supply Chain Management in the Textile IndustryÎncărcat deimroz_ali90
- p4373-newÎncărcat deapi-293076441
- Application of MCDM model for assessing suitability of JIT ManufacturingÎncărcat deJournal of Computing
- Data Analytics C20 Roll 36Încărcat desunny131987
- 7Încărcat deMoslem Persia
- 1-s2.0-S0307904X11006330-main.pdfÎncărcat deagusdwir
- 96127.pdfÎncărcat deAnonymous fYN6BH
- A Hybrid Neutrosophic Group ANP-TOPSIS Framework for Supplier Selection ProblemsÎncărcat deAnonymous 0U9j6BLllB
- Mazur 2000 Integrating QFD (Stage Gate)Încărcat desigmasundar
- Induced generalized interval neutrosophic Shapley hybrid operators and their application in multi-attribute decision makingÎncărcat deMia Amalia
- 10Huong..GIS in City Planning - Tieng AnhÎncărcat deminhtuyen1609
- Analysis of Decision Making Factors for Equity Investment by DEMATEL and Analytic Network ProcessÎncărcat deAnonymous XR7iq7
- 2Încărcat deJomar Fajardo Rabajante
- test.docxÎncărcat deArchamedes Bautista
- Copy of Copy of Attendance of Deptt. of Managment- Trimester-4Încărcat deKumar Mukysh
- 143191_3_Managerial Decision-making.pdfÎncărcat deDyan Indahsari
- Multiple IntegralsÎncărcat deweglisotter
- Ethical decisonÎncărcat deSHIVAM GAUR
- game sense approach for teaching finalÎncărcat deapi-266198792
- Life and Health 2.2 PowerpointÎncărcat deJasean Young
- SyllabusÎncărcat deVarshant Dhar
- 2.FACTORS-AFFECTING-THE-DECISION-OF-FRESHMEN-STUDENTS-IN-PURSUING-HOSPITALITY-AND-TOURISM-PROGRAMS-IN-LPU-LAGUNA.pdfÎncărcat depolian
- Syllabus 6630 2017 (4).docxÎncărcat deAbhijeet Singh

- Diagram Layang Analisa SwotÎncărcat deTatan Okeh
- UN 2017 SD MTKÎncărcat deTatan Okeh
- GPL License TermsÎncărcat deHasbullah Mohd
- How to Upgrade TP-LINK Wireless N Router&AP(192.168.0.1 Version)Încărcat deEvanis Nunes
- UN 2017 SD IPA.pdfÎncărcat deTatan Okeh
- Jas-ling.pdfÎncărcat deTatan Okeh
- Jablonsky SANNA ApliÎncărcat deTatan Okeh
- The Knowledge Based EconomyÎncărcat dealfredyap

- ISCMÎncărcat decsrajmohan2924
- Medical EquipmentÎncărcat deAndres Rivera
- Kitting TrolleyÎncărcat deShubham Jain
- Analytic network process in supplier selection-- A case study in an electronic firm.pdfÎncărcat deM. Nishom, S.Kom
- 2007 good copyÎncărcat depooyeh_r
- ICTS 2015 Conference Proceedings FINALÎncărcat deRamadan Duraku
- kalasÎncărcat debalakalees
- Vulnerability Mapping Using Easy AHP _ CBS UYGULAMAÎncărcat demarnoonpv
- Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group DecisionÎncărcat deAndrei Calciu
- 950_IJAR-5043Încărcat deRimky Mps
- E 1765 - 11Încărcat deEric Gozzer
- Objective AHP for Road PrioritizationÎncărcat deTeuku Rizki Muda Keulana
- Chittagong 3Încărcat deSafwat El Rouby
- Performance Measurement PPTÎncărcat deNitin Tripathi
- 077823Încărcat deGustavo Hernandez
- Thesis ErgonomicsÎncărcat deIdris Ali
- Analyzing Alternatives in Reverse Logistics for End of Life Computers With ANP and BSCÎncărcat decmejias1973
- ahpexampleÎncărcat deyustmugen
- Choice Complexity Tech DecisionsÎncărcat deNavneet Bhushan
- A Multi Stage Decision Making Model to Evaluate Suppliers by Using MOLP and ANP in a Strategic ApproachÎncărcat deAnonymous vQrJlEN
- Identifying and Prioritizing Critical Success Factors for Coopetition StrategyÎncărcat deErnesto SV
- A Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) Software Selection FrameworkÎncărcat deAdam Shariff
- Development of a Decision Support System for Supplier EvaluationÎncărcat deWenli Peng
- MCA WeightingÎncărcat deAunya Boochayan
- A New Approach to Supplier Selection Problem an Introduction of AHP-SCOR Integrated ModelÎncărcat deEditor IJRITCC
- A THREE-LEVEL DISPOSAL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA SYSTEM FOR TOXIC AND HAZARDOUS WASTES IN THE PHILIPPINES.pdfÎncărcat deesatjournals
- Developing a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Model for PESTEL AnalysisÎncărcat deFreddy Orlando Melo
- ABRAHAM LEPECH HAYMAKER 2013 Selection and Application of Choosing by Advantages on a Corporate Campus ProjectÎncărcat deotonhioo
- Math MatrixÎncărcat deAlaul Asif
- A practitioner’s guide to light weight software process assessment and improvement planningÎncărcat deRafia Naz Memon

## Mult mai mult decât documente.

Descoperiți tot ce are Scribd de oferit, inclusiv cărți și cărți audio de la editori majori.

Anulați oricând.