Analytical hierarchy process: revolution and evolution

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a reliable, rigorous, and robust method for eliciting and quantifying subjective judgments in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Despite the many benefits, the complications of the pairwise comparison process and the limitations of consistency in AHP are...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of operations research Jg. 326; H. 2; S. 879 - 907
Hauptverfasser: Tavana, Madjid, Soltanifar, Mehdi, Santos-Arteaga, Francisco J.
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: New York Springer US 01.07.2023
Springer
Springer Nature B.V
Schlagworte:
Acceptability
Analysis
Analytic hierarchy process
Analytical hierarchy process
Business and Management
Combinatorics
Decision making
Evolution
Hierarchies
Multiple criteria decision making
Multiple criterion
Operations research
Operations Research/Decision Theory
Original Research
Pairwise comparison
Theory of Computation
Weighting methods
United States
Decision support systems
Analytical hierarchy process multi-criteria decision-making
Pairwise comparison
Weighting methods
Consistency
ISSN:0254-5330, 1572-9338
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a reliable, rigorous, and robust method for eliciting and quantifying subjective judgments in multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM). Despite the many benefits, the complications of the pairwise comparison process and the limitations of consistency in AHP are challenges that have been the subject of extensive research. AHP revolutionized how we resolve complex decision problems and has evolved substantially over three decades. We recap this evolution by introducing five new hybrid methods that combine AHP with popular weighting methods in MCDM. The proposed methods are described and evaluated systematically by implementing a widely used example in the AHP literature. We show that (i) the hybrid methods proposed in this study require fewer expert judgments than AHP but deliver the same ranking, (ii) a higher degree of involvement in the hybrid voting AHP methods leads to higher acceptability of the results when experts are also the decision-makers, and (iii) experts are more motivated and attentive in methods requiring fewer pairwise comparisons and less interaction, resulting in a more efficient process and higher acceptability.
Bibliographie:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 14
ISSN:0254-5330
1572-9338
DOI:10.1007/s10479-021-04432-2