International Journal of Business Analytics and Intelligence

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Impact of the Scale Elements Alteration on Priorities in Analytic Hierarchy Process Technique


Affiliations
1 Business Studies and Development Office, Saipayadak, Iran, Islamic Republic of
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


The present study, presents a comparative analysis of different measurement scales adopted in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), by testing them versus a problem with a known composite answers. Then experimentally, the impact of the different measurement scale elements alteration from three aspects: 1. The limited scale upper bound (up to 9), 2. Changing the scale parameters (a parameters), and 3. Changing the system numbers (from 1, 3…9; to 2, 4…10) on priorities are investigated. The results show that the linear measurement scale has the best performance in comparison to other scales.

Keywords

AHP, Measurement Scale, Scale Elements Alteration.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Cox, M. A. A. (2009). Multidimensional scaling as an aid for the analytic network and analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Data Science, 7(2009), 381-396.

  • Forman, E. H., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process-an exposition. Operations Research, 49, 469-486.

  • Ishizaka, A., & Labib, A. (2009). Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations”, OR Insight, 22(4), 201-220.

  • Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D., & Kaplan T. (2011). Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 700-710.

  • Ji, P., & Jiang, R. (2003). Scale transitivity in the AHP. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 54(8), 896-905.

  • Luce, R. D. (1997). Quantification and symmetry. British Journal of Psychology, 88, 395-398.

  • Monat, J. P. (2009). The benefits of global scaling in multi criteria decision analysis, Judgment and Decision Making, 4(6), 492-508.

  • Munshi J. (2014). Method for constructing likert scales, (April 2, 2014). Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/ abstract=2419366 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ ssrn.2419366

  • Narens, L. (1981). On the scales of measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 24, 249-275.

  • Narens, L., & Luce, R. D. (1986). Measurement: The theory of numerical assignments. Psychological Bulletin, 99(2), 166-180.

  • Pöyhönen, M., Hämäläinen, R. P., & Salo, A. (1997). An experiment on the numerical modeling of verbal ratio statements, 6. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 6.

  • Ramanathan, R. (2001). A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. Journal of Environmental Management, 63, 27-35.

  • Sato, Y. (2001). The impact on scaling on the pair wise comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. ISAHP, 2001, Berns Switzerland, August 2-4, 421-430.

  • Saaty, T. L. (2000). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory. RWS publication, 6.

  • Saaty, T. L. (2004). Scales from measurement not measurement from scales. MCDM 2004, Whistler, B.C., Canada, August 6-11, 2004.

  • Saaty T. L. (2005). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Processes for the measurement of intangible criteria and for decision making”, in Multi Criteria Decision Analysis: state of the art survey (Figueira et al., Eds), Kluwer academic publisher, 345-406.

  • Salo, A., & Hamalainen, R. (1997). On the measurement of preferences in the Analytic hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 309-319.

  • Shinohara et al., (2001). Why not use the Entropy method for weight estimations. proceedings-6th ISAHP 2001, Berns, Switzerland, August 2–4, 2001, 431-434.

  • Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103(2684).

  • Triantaphyllou et al., (1994). On the evaluation and application of different scales for quantifying pair wise comparisons in fuzzy sets. Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 3, 133-155.

  • Triantaphyllou, E., Shu, B., Sanchez, S. N., & Ray, T. (1998). Multi criteria decision making: an operations research approach. Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, Newyork, 15, 175-186.

  • Turskis, Z., Zavadskas, E. K., & Peldschus, F. (2009). Multi criteria optimization system for decision making in construction design and management. Engineering Economics, 1(61), 1-17.

  • Vachajitpan, P. (2004). Measurements scales and derivation of priorities in pair wise and group decision making, MCDM 2004, Whistler, B.C., Canada, August 6–11, 2004, 1-6.

  • Wang, X. (2007). Study of ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods and a proposed new MCDM method based on regret and rejoicing”, MSc. Thesis, Louisiana State University. USA.

  • Wedley W. C. (2001). AHP answers to problems with known composite values, ISAHP 2001, Berns Switzerland, August 2-4, 2001, pp. 551-560.

  • Wedley, W. C. (2007). AHP/ANP-where is natural zero? ISAHP 2007, VinaDel Mar, Chile, August 3-6, 2007, pp. 1-15.


Abstract Views: 285

PDF Views: 0




  • The Impact of the Scale Elements Alteration on Priorities in Analytic Hierarchy Process Technique

Abstract Views: 285  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Mohammad Azadfallah
Business Studies and Development Office, Saipayadak, Iran, Islamic Republic of

Abstract


The present study, presents a comparative analysis of different measurement scales adopted in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), by testing them versus a problem with a known composite answers. Then experimentally, the impact of the different measurement scale elements alteration from three aspects: 1. The limited scale upper bound (up to 9), 2. Changing the scale parameters (a parameters), and 3. Changing the system numbers (from 1, 3…9; to 2, 4…10) on priorities are investigated. The results show that the linear measurement scale has the best performance in comparison to other scales.

Keywords


AHP, Measurement Scale, Scale Elements Alteration.

References