National Journal of System and Information Technology

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

The Impacts of Aggregation Rules, Measurement Scale and Normalization Methods on Ranking of Alternatives in AHP


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

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


In this paper we analyze the impacts of various aggregation rules (additive and multiplicative), normalization methods (Saaty, vector, weitendorf’s linear, juttler-Korth, nonlinear and logarithmic), and measurement scales (linear, power, geometric, logarithmic, ischolar_main square, inverse linear and balanced), on the results of the well-known and widely used methods of MADM:Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A problem with a known answer is used to test different conditions. In general, this studies an experimentally reveals that the 'Conventional AHP' method is more or equal effective to others in solving the Multiple Attribute Decision making problems. Therefore, we more recommended using the 'Conventional AHP' in various areas of human activities.

Keywords

Aggregation, Measurement Scale, Normalization Method, AHP.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Barzilai J., 2001, "Notes on the Analytic Hierarchy Process", proceedings of the NSF design and manufacturing research conference, Tampa, Florida, 1-6.

  • Choo E.U. and W.C. Wedley,2008,"Comparing fundamentals of Additive and Multiplicative Aggregation in ratio scale multi criteria decision making", The open operational research journal,2,1-7.

  • Forman E. and M. A. Selly, 2001, "Decision by Objectives" ,World Scientific Press.

  • Ishizaka A. et al., 2011, "Influence of Aggregation and Measurement Scale on Ranking a compromise Alternative in AHP", journal of the operational research society,62(4),700-710.

  • Islam R., 2002,"Modified Nominal Group Technique for group decision making", IIUM journal of Economic and Management 10, No.2, 1-27.

  • Islam R. and A. Nur Anisah, 2006,"Management Decision Making by the AHP: A proposed Modification for Large Scale problems", journal international Business and Entrepreneurship development", Vol.3.No.1/2,18-39.

  • Luce R.D., 1997,"Quantification and Symmetry", British journal of Psychology, 88,395-398.

  • Lootsma F.A., 1993,"context related scaling of human judgment in the Multiplicative AHP, SMART, and ELECTRE", IIASA, A 2361 - Luxemburg-Austria.

  • Macharis C. et al. ,2004 , "Promethee and AHP”, European journal of operational research, 153,307-317.

  • Maleki H. and A. Hassan Zadeh, 2012,” comparison of the REMBRANDET system with the Wnng and Elhag approach: a practical example of the rank reversal problem”, African journal of Business Management, Vol. 6(1), 459-473, 2012.

  • Pavl D.M., 2000, "Normalization of attribute values in MADM violates the conditions of consistent choice IV, DI and α ", Yugoslav journal of operations research, 1,109-122.

  • Ramanathan R. ,2001,"A note to the use of the AHP for environmental impact assessment”, journal of Environmental Management, 63, 27-35.

  • Saaty T. L. , 2000,"Fundementals of decision making and priority theory", Vol. VI of the AHP series, RWS Publication.

  • Saaty T. L. , 2001,"Decision making with dependence and feedback", Vol. IX of the AHP series, RWS Publication.

  • Saaty T. L. , 2003 ,"Rank, normalization and idealization in the Analytic Hierarchy Process", ISAHP2003, Bali, Indonesia, August 7-9, 2003.

  • Saaty T. L. , 2008,"relative measurement and its generalization in decision making", Rev. R. Acad. Scien. Serie A. Mat. Vol. 102(2), 2008, 251-318.

  • Saaty T. L. , L. Vargas and R. Whitaker, 2009, "Addressing with brevity criticisms of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, International journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Vol. 1, Issue 1, 121-134.

  • Sato Y.,2001,"The impact on scaling on the pair wise comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, ISAHP,Berne,Switzerland,421-430.

  • Srdjevic et al. (2014), first-level transitivity rule method for filling in incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 8, No. 2, 459-467.

  • Stevens S. S. , 1946 ,"On the theory of scales of measurement", SCIENCE, 103, No.2684, 677-680.

  • Triantaphyllou E. and K. Baig, 2005,"The impact of Aggregating Benefit and Cost criteria in four MCDA methods".IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 52,213-226.

  • Turskis Z. et al. , 2009 ,"Multi Criteria optimization system for decision making in construction design and management", Engineering Economics, No.1 (61), 1-17.

  • Wang X. and E. Triantaphyllou,2006,"Ranking irregularities when evaluating Alternatives by using some Multi Criteria Decision Analysis Methods", Handbook of Industrial and systems Engineering, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group , Boca Raton,FL,USA, chapter 27,1-12.

  • Wang X., 2008,”A study of regret and rejoicing and a new MCDM method based on them”, doctorate thesis, Louisiana state university, USA.

  • Wedley W.C., 2001,"AHP answers to problems with known composite values", ISAHP, Berne, Switzerland, 551-560.

  • Wedley W.C. and E.U. Choo, 2003,"Muddled Magnitudes", ISAHP, Bali, Indonesia, 511-519.

  • Wedley W.C. and E.U. Choo ,2008 ,"An analysis of AHP comparisons and priorities", ASAC, Halifax, Nova Scotia, 16-28.

  • Zavadskas E.K. and Z. Turskis, 2008"A new Logarithmic Normalization method in Game theory", Informatica 19, No.2, 303-314.

  • Zavadskas E.K. et al., 2010,"Attributes weights determining peculiarities in Multiple Attribute Decision Making methods", Engineering Economics, 21(1), 32-43.


Abstract Views: 285

PDF Views: 2




  • The Impacts of Aggregation Rules, Measurement Scale and Normalization Methods on Ranking of Alternatives in AHP

Abstract Views: 285  |  PDF Views: 2

Authors

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

Abstract


In this paper we analyze the impacts of various aggregation rules (additive and multiplicative), normalization methods (Saaty, vector, weitendorf’s linear, juttler-Korth, nonlinear and logarithmic), and measurement scales (linear, power, geometric, logarithmic, ischolar_main square, inverse linear and balanced), on the results of the well-known and widely used methods of MADM:Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). A problem with a known answer is used to test different conditions. In general, this studies an experimentally reveals that the 'Conventional AHP' method is more or equal effective to others in solving the Multiple Attribute Decision making problems. Therefore, we more recommended using the 'Conventional AHP' in various areas of human activities.

Keywords


Aggregation, Measurement Scale, Normalization Method, AHP.

References