Refine your search
Collections
Co-Authors
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z All
Azadfallah, Mohammad
- A New MADM Approach in Building Consensus in Delphi’s Technique
Abstract Views :276 |
PDF Views:3
Authors
Affiliations
1 Business Studies and Development Office, Saipa Yadak, IR
1 Business Studies and Development Office, Saipa Yadak, IR
Source
Journal of Applied Information Science, Vol 3, No 2 (2015), Pagination: 9-16Abstract
There is no doubt that Delphi is a powerful technique in group decision-making context. Despite its usefulness, Delphi has some limitations too. A major drawback is the lack of transparency in reaching the consensus among the respondents. Therefore, in this paper, to resolve this limit, a new mathematical approach (based on the improved AHP models) according to Asgharpour (2003) and Azadfallah and Azizi (2015), is proposed, and can more assure the results by applying a model. A numerical example (in technologies foresight fields) demonstrates the application of the proposed method. The findings in this paper confirm the effectiveness of proposed method.Keywords
Delphi, Consensus, AHP, Improved AHP Models.- The Effect of Scale Ranges on Priorities and Discrimination Level of Alternatives in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Abstract Views :198 |
PDF Views:1
Authors
Affiliations
1 Saipa Yadak, IR
1 Saipa Yadak, IR
Source
Journal of Applied Information Science, Vol 5, No 1 (2017), Pagination: 24-30Abstract
In this paper, we first reviews different measurement scales (Linear, Power, Geometric, Logarithmic, Root square, Inverse linear, and Balanced) adopted in Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). then, with reduction of different measurement scale ranges to: left position (i.e., for linear measurement scale: 1-3), middle position (4-6), right position (7-9), left&middle position (1-6), middle&right position (4-9), and perfect ranges (1-9), the effects of different measurement scale on priorities and discrimination level (to discriminate an important alternative from others) of alternatives are investigated. The findings of this paper reveal that first, in 39 possibilities out of 42 cases, the same ranking (A1>A2>A3) with different intensities were obtained, and in 3 possibilities rank reversal are happened. Next, the geometric measurement scale in all ranges and particularly in perfect range have the best performance in discriminating an important alternative than others. Moreover, only the left position and perfect ranges in the most of measurement scales have the best performance in discriminating an important alternative from others.Keywords
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Measurement Scale, Scale Ranges, Discrimination Level.References
- M. Azadfallah, “Marketing strategy selection by interval TOPSIS under incomplete data,” XIBA Business Review, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 29-38, 2016.
- M. H. Birnbaum, “Measurement, Judgment, and decision making,” Academic Press, 1998.
- M. A. A. “Multidimensional scaling as an aid for the Analytic Network and Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Journal of Data Science, vol. 7, pp. 381-396, 2009.
- Y. Dong, Y. Xu, H. Li, and M. Dai, “A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 186, no. 1, pp. 229-242, April, 2008.
- E. Forman, and A. Selly, “Decision by objectives,” World Scientific Press, 2001..
- A. Ishizaka, and A. Labib, “Analytic hierarchy process and expert choice: Benefits and limitations,” OR Insight, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 201-220, 2009.
- A. Ishizaka, D. Balkenborg, and T. Kaplan, “Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP,” The Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 700-710, 2011.
- P. Ji, and R. Jiang, “Scale transitivity in the AHP,” The Journal of the Operational Research Society, pp. 54, no. 8, pp. 896-905, 2003.
- F. H. F. Liu, and H. L. Hai, The voting Analytic Hierarchy Process method for selecting supplier,” International Journal Production Economics, vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 308-317, 2005.
- R. D. Luce, “Quantification and symmetry,” British Journal of Psychology, vol. 88, no. 3, pp. 395-398, 1997.
- S. C. Masin, “Norman Robert Campbell, A neglected forerunner in sensory measurement,” Proceedings of the Twenty-Second Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, UK, vol. 22, pp. 217-222, 2006.
- S. M. Mirhedayatian, M. Jafarian, and R. F. Saen, “A multi-objective slack based measure of efficiency model for weight derivation in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Journal of Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 19, pp. 3338-3350, 2011.
- M. A. Poyhonen, R. P. Hämäläinen, and A. A. Salo, “An experiment on the numerical modeling of verbal ratio statements,“ Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1-10, 1997.
- T. l. Saaty, “Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory”, RWS Publication, vol. 6, 2000.
- T. L. Saaty, T. L. “Deriving the AHP 1-9 scale from first principles,” Proceedings of the 6th ISAHP 2001 Bern, Switzerland, pp. 397-401, August, 2001.
- T. L. Saaty, “Scales from measurement not measurement from scales”, MCDM 2004, Whistler, B.C., Canada, pp. 6-11, August, 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.
- A. Salo, and R. Hamalainen, “On the measurement of preferences in the Analytic hierarchy Process,” Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 6, no. 6, pp. 309-319, 1997.
- Y. Sato, “The impact on scaling on the pair wise comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process”, International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Berns Switzerland, pp. 421-430, August, 2001.
- E. Triantaphyllou, F. A. Lootsma, P. M. Pardalos, S. H. Mann, “On the evaluation and application of different scales for quantifying pair wise comparisons in fuzzy sets,” Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 133-155, 1994.
- P. Vachajitpan, “Measurements scales and derivation of priorities in pair wise and group decision making”, MCDM 2004, Whistler, B.C., Canada, pp. 1-6, August, 2004.
- X. Wang, “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, 2007.
- S. Webber, and F. Eisenfuhr, “The sensitivity of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to alternative scale and cue presentations,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 351-362, 1996.
- W. C. Wedley, “AHP answers to problems with known composite values,” International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Berns Switzerland, pp. 551-560, August, 2001.
- W. C. Wedley, “AHP/ANP- Where is natural zero?,” International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, VinaDel Mar, Chile, pp. 1-15, August, 2007.