Achieving matrix consistency in AHP through linearization

Applied Mathematical Modelling

Volumn 35, Issue 9, 2011, Pages 4449-4457

  Benítez, Julio ^a   Delgado Galván, Xitlali ^a   Izquierdo, Joaquín ^a   Pérez García, Rafael ^a  

^a UNIVERSITAT POLITÈCNICA DE VALÈNCIA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Analytic hierarchy process; Decision making; Leakage management; Linearization

Indexed keywords

CLOSED FORM; CONSISTENT MATRIX; DECISION-MAKING PROBLEM; EXPERT KNOWLEDGE; INDUSTRIAL CONTEXT; LEAKAGE MANAGEMENT; LINEAR SPACES; LINEARIZATION TECHNIQUE; MATRIX; OPTIMISATIONS; ORTHOGONAL PROJECTION; PAIR-WISE COMPARISON; REAL-WORLD;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; LINEARIZATION; WATER MANAGEMENT; WATER SUPPLY; WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 79955631113     PISSN: 0307904X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apm.2011.03.013     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Saaty T.L. Relative measurement and its generalization in decision making. Why pairwise comparisons are central in mathematics for the measurement of intangible factors. The analytic hierarchy/network process. Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Serie A: Matemáticas 2008, 102(2):251-318.
2. Dong Y., Xu Y., Li H., Dai M. A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP. European J. Oper. Res. 2008, 186:229-242.
3. Saaty T.L. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J. Math. Psychol. 1977, 15:234-281.
4. Srdjevic B. Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management. Decision Support Syst. 2007, 42:2261-2273.
5. Ozdemir M.S. Validity and inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process. Appl. Math. Comput. 2005, 161:707-720.
6. Choo E.U., Wedley W.C. A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Comput. Oper. Res. 2004, 31:893-908.
7. Crawford G., Williams C. A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. J. Math. Psychol. 1985, 29:387-405.
8. Saaty T.L., Hu G. Ranking by the eigenvector versus other methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Appl. Math. Lett. 1998, 11(4):121-125.
9. J. Aznar, F. Guijarro, Nuevos métodos de valoración, Modelos Multicriterio, Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Spain, 2008.
10. Monsuur H. An intrinsic consistency threshold for reciprocal matrices. European J. Oper. Res. 1996, 96:387-391.
11. Saaty T.L. Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European J. Oper. Res. 2003, 145:85-91.
12. J. Benítez, X. Delgado-Galván, J. Izquierdo, R. Pérez-García, Consistent matrices and consistency improvement in decision-making processes, in: B.H.V. Topping, J.M. Adam, F.J. Pallarés, R. Bru, M.L. Romero, (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Engineering Computational Technology, Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, United Kingdom, paper 21, 2010. doi:10.4203/ccp.94.21.
13. Delgado-Galván X., Pérez-García R., Izquierdo J., Mora-Rodríguez J. Analytic hierarchy process for assessing externalities in water leakage management. Math. Comput. Model. 2010, 52:1194-1202.
14. Crawford G., Williams C. A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. J. Math. Psychol. 1985, 29(4):387-405.
15. Mikhailov L. A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2000, 51(3):341-349.
16. Lin C.-C. An enhanced goal programming method for generating priority vectors. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 2006, 57(12):1491-1496.
17. Srdjevic B. Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis. Comput. Oper. Res. 2005, 32(7):1897-1919.
18. Saaty T.L., Vargas L.G. Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Math. Model. 1984, 5(5):309-324.
19. Barzilai J. Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1997, 48(12):1226-1232.
20. Bryson N. A goal programming method for generating priorities vectors. J. Oper. Res. Soc. 1995, 46(5):641-648.
21. Chu A.T.W., Kalaba R.E., Springarn K. A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. J. Optim. Theor. Appl. 1979, 27(4):531-541.
22. Meyer C.D. Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra 2000, SIAM.
23. Farley M., Trow S. Losses in Water Distribution Networks. A practitioner's Guide to Assessment, Monitoring and Control 2003, IWA publishing, UK.
24. Finan J.S., Hurley W.J. The analytic hierarchy process: does adjusting a pairwise comparison matrix to improve the consistency ratio help?. Comput. Oper. Res. 1997, 24:749-755.
25. G.W. Stewart, Matrix Algorithms, vol. II, SIAM, 2001.
26. Ramanathan R., Ramanahan U. A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Omega 2010, 38:228-232.
27. Aczel J., Saaty T. Procedures for synthesising ratio judgements. J. Math. Psychol. 1983, 27:93-102.