From Measurement to Decision with the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Propagation of Uncertainty to Decision Outcome

Measurement is customarily performed to acquire information useful to support decisions. More and more frequently, the complexity of analyzed systems and problems requires to measure various heterogeneous properties and to process the returned results in order to obtain information directly exploitable to support decision-making activities. However, despite a high relevance for many engineering applications, methods for rigorously processing data about heterogeneous empirical properties have not been properly analyzed yet. As a result, decision makers attain their conclusions by subjectively fusing together the available measurement results without following a formal procedure, which has a negative impact on the verifiability and the reliability of the whole evaluation process. This paper proposes a simple and effective multicriteria decision-making method that can be applied whenever measurement results are available for the considered decision criteria. Moreover, unlike most of the scientific literature on decision making, the proposed method provides not only the most desirable decision outcome, but it also returns information on the outcome reliability. This is achieved by leveraging on measurement fundamentals. In particular, by expressing measurement uncertainty using interval values, the related interval priorities of the considered decision alternatives can be determined. The proposed methodology is finally applied to a dependability-benchmarking case study.

[1]  Chenyi Hu,et al.  Fuzzy Partial-Order Relations for Intervals and Interval Weighted Graphs , 2007, 2007 IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computational Intelligence.

[2]  Xu Ze,et al.  Possibility degree method for ranking interval numbers andits application , 2003 .

[3]  Alessandro Ferrero,et al.  An Original Fuzzy Method for the Comparison of Measurement Results Represented as Random-Fuzzy Variables , 2007, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[4]  T. L. Saaty A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[5]  G. Crawford,et al.  A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices , 1985 .

[6]  A. Ferrero,et al.  Measurement uncertainty , 2006, IEEE Instrumentation & Measurement Magazine.

[7]  A. Ferrero,et al.  Measurement Uncertainty - Part 8 in a series of tutorials in intsrumentation and measurement , 2006 .

[8]  Dario Petri,et al.  Measurement Fundamentals: A Pragmatic View , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[9]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[10]  Luca Mari,et al.  A Comparison Between Foundations of Metrology and Software Measurement , 2008, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[11]  Jana Talasová,et al.  A fuzzy extension of Analytic Hierarchy Process based on the constrained fuzzy arithmetic , 2016, Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making.

[12]  Thomas L. Saaty Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory , 2000 .

[13]  Dario Petri,et al.  A Structured Methodology for Measurement Development , 2015, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.

[14]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios , 1984 .

[15]  David de Andrés,et al.  From Measures to Conclusions Using Analytic Hierarchy Process in Dependability Benchmarking , 2014, IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement.