Achieving matrix consistency in AHP through linearization

Abstract Matrices used in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) compile expert knowledge as pairwise comparisons among various criteria and alternatives in decision-making problems. Many items are usually considered in the same comparison process and so judgment is not completely consistent – and sometimes the level of consistency may be unacceptable. Different methods have been used in the literature to achieve consistency for an inconsistent matrix. In this paper we use a linearization technique that provides the closest consistent matrix to a given inconsistent matrix using orthogonal projection in a linear space. As a result, consistency can be achieved in a closed form. This is simpler and cheaper than for methods relying on optimisation, which are iterative by nature. We apply the process to a real-world decision-making problem in an important industrial context, namely, management of water supply systems regarding leakage policies – an aspect of water management to which great sums of money are devoted every year worldwide.

[1]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  J. Barzilai Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices , 1997 .

[3]  Carl D. Meyer,et al.  Matrix Analysis and Applied Linear Algebra , 2000 .

[4]  Chang-Chun Lin,et al.  An enhanced goal programming method for generating priority vectors , 2006, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[5]  H. Monsuur An intrinsic consistency threshold for reciprocal matrices , 1997 .

[6]  Joaquín Izquierdo,et al.  An analytic hierarchy process for assessing externalities in water leakage management , 2010, Math. Comput. Model..

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

[8]  R. Kalaba,et al.  A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets , 1979 .

[9]  Yin-Feng Xu,et al.  A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  T. Saaty 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 , 2008 .

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

[12]  Müjgan Sagir Özdemir,et al.  Validity and inconsistency in the analytic hierarchy process , 2005, Appl. Math. Comput..

[13]  Bojan Srdjevic,et al.  Combining different prioritization methods in the analytic hierarchy process synthesis , 2005, Comput. Oper. Res..

[14]  J.S. Finan,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process: Does adjusting a pairwise comparison matrix to improve the consistency ratio help? , 1997, Comput. Oper. Res..

[15]  Ramakrishnan Ramanathan,et al.  A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices , 2010 .

[16]  T. Saaty,et al.  Ranking by Eigenvector Versus Other Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1998 .

[17]  G. W. Stewart,et al.  Matrix algorithms , 1998 .

[18]  Eng Ung Choo,et al.  A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices , 2004, Comput. Oper. Res..

[19]  Ludmil Mikhailov,et al.  A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process , 2000, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[20]  Noel Bryson,et al.  A Goal Programming Method for Generating Priority Vectors , 1995 .

[21]  T. Saaty,et al.  Procedures for Synthesizing Ratio Judgements , 1983 .

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

[23]  Bojan Srdjevic,et al.  Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management , 2007, Decis. Support Syst..