Decisor: A Software Tool to Drive Complex Decisions with Analytic Hierarchy Process

Addressing consistent and reliable decision-making are crucial activities when choosing seemingly related alternatives for a set of criteria. Models and methods for aiding decisions such as analytic hierarchy process (AHP) were developed to handle quantified assessments of quality attributes, usually intangible and numerically hard to cope. We introduce the Decisor software tool to assist the use of AHP to drive complex decision modeling. We present a study of related tools describing advantages and drawbacks. The tool is user friendly, with intuitive data entry fields. Users may input alternatives and criteria, assigning weights from different judgment scales. Decisor’s main characteristic is its simple interface where the tool computes priority vectors for all alternatives and its consistency rates. It is also possible to operate with negative weighting, inferring Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. The tool implements Group Decisions, using the geometric mean to combine criteria comparisons from selected stakeholders.

[1]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and its Applications , 1986 .

[2]  Gülçin Büyüközkan,et al.  A novel hybrid MCDM approach based on fuzzy DEMATEL, fuzzy ANP and fuzzy TOPSIS to evaluate green suppliers , 2012, Expert Syst. Appl..

[3]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods , 2014 .

[4]  Ching-Lai Hwang,et al.  A new approach for multiple objective decision making , 1993, Comput. Oper. Res..

[5]  J. Sweller.  COGNITIVE LOAD THEORY, LEARNING DIFFICULTY, AND INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGN , 1994 .

[6]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Fundamentals of the analytic network process — multiple networks with benefits, costs, opportunities and risks , 2004 .

[7]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

[8]  Diederik J. D. Wijnmalen,et al.  Analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks (BOCR) with the AHP-ANP: A critical validation , 2007, Math. Comput. Model..

[9]  Sushil Kumar,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  R. Passaro,et al.  AHP-based approaches for supplier evaluation: Problems and perspectives , 2012 .

[11]  James Nga-Kwok Liu,et al.  Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature , 2013, Expert Syst. Appl..

[12]  Heng Li,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) , 2002 .

[13]  Ying-Ming Wang,et al.  An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP , 2006, Decis. Support Syst..

[14]  Barbara Becker,et al.  Choosing Research Priorities by Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Application to International Agriculture , 2004 .

[15]  Vipul Jain,et al.  Designing an integrated AHP based decision support system for supplier selection in automotive industry , 2016, Expert Syst. Appl..

[16]  Jyri Mustajoki,et al.  Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical software for supporting environmental planning processes , 2017, Environ. Model. Softw..

[17]  Ying Luo,et al.  On rank reversal in decision analysis , 2009, Math. Comput. Model..

[18]  Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas,et al.  Fuzzy multiple criteria decision-making techniques and applications - Two decades review from 1994 to 2014 , 2015, Expert Syst. Appl..

[19]  Mehpare Timor,et al.  The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications , 2010 .

[20]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process , 2011, Expert Syst. Appl..

[21]  Gang Kou,et al.  A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives , 2016, Financial Innovation.

[22]  Enrique Mu,et al.  Practical Decision Making , 2017 .

[23]  Yi Peng,et al.  Evaluation of Classification Algorithms Using MCDM and Rank Correlation , 2012, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

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

[25]  Yang Chen,et al.  Pairwise comparison matrix in multiple criteria decision making , 2016 .

[26]  Alessio Ishizaka,et al.  Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and limitations , 2009, OR Insight.

[27]  John A. Keane,et al.  PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments , 2015, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[28]  Metin Dagdeviren,et al.  Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE , 2008, J. Intell. Manuf..

[29]  K. Bi,et al.  An AHP/DEA method for measurement of the efficiency of R&D management activities in universities , 2004 .

[30]  Stan Schenkerman.  Avoiding rank reversal in AHP decision-support models , 1994 .

[31]  Gülçin Büyüközkan,et al.  Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain , 2008 .

[32]  Sylvain Kubler,et al.  A state-of the-art survey & testbed of fuzzy AHP (FAHP) applications , 2016, Expert Syst. Appl..

[33]  Carlos A. Bana e Costa,et al.  The MACBETH Approach: Basic Ideas, Software, and an Application , 1999 .

[34]  S. Greco,et al.  Multiple Criteria Hierarchy Process with ELECTRE and PROMETHEE , 2013 .