Incorporating negative values into the Analytic Hierarchy Process

This paper describes why and how ratio scaled multiple criteria analysis techniques, such as the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), should allow for a subtraction mechanism whereby negative preference (aversion) is combined with positive preference. The main contribution of the paper is a demonstration of how the current imposition of a strictly positive additive value structure can lead to incorrect preference ratios and even incorrect ranking of alternatives. The proposed preference elicitation and computation method solves these problems in a simple and intuitive manner. Scope and purpose: We focus in this paper on common cases where the AHP is used to evaluate alternatives in light of multiple criteria and where at least some of the considerations involve negative rather than positive effects from the point of view of the decision maker. The main objective is to correct how such negative effects are evaluated within the AHP.

[1]  W. Wedley,et al.  Ambiguous Criteria Weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions* , 1989 .

[2]  A. Tversky,et al.  On the elicitation of preferences for alternative therapies. , 1982, The New England journal of medicine.

[3]  Michael Steinberg,et al.  Decision counseling for men considering prostate cancer screening , 2003, Comput. Oper. Res..

[4]  P. Schoemaker,et al.  Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they Equivalent? , 1985 .

[5]  Q. B. Chung,et al.  Using the analytic hierarchy process as a clinical engineering tool to facilitate an iterative, multidisciplinary, microeconomic health technology assessment , 2003, Comput. Oper. Res..

[6]  E. Choo,et al.  A UNIFIED APPROACH TO AHP WITH LINKING PINS , 1993 .

[7]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  On the relativity of relative measures - accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[8]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[9]  Bruce L. Golden,et al.  Celebrating 25 years of AHP-based decision making , 2003, Comput. Oper. Res..

[10]  Ido Millet,et al.  The Effectiveness of Alternative Preference Elicitation Methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1997 .

[11]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Bias in utility assessments: further evidence and explanations , 1989 .

[12]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  The effect on the preference-reversal phenomenon of using choice indifferences , 1990 .

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

[14]  E. Choo,et al.  Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making , 1999 .

[15]  S S Stevens,et al.  On the Theory of Scales of Measurement. , 1946, Science.

[16]  P. Farquhar.  State of the Art—Utility Assessment Methods , 1984 .

[17]  Sr Watson,et al.  Assesing Attribute Weights , 1982 .

[18]  Valerie Belton,et al.  On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies , 1983 .

[19]  Eng Ung Choo,et al.  Magnitude adjustment for AHP benefit/cost ratios , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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