An innovative orders-of-magnitude approach to AHP-based mutli-criteria decision making: Prioritizing divergent intangible humane acts

An innovative Analytic Hierarchy Process-based structure is developed to capture the relationship between various levels of activities contributed by people to society. Physical objects have widespread extension and degrees of importance that often differ by many orders of magnitude. Similarly, mental thoughts and criteria occur in widely heterogeneous entities that have to be sorted and arranged into homogeneous groups of few elements in each group so that one can evaluate the relationships among them accurately, from the smallest to the largest. It is through such a framework for organizing factors with smooth transition that it is possible to derive reliable priorities from expert judgments. The proposed model enables one to make decisions and allocate resources in as detailed and fine a way as possible. In addition to the traditional approach of structuring criteria into multiple clusters, the alternatives of a decision are also organized into the lowest multiple levels of that hierarchy. This arrangement and evaluation of alternatives differs from one criterion to another, which adds to the complexity of the undertaking when the alternatives are heterogeneous. The coherent approach to structuring complex decisions with the Analytic Hierarchy Process enables one to transcend the complexity of dealing in a scientific way with the problem of widespread orders of magnitude of criteria and alternatives in a complex decision. When the magnitudes are actually very small or very large, the accuracy of rating alternatives one at a time instead of comparing them in pairs involves much guessing, and can lead to a questionable outcome. Alternatively, comparisons, which are necessary for the measurement of intangibles, have greater and better justified accuracy.

[1]  Ross M. Starr,et al.  The Structure of Exchange in Barter and Monetary Economies , 1972 .

[2]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[3]  Douglas W. Hubbard,et al.  How to Measure Anything: Finding the Value of "Intangibles" in Business , 2007 .

[4]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The unknown in decision making: What to do about it , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Thomas L. Saaty Multi-decisions decision-making: In addition to wheeling and dealing, our national political bodies need a formal approach for prioritization , 2007, Math. Comput. Model..

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

[7]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Physics as a decision theory , 1990 .

[8]  T. Saaty Homogeneity and clustering in AHP ensures the validity of the scale , 1994 .

[9]  Luis G. Vargas,et al.  Offshore outsourcing decision making: A policy-maker's perspective , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[10]  Amie Gaye,et al.  Access to Energy and Human Development , 2007 .

[11]  Toshiyuki Sueyoshi,et al.  A unified framework for the selection of a Flexible Manufacturing System , 1995 .

[12]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Group Decision Making: Drawing Out and Reconciling Differences , 2007 .

[13]  David Alan Grier,et al.  The common good. , 1999, New scientist.

[14]  T. Saaty Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[15]  Other,et al.  Fighting climate change: Human solidarity in a divided world , 2007 .

[16]  T. Saaty,et al.  Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks , 1986 .

[17]  Ann E. Kaplan Giving USA : the annual report on philanthropy for the year , 1992 .

[18]  Raymond C. Kurzweil,et al.  The Singularity Is Near , 2018, The Infinite Desire for Growth.

[19]  A. Maslow A Theory of Human Motivation , 1943 .

[20]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Models, Methods, Concepts & Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2012 .

[21]  Wen-Chyuan Chiang,et al.  A decision support framework for internal audit prioritization in a rental car company: A combined use between DEA and AHP , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  T. L. Saaty,et al.  Decision making with dependence and feedback , 2001 .

[23]  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..

[24]  David H. Gustafson,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes , 1976 .

[25]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  How to Make a Decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1990 .