Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is widely used in many decision-making problems such as a choice of alternatives, prioritization, or ranking. Despite being a valuable tool based on pairwise comparisons of a set of alternatives the method is strongly connected with numeric or linguistic descriptors of the preferences. This can form a limitation to the users who do not feel comfortable with numbers or words strictly related with the articulation of the meaning of preference, i.e., with a predefined scale. Therefore, in this study, we develop a comprehensive approach based on a simple graphic interface. The results and their consistency as well as stability of the method are examined. Moreover, through a suite of experiments we observe how the method works when a group of experts does not provide answers to all questions. Finally, we analyze four variants of non-linear transforms which are used to minimize the inconsistency ratio of the AHP (fuzzy AHP) process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aczél J, Saaty TL (1983) Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements. J Math Psychol 27(1):93–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alonso JA, Lamata MT (2006) Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 14(4):445–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • An M, Chen Y, Baker CJ (2011) A fuzzy reasoning and fuzzy-analytical hierarchy process based approach to the process of railway risk information: a railway risk management system. Inform Sci 181:3946–3966

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhargava HK, Sridhar S, Herrick C (1999) Beyond spreadsheets: tools for building decision support systems. Computer 32(3):31–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cabrerizo FJ, Morente-Molinera JA, Pedrycz W, Taghavi A, Herrera-Viedma E (2018) Granulating linguistic information in decision making under consensus and consistency. Expert Syst Appl 99:83–92

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cay T, Uyan M (2013) Evaluation of reallocation criteria in land consolidation studies using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Land Use Policy 30:541–548

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang D-Y (1996) Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 95:649–655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen F, Ruiz N, Choi E, Epps J, Khawaja M, Taib R, Yin B, Wang Y (2012) Multimodal behavior and interaction as indicators of cognitive load. ACM Trans Interact Intell Syst 2(4):22–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Melo CM, Gratch J, Carnevale PJ (2015) Humans versus computers: impact of emotion expressions on people’s decision making. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 6(2):127–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong Y, Zhang G, Hong W-C, Xu Y (2010) Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decis Support Syst 49(3):281–289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong Y, Fan ZP, Yu S (2015) Consensus building in a local context for the AHP-GDM with the individual numerical scale and prioritization method. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(2):354–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2007) Aggregation of individual preference structures in AHP-group decision making. Group Decis Negot 16(4):287–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman E, Peniwati K (1988) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108(1):165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanine M, Boutkhoum O, Tikniouine A, Agouti T (2016) Application of an integrated multi-criteria decision making AHP-TOPSIS methodology for ETL software selection. SpringerPlus 5:263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harker PT, Vargas LG (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty’s analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 33(11):1383–1403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications—a literature review. Eur J Oper Res 186(1):211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho W, Ma X (2018) The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 267(2):399–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseinian SS, Navidi H, Hajfathaliha A (2012) A new linear programming method for weights generation and group decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. Group Decis Negot 21(3):233–254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):14336–14345

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishizaka A, Siraj S (2018) Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods. Eur J Oper Res 264:462–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ito T, Shintani T (1997) Persuasion among agents: an approach to implementing a group decision support system based on multi-agent negotiation. In: Proceedings of the 5th international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI’97). Morgan Kaufmann, pp 592–597

  • Kabassi K, Virvou M (2015) Combining decision-making theories with a cognitive theory for intelligent help: a comparison. IEEE Trans Hum–Mach Syst 45(2):176–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahraman C, Cebeci U, Ulukan Z (2003) Multi-criteria supplier selection using fuzzy AHP. Logist Inform Manag 16(6):382–394

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karczmarek P (2018) Selected problems of face recognition and decision-making theory. Lublin University of Technology Press, Lublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Karczmarek P, Pedrycz W, Kiersztyn A, Rutka P (2017) A study in facial features saliency in face recognition: an analytic hierarchy process approach. Soft Comput 21(24):7503–7517

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karczmarek P, Kiersztyn A, Pedrycz W (2018) An application of graphic tools and analytic hierarchy process to the description of biometric features. In: Rutkowski L et al (eds) Artificial intelligence and soft computing (ICAISC 2018). Lecture notes in computer science 10842, pp 137–147

  • Kennedy JF, Eberhart RC, Shi Y (2001) Swarm intelligence. Academic Press, San Diego

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten GE (1987) Two aspects of group decision support system design. In: Sawaragi Y, Inoue K, Nakayama H (eds) Toward interactive and intelligent decision support systems, vol Lecture notes in economics and mathematical systems. Springer, Berlin, pp 373–382

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kiersztyn A, Karczmarek P, Zhadkovska K, Pedrycz W (2018) Determination of a matrix of the dependencies between features based on the expert knowledge. In: Rutkowski L et al (eds) Artificial intelligence and soft computing (ICAISC 2018). Lecture notes in computer science 10842, pp 570–578

  • Larichev O, Kochin D, Ustinovičius L (2003) Multicriteria method for choosing the best alternative for investments. Int J Strateg Prop Manag 7:33–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung LC, Cao D (2000) On consistency and ranking of alternatives in fuzzy AHP. Eur J Oper Res 124:102–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu F, Peng Y, Zhang W, Pedrycz W (2017) On consistency in AHP and fuzzy AHP. J Syst Sci Inf 5(2):128–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu K, Liu Y, Qin J (2018a) An integrated ANP-VIKOR methodology for sustainable supplier selection with interval type-2 fuzzy sets. Granul Comput 3(3):193–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu F, Wu YH, Pedrycz W (2018b) A modified consensus model in group decision making with an allocation of information granularity. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 26(5):3182–3187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattunen M, Belton V, Lienert J (2018) Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 265:178–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP (2000) Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR Inf Syst Oper Res 38(3):208–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Ossadnik W, Schinke S, Kaspar RH (2016) Group aggregation techniques for analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: a comparative analysis. Group Decis Negot 25(2):421–457

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pätäri E, Karell V, Luuka P, Yeomans JS (2018) Comparison of the multicriteria decision-making methods for equity portfolio selection: The U.S. evidence. Eur J Oper Res 265:655–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrycz W (2013) Granular computing. Analysis and design of intelligent systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrycz W, Song M (2011) Analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in group decision making and its optimization with an allocation of information granularity. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 19(3):527–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrycz W, Song M (2014) A granulation of linguistic information in AHP decision-making problems. Inf Fusion 17:93–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrycz W, Vasilakos AV (1999) Linguistic models and linguistic modeling. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern B Cybern 29(6):745–757

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perini A, Ricca F, Susi A (2009) Tool-supported requirements prioritization: comparing the AHP and CBRank methods. Inf Softw Technol 51(6):1021–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power DJ, Sharda R (2007) Model-driven decision support systems: concepts and research directions. Decis Support Syst 43(3):1044–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2016) Analyzing the applicability of selected MCDA methods for determining the reliable scoring systems. In: Bajwa D, Koeszegi S, Vetschera R (eds) Proceedings of the 16th international conference on group decision & negotiation, pp 180–187

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1988) What is the analytic hierarchy process? In: Mitra G (ed) Mathematical models for decision support. NATO ASI Series, F48. Springer, Berlin, pp 109–121

  • Saaty TL (2000) Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the analytic hierarchy process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Mariano RS (1982) Rationing energy to industries: priorities and input-output dependence. In: The logic of priorities. International series in management science/operations research. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 182–192

  • Saaty TL, Tran LT (2007) On the invalidity of fuzzifying numerical judgments in the analytic hierarchy process. Math Comput Model 46(7–8):962–975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1987) Uncertainty and rank order in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 32(1):107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012a) Models, methods, concepts & applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2012b) The possibility of group choice: pairwise comparisons and merging functions. Soc Choice Welf 38(3):481–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salvador M, Altuzarra A, Gargallo P, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2015) A Bayesian approach to maximising inner compatibility in AHP-systemic decision making. Group Decis Negot 24(4):655–673

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scala NM, Jayant Rajgopal J, Vargas LG, Needy KS (2016) Group decision making with dispersion in the analytic hierarchy process. Group Decis Negot 25(2):355–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaout A, Yousif M (2014) Performance evaluation—methods and techniques survey. Int J Comput Inf Technol 3(5):966–979

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang J-W, Hsu T-H (2018) Utilizing the hierarchy structural fuzzy analytical network process model to evaluate critical elements of marketing strategic alliance development in mobile telecommunication industry. Group Decis Negot 27(2):251–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana M, Kennedy DT, Mohebbi B (1997) An applied study using the analytic hierarchy process to translate common verbal phrases to numerical probabilities. J Behav Decis Mak 10(2):133–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M (2001) Aquifer vulnerability assessment using analytic hierarchy process and GIS for upper palar watershed. In: 22nd Asian conference on remote sensing, pp 1–6

  • Thirumalaivasan D, Karmegam M, Venugopal K (2003) AHP-DRASTIC: software for specific aquifer vulnerability assessment using DRASTIC model and GIS. Env Model Softw 18:645–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169(1):1–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Laarhoven PJM, Pedrycz W (1983) A fuzzy extension of Saaty’s priority theory. Fuzzy Set Syst 11(1–3):229–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas LG, Zoffer HJ (2019) Applying AHP in conflict resolution. Int J Anal Hierarchy Process 11(1):143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang Y-M, Luo Y, Hua Z (2008) On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications. Eur J Oper Res 186:735–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weistroffer HR, Wooldridge BE, Singh R (1999) A multi-criteria approach to local tax planning. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 33(4):301–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou J, Arshad SZ, Wang X, Li Z, Feng D, Chen F (2017) End-user development for interactive data analytics: uncertainty, correlation and user confidence. IEEE Trans Affect Comput 9(3):383–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Lublin University of Technology, ul. Nadbystrzycka 36B, 20-618, Lublin, Poland

    Paweł Karczmarek & Adam Kiersztyn

  2. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, T6R 2V4, Canada

    Witold Pedrycz

  3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, 21589, Saudi Arabia

    Witold Pedrycz

  4. Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warsaw, Poland

    Witold Pedrycz

Authors
  1. Paweł Karczmarek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Witold Pedrycz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adam Kiersztyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paweł Karczmarek.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Karczmarek, P., Pedrycz, W. & Kiersztyn, A. Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach. Group Decis Negot 30, 463–481 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09719-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09719-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation