The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision making technique developed to solve both single and group decision making problems. In AHP, the approach that has been proposed by Saaty to derive priority weights by using the eigenvector method (EVM) had it's drawbacks immediately after its publication in 1980's, and since then various methods were developed as alternatives. This paper presents an extensive review of various methods for deriving priority weights in AHP, including group decision making, and focuses on comparison of each method with the EVM. The results of the comparison reveal that each method has its advantages and disadvantages, and should be used depending on the application.
AHP, review, multicriteria decision, group decision making
of Mathematical Psychology, 27, 93–102.
Aguaron, J. and J. M. T. Moreno-Jimenez (2003). The geometric consistency index:
Approximated thresholds. In European Journal of Operational Research, 147,
Alonso, J. A. and M. T. Lamata (2006). Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy
Process: A new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and
Knowledge-Based Systems, 14 (4), 445?459.
Altuzarra, A., J. María, Moreno- Jiménez, and M. Salvador (2007). A Bayesian
prioritization procedure for AHP-group decision making. European Journal of
Operational Research, 182, 367–382.
Angiz, L. M. Z., A. Mustafa, N. A. Ghani, and A. A. Kamil (2012). Group decision
via usage of Analytic Hierarchy Process and preference aggregation method.
SainsMalaysiana, 41(3), 361–366.
Arbel, A. and L., G. Vargas (1993). Preference simulation and preference
programming: Robustness issues in priority derivation. European Journal of
Operational Research, 69, 200-209.
Banuelas, R. and J. Antony (2004). Modified analytic hierarchy process to
incorporate uncertainty and managerial aspects. International Journal of Production
Research, 42, 3851–3872.
Basak, I. (2011). An alternate method of deriving priorities and related inferences for
group decision making in Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria
Decision Analysis, 18(5-6), 279-287.
Belton, V. and T. Gear (1983). On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of Analytic
Hierarchies. Omega, 11 (3), 228-230.
Bolloju, N. (2001). Aggregation of Analytic Hierarchy Process models based on
similarities in decision makers preferences. European Journal of Operations
Research, (128), 499-508.
Borodin, D., V. Gorelik, W. D. Bruyn, B. V. Vreckem (2011). Two methods for
consistency-driven approximation of a pairwise comparison matrix. Proceedings of
the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process 2011.
Bryson, N. (1995). A goal programming method for generating priority vectors. The
Journal of the Operational Research Society, 46 (5), 641-648.
Bryson, N. and A. Joseph (1999). Generating consensus priority point vectors: a
logarithmic goal programming approach. Computers & Operations Research, 26,
Chandran, B., B. Golden and E. Wasil (2005). Linear programming models for
estimating weights in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Computers & Operations
Research, 32, 2235–2254.
Chou, M., H. lee, C. Chu and C. Cheng (2007). Synthesizing comparison matrices of
AHP under group decision. Knowledge-Based Intelligent Information and
Engineering Systems, 1323–1330.
Chu, A. T. W., R. E. Kalaba and K. Npingarn (1979). A comparison of two methods
for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization
Theory and Application, 27((4), 531-538.
Cogger, K. O. and P. L. YU (1985). Eigenweightvectors and least-distance
approximation for revealed preference in pairwise weight ratios. Journal of
Optimization Theory and Applications, 46 (4), 483-491.
Costa, C.A.B. and J. Vansnick (2008). A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method
used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operations Research, 187,
Crawford, G. and C. Williams (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment
matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(4), 387–405.
Entani, T. and H. Tanaka (2007). Interval estimations of global weights in AHP by
upper approximation. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 158, 1913 – 1921.
Entani, T. and M. Inuiguchi (2010). Group decisions in interval AHP based on
interval regression analysis. Integrated Uncertainty Management and Applications,
Ergu, D., G. Kou, Y. Peng and Y. She (2011). A simple method to improve the
consistency ratio of the pairwise comparison matrix in ANP. European Journal of
Operations Research, 213(1), 246-259.
Escobar, M. T. and J. M. Moreno-Jime´nez (2007). Aggregation of individual
preference structures in AHP-group decision making. Group Decision and
Negotiation, 16, 287-301.
Fedrizzi, M. and S. Giove, (2007). Incomplete pairwise comparison and consistency
optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 183(1), 303–313.
Forman, E. H. and S. I. Gass, (2001). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: An exposition.
Operations Research, 49(4), 469-486.
Gao, S., Z. Zhang, and C. Cao (2009). New methods of estimating weights in AHP.
International Symposium on Information Processing, 201-204.
Gargallo, P., J. M. Moreno-Jime´nez and M. Salvador (2007). AHP-group decision
making: A Bayesian approach based on mixtures for group pattern identification.
Group Decision and Negotiation, 16, 485–506.
Gomez-Ruiz, J. A., M. Karanik, and J. I. Peláez (2010). Estimation of missing
judgments in AHP pairwise matrices using a neural network-based model. Applied
Mathematics and Computation, 216, 2959–2975.
Grass, S. I. and T. Rapcsak (2004). Singular value decomposition in AHP. European
Journal of Operational Research, 154, 573-584.
Grošelj, P., Š. Pezdevšek, and P. Malovrh (2011). Methods based on data
envelopment analysis for deriving group priorities in Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Central European Journal of Operations Research, 19(3), 267-284.
Grzybowski A.Z. (2010). Goal programming approach for deriving priority vectors -
some new ideas. Scientific Research of the Institute of Mathematics and Computer
Science, 1(9), 17-27.
Haines, L. M. (1998). A statistical approach to the analytic hierarchy process with
interval judgments. (I). Distributions on feasible regions. European Journal of
Operational Research, 110, 112-125.
Harker, P.T. (1987a). Alternative modes of questioning in the analytic hierarchy
process. Mathematical Modeling, 9(3–5), 353–360.
Harker, P.T. (1987b) Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy
process. Mathematical Modeling, 9(11), 837–848.
Hauser, D. and P. Tadikamalla (1996). The Analytic Hierarchy Process in an
uncertain environment: A simulation approach. European Journal of Operational
Research, 91, 27-37.
Ho, W. (2008). Integrated Analytic Hierarchy Process and its applications- a
literature review. European Journal of Operations Research, 186, 211-228.
Hosseinian S.S., H. Navidi and A. Hajfathaliha (2009). A new method based on data
envelopment analysis to derive weight vector in the group analytic hierarchy process.
Journal of Applied Sciences, 1(8), 3343-3349.
Ishizaka, A. and A. Labib (2011). Review of the main developments in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process. Expert Systems with Applications, 38, 14336–14345.
Jalao, E. R., T. Wu and D. Shunk (2014). A stochastic AHP decision making
methodology for imprecise preferences. Information Sciences, 270, 192–203.
Laininen, P. and R. P. Hamalainen (2003). Analyzing AHP-matrices by regression.
European Journal of Operational Research, 148, 514–524.
Lin, C. –C (2006). An enhanced goal programming method for generating priority
vectors. The Journal of the Operational Research Society 57 (12), 1491-1496.
Lipovetsky, S. and A. Tishler (1997). Interval estimation of priorities in the AHP:
Methodology and application. Israel Institute of Business Research, Working Paper
No. 16/97, Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University.
Mirhedayatian, S. M. and R. F. Saen (2011). A new approach for weight derivation
using data envelopment analysis in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of the
Operational Research Society, 62, 585-1 595.
Mirhedayatian, S. M., M. Jafarian, and R. F. Saen (2011). A multi-objective slack
based measure of efficiency model for weight derivation in the Analytic Hierarchy
Process. Journal of the Applied Sciences, 11(19), 3338-3350.
Nishizawa, K. (2005). Estimation of unknown comparisons in incomplete AHP and
its compensation. Report of the Research Institute of Industrial Technology, Nihon
University, No. 77.
Peláez, J. I. and M. T. Lamata (2003). A new measure of consistency for positive
reciprocal matrices. Computers and Mathematics with Applications, 46, 1839-1845.
Podinovsky, V. V. (2007). Interval articulation of superiority and precise elicitation
of priorities. European Journal of Operational Research, 180, 406-417.
Ramanathan, R. (1997). Stochastic decision making using multiplicative AHP.
European Journal of Operational Research, 97, 543-549.
Ramanathan, R. (2006). Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and
aggregation in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Computers & Operations Research,
Ramanathan, R. and L.S., Ganesh (1994). Group preference aggregation methods
employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members'
weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79, 249-265.
Ramanujam, V. and T. L. Saaty (1981). Technological choice in the less developed
countries: An analytic hierarchy approach. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 19, 81–98.
Saaty, T. L. (1988). Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting, and
resource allocation. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: Analytic Hierarchy Process. European
Journal of Operations Research (48), 9-26.
Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to Make a Decision: Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Interfaces, 24, 19-43.
Saaty, T. L. (2001). The seven pillars of the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Models,
methods, concepts & applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. International
Series in Operations Research & Management Science, 34, 27-46.
Saaty, T. L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector
necessary. European Journal of Operations Research, 145, 85-91.
Saaty, T. L. and M. S. Ozdemir (2003). Why the magic number seven plus or minus
two. Mathematical and Computer Modeling, 38, 233-244.
Saaty, T.L. and L.G. Vargas (1985). The legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega, 12(5),
Saaty, T. L. and H. Shih (2009). Structures in decision making: On the subjective
geometry of hierarchies and networks. European Journal of Operations Research,
Shiraishi, S., T. Obata, and M. Daigo (1998). Properties of a positive reciprocal
matrix and their application to AHP. Journal of Operational Research Society of
Japan, 41, 404–414.
Stein, W. E., and Mizzi P. J., (2007). The harmonic consistency index for the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operations Research, 177, 488-
Subramanian, N. and R. Ramanathan (2012). A review of applications of Analytic
Hierarchy Process in operations management. International Journal of Production
Economics, 138, 215–241.
Sugihara, K., H. Ishii and H. Tanaka (2004). Interval priorities in AHP by interval
regression analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 745–754.
Vaidya, O. S., and Kumar, S. (2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process: An overview of
applications. European Journal of Operations Research, 169, 1-29.
Vanícek, J., I. Vrana and s. Ali (2009). Fuzzy aggregation and averaging for group
decision making: A generalization and survey. Knowledge-Based Systems, 22, 79-84.
Van den Honert, R. C. and F.A. Lootsma (1996). Group preference aggregation in the
multiplicative AHP ± the model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality.
European Journal of Operational Research, 96, 363-370.
Wang, Y. and K. Chin (2009). New data envelopment analysis method for priority
determination and group decision making in the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
European Journal of Operational Research (195), 239–250.
Wang, Y. and K. Chin (2011). A linear programming approximation to the
eigenvector method in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Information Sciences, 181,
Wang, Y. and T. M. S. Elhag (2006). An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP.
Decision Support Systems, 42(3), 1474-1480.
Wang, Y., C. Parkan and Y. Luo (2007). Priority estimation in the AHP through
maximization of correlation coefficient. Applied Mathematical Modeling, 31, 2711-
Wang, Y., K. Chin and G. K. K. Poon (2008). A data envelopment analysis method
with assurance region for weight generation in the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
Decision Support Systems, 45, 913–921.
Zanakis, S., T. Mandakovic, S. Gupta, S. Sahay, and S. Hong, (1995). A review of
program evaluation and fund allocation within the service and government sectors.
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 29, 59-79.
Zeshui, X. and W. Cuiping (1999). A consistency improving method in the analytic
hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 116, 443-449.
Zhang, Q., J. Ma, Z.P. Fan, and W.C. Chiang (2003). A statistical approach to
multiple-attribute decision-making with interval numbers. International Journal of
Systems Science, 34, 683–692.
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.