APPLYING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP) TO EXPERT DOCUMENTS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
This paper explores an innovative technique to elicit prioritization from expert documents using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Practitioners within domains that have a large quantity of expert literature can utilize these prior efforts to answer new questions. This method can solve some of the challenges of the AHP which include dealing with inconsistencies amplified by large numbers of options, locating experts with the availability and commitment to undergo an iterative opinion refinement process, and the speed of obtaining priorities. By extracting comparisons through rules applied to expert literature, this paper shows how prioritization for a number of options larger than 15 can be achieved using the AHP. Using the literature creation process as a means to gain consistency from a panel of experts, the extracted priorities are absolutely consistent. Further, the process can be accomplished without iterative engagement of experts which helps reduce time and cost. Overall, this unique application of the AHP provides those with access to a set of expert literature a method to quantify expert opinions in a consistent and cost-effective manner.
How to Cite
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
expert opinion, opinion extraction, AHP, Analytic Hierarchy Process
Boender, C. G. E., de Graan, J. G., & Lootsma, F. A. (1989). Multi-criteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 29(2), 133–143. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(89)90187-5
Ergu, D., Kou, G., Peng, Y., Shi, Y., & Shi, Y. (2013). The analytic hierarchy process: Task scheduling and resource allocation in cloud computing environment. Journal of Supercomputing, 64(3), 835–848. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-011-0625-1
Garuti, C. (2018). Reflections on common misunderstanding when using AHP and a response to criticism of Saaty’s consistency index. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 10(3), 488–501. Doi: https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v10i3.573
Garuti, C., & Sandoval, M. (2006). The AHP: A multicriteria decision making methodology for shiftwork prioritizing. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 15(2), 189–200. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11518-006-5007-5
Liu, H., Xu, Z., & Liao, H. (2016). The multiplicative consistency index of hesitant fuzzy preference relation. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 24(1), 82–93. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2015.2426315
Lootsma, F. A. (1980). Saaty’s priority theory and the nomination of a senior professor in operations research. European Journal of Operational Research, 4(6), 380–388. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(80)90189-7
Lootsma, F. A. (1999a). Letter to the editor: The expected future of MCDA. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, (8), 59–60. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/docview/220297257?accountid=12834
Lootsma, F. A. (1999b). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via ratio and difference judgement. Springer.
Russo, R. D. F. S. M., & Camanho, R. (2015). Criteria in AHP: A systematic review of literature. Procedia Computer Science, 55(Itqm), 1123–1132. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
Saaty, T. L. (1988). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting and resource allocation (2nd ed.). Doi: https://doi.org/0-07-054371-2
Saaty, T. L. (2013). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process (ebook Seco). Pittsburgh, PA, USA: RWS Pubications.
Saaty, T. L., & Sagir, M. (2009). Extending the measurement of tangibles to intangibles.
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.