COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT JUDGMENT SCALES WITH THE AHP GSM OPERATOR PREFERENCE OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3212-5783
Abstract
The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a method with elegant mathematical features that is widely used in multi-criteria decision making. One of the main applications of this method, which is frequently preferred by decision makers due to its systematic and understandable structure, includes addressing inadequacies in terms of numerical scales that are generally used in pairwise comparisons. Therefore, this study includes two different judgment scales, Saaty’s fundamental scale and the Balanced scale, which were used in the pairwise comparison stage. After the comparisons were made, the variance related to the consistency ratios and the range of the sensitivity was also observed. In the study, we discuss the use of both judgment scales in a real problem and their effects on priority estimation in the AHP. The study's goal is to evaluate the outcomes of Saaty’s fundamental scale and the Balanced scale in the AHP technique for the two current operators in Kosovo's GSM sector, VALA and IPKO, and assess the preference of students in Kosovo. The required data were obtained through a questionnaire and the importance weights of the decision criteria were calculated separately for each scale and compared. The preference order of the GSM operators was discovered according to each decision criterion and all criteria. The ranking of the weights obtained with both scales resulted in IPKO first, followed by VALA. The Balanced scale made the results lighter in the weight distribution. Another important result is that the pairwise comparisons made with the Balanced scale yielded results that are more sensitive. In addition, the closeness of the priority vectors obtained with both scales according to Saaty’s compatibility index and Garuti’s compatibility index was examined.
How to Cite
Downloads
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Judgment Scales, Saaty Compatibility Index, GSM Operators
Brunelli, M. (2015). Introduction to the analytic hierarchy process. Springer.
Çavuşoğlu, O., Canolca M., & Bayraktar, D. (2011). GSM operator selection for a call center investment by using AHP. IFORS 2011, Conference for the International Federation of Operational Research Society, Melbourne, Australia.
Decai, H., & Liangzhong, S. (2003). New method for constructing comparison matrix based on the proportion scales in the AHP. Journal of systems Engineering and Electronics, 14(3), 8-13. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.12.040
Dündar, S., & Fatih, E. (2008). Determination of university students’ preferences of GSM operator using the Analytic Hierarchy Process method. Yönetim ve Ekonomi: Celal Bayar Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 15(1), 195-205. Doi: https://doi.org/10.18657/yonveek.335225
Erginel, N., Sentürk, S., Kahraman, C., & Kaya, İ. (2011). Evaluating the packing process in food industry using fuzzy and [stilde] control charts. International journal of computational intelligence systems, 4(4), 509-520. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/18756891.2011.9727809
Franek, J., Kresta, A. Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP. Procedia Economics and Finance, 12(2014), 164–173. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00332-3
Garuti, C., & Salomon, V. A. (2012). Compatibility indices between priority vectors. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 4(2), 152-160. Doi: https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v4i2.130
Garuti, C. (2017). Reflections on scales from measurements, not measurements from scales. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 9(3), 349-361. Doi: https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v9i3.522
Goepel, K. (2019). Comparison of judgment scales of the analytical hierarchy process—a new approach. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 18(02), 445-463. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219622019500044
Kuo, Y., & Chen, P. (2006). Selection of mobile value-added services for system operators using fuzzy synthetic evaluation. Expert Systems with Applications, 30(4), 612-620. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2005.07.007
Lee, S., Mogi, G., Shin, S., & Kim, J. (2007). An AHP/DEA integrated model for measuring the relative efficiency of energy efficiency technologies. IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 55-59. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM.2007.4419150
Meesariganda, B., & Ishizaka, A. (2017). Mapping verbal AHP scale to numerical scale for cloud computing strategy selection. Applied Soft Computing, 53, 111-118. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2016.12.040
Pöyhönen, M., Hämäläinen, R., & Salo, A. (1997). An experiment on the numerical modeling of verbal ratio statements. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 1(6), 1-10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199701)6:1%3C1::aid-mcda111%3E3.0.co;2-w
Saaty, T. (1982). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. (1996). Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process (Vol. 4922). Pittsburgh: RWS publications.
Saaty, T. (2005). Theory and applications of the Analytic Network Process: Decision making with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs, and Risks. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision-making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.
Saka, M., Cetin, O. Comparing two judgment scales of AHP with a case study: reaching a decision on a dry port location. WMU Journal of Maritime Affairs, 19, 427–461 (2020). Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13437-020-00218-8
Salo, A., & Hämäläinen, P. (1997). On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis, 6(6), 309-319. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199711)6:6%3C309::aid-mcda163%3E3.0.co;2-2
Srđević, Z., & Srđević, B. (2003). Standard and balanced scale in AHP evaluation of walnut selections and cultivars. Letopis naučnih radova poljoprivrednog fakulteta, 27(1), 24-34.
Wang, Y., & Elhag, T. (2008). An integrated AHP–DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 54(3), 513-525. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2007.09.002
Yıldırım, B. (2019). A new pairwise comparison scale for analytic hierarchy process. [Master's Thesis, Middle East Technical University].
Yıldız, Ö. (2019). Determining the factors affecting consumers' preference of the GSM operator; case of Agri. [Master’s Thesis, Ağrı İbrahim Çeçen Üniversitesi, Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü]. Doi: https://doi.org/10.31463/aicusbed.981957
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.