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##

Published Feb 6, 2023
Esma Canhasi-Kasemi Luan Vardari

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

Canhasi-Kasemi, E., & Vardari, L. (2023). COMPARISON OF TWO DIFFERENT JUDGMENT SCALES WITH THE AHP GSM OPERATOR PREFERENCE OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS. International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 14(3). https://doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v14i3.970

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.
Abstract 342 | PDF Downloads 136

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Judgment Scales, Saaty Compatibility Index, GSM Operators

References
Alhazaymeh, K., Nasruddin H. (2013). Generalized interval-valued vague soft set. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 7(140), 6983-6988. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.12988/ams.2013.310575

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
Section
Articles