Search for a measurement standard in the modifications of the first generation AHP for the method of effective projects selection and other fields of science
https://doi.org/10.20914/2310-1202-2022-1-388-409
Abstract
It is author’s another article in the series of publications to develop the previously formulated core and two fundamental provisions of the method of effective projects selection through different solutions of modification of the method of analysis of hierarchies (AHP) for financial, mathematical and other fields in science. The author paid special attention to improving the accuracy of measurements of matrix, normalized and vector estimates for the development of universal properties of AHP due to the following solutions with different qualities of scientific novelty: introduction of new formulas for calculating matrix estimates with detailed instructions for their application; offers nine different variants of AHP combinations, each including four classifiers (AHPMS-M1.N, AHPMS(AM) - M1.N, FAHPMS-M1.N and AHPDD-M1.N) on the basis of integer and fractional T. Saati 9-point scale with eight measurement intervals. This article presents a volumetric experimental data, which proved the scientific validity of these and previously disclosed solutions having scientific novelty in the direction of improving the accuracy of measurements in the AHP using different modifications of the first generation. The results of the experiment really allowed us to find and prove the validity of applying the measurement standard within science in the form of the 9 proposed combinations. The distinctive features of the reference combination are as follows: fractional scale [0; …;8]+1 in 9 main measurement intervals; when evaluating two equal objects (Ai(j)= Aj(i)), their matrix estimates are equal to units (0+1=1); these new solutions. Thus, the experimentally obtained and confirmed measurement standard from the first generation of AHP modifications is recommended to be used not only in the selection of effective projects, but also in other fields of science, taking into account its universal properties.
About the Author
D. A. Shageev
International Institute of Design and Service
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Eсon.), associate professor, economics and management department, Voroshilova str., 12, Chelyabinsk, 454014
References
1. Kartvelishvili V.M., Lebedyuk E.A. The method of hierarchy analysis: criteria and practice. Bulletin of the Russian University of Economics. G.V. Plekhanov. 2013. no. 6. no. 60. pp. 97–112. (in Russian).
2. Korobov V.B., Tutygin A.G. Problems of using the method of analysis of hierarchies and ways to solve them. Economics and management. 2016. no. 8. no. 130. pp. 60–65. (in Russian).
3. Mitihin V.G. On the problem of solving multicriteria problems based on the method of analysis of hierarchies. Cloud of Science. 2015. vol. 2. no. 4. pp. 519–529. (in Russian).
4. Mitihin V.G. On the issue of analysis of decision-making problems with hierarchical structure. International research journal. 2015. no. 8–2. no. 39. pp. 110–114. (in Russian).
5. Moshchenko I.N., Pirogov E.V. To the choice of the evaluation scale in the method of analysis of hierarchies. Engineering journal of Don. 2017. no. 4 (47). pp. 96. (in Russian).
6. Nogin V.D. A simplified version of the hierarchy analysis method based on nonlinear convolution of criteria. Journal of Computational Mathematics and Mathematical Physics. 2004. vol. 44. no. 7. pp. 1261-1270. (in Russian).
7. Podinovskaya O.V., Podinovskij V.V. Analysis of hierarchical multicriteria decision-making problems by methods of criteria importance theory. Management problem. 2014. no. 6. pp. 2–8. (in Russian).
8. Saaty T.L. On the measurement of the intangible. an approach to relative measurements based on the main eigenvector of the pair comparison matrix. Cloud of Science. 2015. vol. 2. no. 1. pp. 5–39. (in Russian).
9. Vlasov D.A. Methodological aspects of decision making. Young scientist. 2016. no. 4. pp. 760-763. (in Russian).
10. Titov V.A., Hajrulin I.G. On the form of convolution of local priority vectors of alternatives by particular criteria in the generalized vector in the method of analysis of hierarchies. Fundamental Study. 2013. no. 10-9. pp. 2020–2025. (in Russian).
11. Shageev D.A. Modification of AHP to Improve the Accuracy of Measurements in the Method of Effective Projects Selection and Other Fields of Science. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Ser. Economics and Management. 2020. vol. 14. no. 1. pp. 93–115. doi: 10.14529/em200110 (in Russian).
12. Palma-Mendoza J.A. Analytical hierarchy process and SCOR model to support supply chain re-design. International journal of information management. 2014. vol. 34. no. 5. pp. 634-638. doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2014.06.002
13. Benmouss K., Laaziri M., Khoulji S., Kerkeb M.L. et al. AHP-based Approach for Evaluating Ergonomic Criteria. Procedia Manufacturing. 2019. vol. 32. pp. 856–863. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2019.02.294
14. Elliott M.A. Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons. Reliability Engineering and System Safety. 2010. vol. 95. no. 7. pp. 750–763. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2010.02.013
15. Franek J., Kresta A. Judgment Scales and Consistency Measure in AHP. Procedia Economics and Finance. 2014. vol. 12. pp. 164–173. doi: 10.1016/S2212–5671(14)00332–3
16. Gnanavelbabu A., Arunagiri P. Ranking of MUDA using AHP and Fuzzy AHP algorithm. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2018. vol. 5. no. 5. pp. 13406–13412. doi: 10.1016/j.matpr.2018.02.334
17. Bie P., Astrup A. Dietary protein and kidney function: when higher glomerular filtration rate is desirable. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2015. vol. 102. no. 1. pp. 3-4. doi: 10.3945/ajcn.115.112672
18. Ishizaka A., Labib A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Systems with Applications. 2011. vol. 38. no. 11. pp. 14336–14345. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2011.04.143
19. Meesariganda B.R., Ishizaka A. Mapping verbal AHP scale to numerical scale for cloud computing strategy selection. Applied Soft Computing. 2017. vol. 53. pp. 111–118. doi: 10.1016/j.asoc.2016.12.040
20. Millet I., Saaty T.L. On the relativity of relative measures – accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research. 2000. vol. 121. no. 1. pp. 205-212. doi: 10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00040-5
21. Saaty T.L., Sagir M. An essay on rank preservation and reversal. Mathematical and Computer Modelling. 2009. vol. 49. no. 5-6. pp. 1230-1243. doi: 10.1016/j.mcm.2008.08.001
22. Wang Y-M., Elhag T.M.S. An approach to avoiding rank reversal in AHP. Decision Support Systems. 2006. vol. 42. no. 3. pp. 1474-1480. doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2005.12.002
Review
For citations:
Shageev D.A. Search for a measurement standard in the modifications of the first generation AHP for the method of effective projects selection and other fields of science. Proceedings of the Voronezh State University of Engineering Technologies. 2022;84(1):388-409. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.20914/2310-1202-2022-1-388-409
Views:
260
Email this article 
Post a Comment 
