Testing the Consistency of Subjective Weights in Goal Programming – the Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach

T. Ganesh^1, and PRS Reddy^2,

¹Department of Food Science and Technology, Pondicherry University, Puducherry, India

²Department of Statistics, Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, India

Cite this paper

T. Ganesh and PRS Reddy. Testing the Consistency of Subjective Weights in Goal Programming – the Analytical Hierarchy Process Approach. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics. 2014; 2(3):92-95. doi: 10.12691/AJAMS-2-3-2

Abstract

In the context of multi-criteria decision making every individual will act as a decision maker. The decision maker is involved in assigning preferences or weights to the alternatives. Goal programming will also come under the hub of MCDA, where the DM will assign the subjective weights to each goal. By giving so, the weighted sum of deviations will be minimized to some extent but one cannot ascertain whether the weights are consistent or not. In this paper the authors have proposed a simpler way of testing the consistency of weights and demonstrated an easier way to achieve the minimized weighted sum of deviations through AHP. This attempt showed better results and allows the DM to think well before giving the weights to each goal.

Keywords

multi-criteria decision making, analytical hierarchy process, consistency

Copyright

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

References

[1]	T.L. Saaty (1977), A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of mathematical Psychology, 15, pp 234-281.
[2]	T.L. Saaty (1980), the Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw – Hill, New York.
[3]	Jose A.A. and M. Teresa Lamata (2006), Consistency in the AHP process: A new approach, International Journal of uncertainty, fuzziness and knowledge based systems, 14(4), pp 445-459.
[4]	T.L. Saaty (1994), Fundamentals of Decision making and priority theory with the AHP, RWS publications, Pittsburg.
[5]	J. Barzilai, W.D. Cook and B. Golany (1987), Consistent weights for judgment matrices of the relative importance of alternatives, Operations Research Letters, 6(3), pp 131-134.
[6]	G.B. Crawford (1987), The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of judgment matrix, Mathematical Modeling, 9, pp 327-334.
[7]	T.L. Saaty and L.G. Vargas (1984), Inconsistency and rank preservation, Journal of mathematical psychology, 28(2).
[8]	T.L. Saaty (1990), Eigenvector and logarithmic least squares, European Journal of Operations Research, 48, pp 156-160.
[9]	Robert E. Jensen (1984), An alternative scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures, Journal of mathematical psychology, 28, pp 217-332.
[10]	T.L. Saaty and G. Hu (1998), Ranking by eigenvector versus other methods in the analytic hierarchy process, Applied mathematical letters, 11(4), pp 121-125.
[11]	C. Genest and C.E. M’Lan (1999), Deriving priorities from the Bradley-Terry model, Mathematical and computer modeling, 29, pp 87-102.
[12]	E. Traintaphyllou and Stuart H. Mann (1995), Using the AHP for decision making in the engineering applications: some challenges, International journal of industrial engineering: Applications and practice, 2(1), pp 35-44.
[13]	T.L. Saaty (2008), Decision making with analytic hierarchy process, International journal of services sciences, 1(1), pp 83-98.
[14]	T. Ganesh and PRS Reddy (2013), Improved methods for minimizing the weighted sum of deviations using goal programming technique, International Journal of Mathematics and computer applications research, 3(2), pp 115-120.