Lee, S (2015) Determination of priority weights under multiattribute decision-making situations: AHP versus fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(2): 05014015, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach has been widely applied in multiattribute decision-making situations since being introduced in 1980. It has been believed that the AHP is appropriate to assist decision-making problems characterized by a number of interrelated factors. Recently, a derivative of the AHP, the so-called fuzzy AHP, has been developed by mixing AHP with a fuzzy set theory. This new method increasingly extends its application areas in construction management. Despite extensive use of the fuzzy AHP, little research has been conducted as to the comparability of calculated priority weight vectors by the fuzzy AHP with those by the traditional AHP. Therefore, this paper mainly focuses on the comparison of two AHP approaches by investigating weight vectors produced from a real case study. From the previous studies, four different fuzzy AHP approaches are prepared by applying different fuzzy fundamental scales and weight aggregations, and are tested to identify which method produces the most comparable results with the traditional AHP. The main findings and results obtained from the four approaches are presented and discussed in detail.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytic hierarchy process; decision-making; fuzzy analytical hierarchy process; performance evaluation; quantitative methods; risk management |
| Index terms: | performance evaluation, risk management, decision-making, quantitative method, analytical hierarchy process, fuzzy set theory, case study |
| Subjects: | performance measurement, decision-making and optimization, risk assessment, data collection methods, decision analysis, data analysis and analytics |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here