publication . Article . 2015

PriEsT: an interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments

Siraj, S; Mikhailov, L; Keane, JA;
Open Access
  • Published: 01 Mar 2015 Journal: International Transactions in Operational Research, volume 22, pages 217-235 (issn: 0969-6016, Copyright policy)
  • Publisher: Wiley
  • Country: United Kingdom
Pairwise comparison (PC) is a well-established method to assist decision makers (DMs) in estimating their preferences. This paper considers the rationale, design, and evaluation of an open-source priority estimation tool, PriEsT, which has been developed to offer new features related to the PC method. PriEsT is able to assist DMs in interactively identifying and revising their judgments based on different consistency measures and graphical aids. When inconsistency cannot be improved due to practical limitations, PriEsT offers a wide range of Pareto-optimal solutions based on multiobjective optimization, unlike other tools that offer only a single solution. DMs h...
free text keywords: Management of Technology and Innovation, Management Science and Operations Research, Strategy and Management, Business and International Management, Computer Science Applications, Multiple-criteria decision analysis, Pairwise comparison, Telecom infrastructure sharing, Ranking, Operations management, Operations research, Analysis of algorithms, Software, business.industry, business, Multi-objective optimization, Decision support system, Mathematical optimization, Computer science
26 references, page 1 of 2

Choo, E. and Wedley, W. C. (2004). A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research , 31(6):893908. [OpenAIRE]

Chu, A., Kalaba, R., and Spingarn, K. (1979). A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets. Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications , 27(4):531538. [OpenAIRE]

Crawford, G. B. (1987). The geometric mean procedure for estimating the scale of a judgement matrix. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3-5):327334.

Crawford, G. B. and Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology , 29(4):387405.

Forman, E., Saaty, T., Selly, M., and Waldron, R. (1983). Expert Choice. Decision Support Software, McLean, VA.

Gasiea, Y. (2010). An Analytic Decision Approach to Rural Telecommunication Infrastructure Selection . PhD thesis, Manchester School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester. [OpenAIRE]

Hmlinen, R. P. and Lauri, H. (1995). HIPRE 3+ User's Guide. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology.

Koczkodaj, W. (1993). A new denition of consistency of pairwise comparisons. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 18(7):7984. [OpenAIRE]

Laininen, P. and Hmlinen, R. P. (2003). Analyzing ahp-matrices by regression. European Journal of Operational Research, 148(3):514524. [OpenAIRE]

Lin, C. (2007). A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research , 176(2):11451150.

Mikhailov, L. (2000). A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. The Journal of the Operational Research Society , 51(3):341349.

Mikhailov, L. (2006). Multiobjective prioritisation in the analytic hierarchy process using evolutionary computing. In Tiwari, A., Knowles, J., Avineri, E., Dahal, K., and Roy, R., editors, Applications of Soft Computing: Recent Trends, pages 123132. Springer.

Mikhailov, L. and Knowles, J. (2010). Priority elicitation in the ahp by a pareto envelope-based selection algorithm. In Ehrgott, M., Naujoks, B., Stewart, T., and Wallenius, J., editors, Multiple Criteria Decision Making for Sustainable Energy and Transportation Systems , volume 36, pages 249257. Springer.

Ngai, E. and Chan, E. (2005). Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP. Expert Systems with Applications, 29(4):889 899.

Ramanathan, R. and Ramanathan, U. (2009). A qualitative perspective to deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Omega, 38(3-4):228232.

26 references, page 1 of 2
Powered by OpenAIRE Research Graph
Any information missing or wrong?Report an Issue