Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Advances in Decision Sciences
Volume 2016 (2016), Article ID 8963214, 9 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/8963214
Research Article

A Method of Assigning Weights Using a Ranking and Nonhierarchy Comparison

Department of Management of Technology for Defense, Korea University, Seoul 136-713, Republic of Korea

Received 4 September 2015; Accepted 6 April 2016

Academic Editor: Panos Pardalos

Copyright © 2016 Bangweon Song and Seokjoong Kang. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. W. Payne, “Task complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 366–387, 1976. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. J. W. Payne, J. R. Bettman, and E. J. Johnson, “Reason-based choice. Special issue: reasoning and decision making,” Cognition, vol. 49, no. 1-2, pp. 11–36, 1993. View at Google Scholar
  3. T. L. Saaty, Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1980. View at MathSciNet
  4. O. S. Vaidya and S. Kummar, “Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of application,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 186, pp. 735–747, 2006. View at Google Scholar
  5. K. M. Al-Subhi Al-Harbi, “Application of the AHP in project management,” International Journal of Project Management, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 19–27, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. C.-H. Yeh, H. Deng, and H. Pan, “Multi-criteria analysis for dredger dispatching under uncertainty,” Journal of the Operational Research Society, vol. 50, no. 1, pp. 35–43, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  7. E. Triantaphyllou, B. Shu, S. Nieto Sanchez, and T. Ray, “Multi-criteria decision making: an operations research approach,” in Encyclopedia of Electrical and Electronics Engineering, vol. 15, pp. 175–186, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1998. View at Google Scholar
  8. H. Deng, “Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 215–231, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. W. Zhang and H. Yang, “A study of the weighting method for a certain type of multicriteria optimization problem,” Computers & Structures, vol. 79, no. 31, pp. 2741–2749, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  10. L. Mikhailov, “Deriving priorities from fuzzy pairwise comparison judgements,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 365–385, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  11. T. L. Saaty and L. G. Vargas, The Logic Priorities, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1982.
  12. Y.-J. Kim and J.-S. Shim, “A comparison of weight elicitation techniques: focusing on AHP, JA, and SW,” National Policy Research, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 5–33, 2007. View at Google Scholar
  13. C.-H. Cheng, K.-L. Yang, and C.-L. Hwang, “Evaluating attack Helicopters by AHP based on linguistic variable weight,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 116, no. 2, pp. 423–435, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. T. L. Saaty, “Decision-making with the AHP: why is the principal eigenvector necessary,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 145, no. 1, pp. 85–91, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at MathSciNet · View at Scopus
  15. V. Belton and T. Gear, “On a short-coming of Saaty's method of analytic hierarchies,” Omega, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 228–230, 1983. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. B. J. Epstein and W. R. King, “An experimental study of the value of information,” Omega, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 249–258, 1982. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. S. Lipovetsky and W. Michael Conklin, “Robust estimation of priorities in the AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 137, no. 1, pp. 110–122, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  18. D.-Y. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649–655, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  19. Y.-M. Wang, Y. Luo, and Z. Hua, “On the extent analysis method for fuzzy AHP and its applications,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 186, no. 2, pp. 735–747, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Zentralblatt MATH · View at Scopus
  20. C.-S. Yu, “A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 29, no. 14, pp. 1969–2001, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. C.-C. Huang, P.-Y. Chu, and Y.-H. Chiang, “A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection,” Omega, vol. 36, no. 6, pp. 1038–1052, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. G. A. Miller, “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information,” Psychological Review, vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 81–97, 1956. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus