# An Approach for Generating Weights Using the Pairwise Comparison Matrix

Authors: Zaher Sepehrian; Sahar Khoshfetrat; Said Ebadi
Journal: Journal of Mathematics
 (2021)

---

## Abstract

Data envelopment analysis (DEA) has been used for obtaining weights for the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), an approach known as DEAHP. This method sometimes identifies more than one decision criterion or alternative as DEAHP-efficient. To overcome this problem, this paper proposes a new approach that not only generates appropriate weights for the decision criteria or alternatives, but also differentiates between DEAHP-efficient decision criteria or alternatives. To this end, we propose a DEA model with an assurance region and a cross-weight model that prioritizes decision criteria or alternatives by considering their most unfavorable weights. Two numerical examples are also provided to illustrate the advantages and potential applications of the proposed model.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

An important issue in the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is obtaining a priority vector from a pairwise comparison matrix, which has widely been investigated in AHP articles [1–3]. Therefore, the key issue is how to determine the weights of decision criteria or alternatives [4–6]. Since the advent of this technique, it has been theoretically developed multiple times and applied for various purposes (e.g., review studies of Kheybari et al. [7] and Emrouznejad and Marra [8]).Several methods have been proposed in AHP-related articles for the determination of local weights based on the pairwise comparison matrices [9–18]. Each of these methods has specific advantages and disadvantages, and thus, none of them can be considered the best. Although the eigenvector method (EM) has been strongly recommended and preferred by Saaty [19], there is no general agreement on its superiority (e.g., Mikhailov [20] and Srdjevic [21]).The data envelopment analysis (DEA) method, proposed by Charnes, Cooper [22], has been used for prioritization in AHP. In this approach, decision criteria or alternatives in a pairwise comparison matrix are considered decision-making units (DMUs). Moreover, the elements on the rows of the pairwise comparison matrix are the outputs of DMUs, and the efficiency of DMUs is considered priorities of the pairwise comparison matrix. Accordingly, Ramanathan [23] proposed a DEAHP method to obtain both weights and cumulative weights in AHP. Although DEAHP can generate true weights for consistent pairwise comparison matrices, it generates illogical and meaningless weights when it comes to inconsistent pairwise comparison matrices. Wang, Chin [24] and Wang, Chin [25] detailed the disadvantages of DEAHP by providing numerical examples. To overcome these issues, they proposed a DEA model with an assurance region (AR) to generate weights in the AHP. The DEA/AR model can generate intuitive and even logical weights for both consistent and inconsistent pairwise comparison matrices. Wang, Parkan [26] proposed a linear programming method to generate the most desirable weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Wang and Chin [27] proposed a DEA model for prioritization in AHP. Instead of the efficiency of each DMU, the proposed model defines relative efficiency as its priority. As a result, it generates the most desirable weights, which are close to the weights of the eigenvector of the pairwise comparison matrices.The most desirable weights for each decision criterion or alternative are assessed from its view, which is called self-evaluation [28, 29]. When a decision criterion or alternative evaluates its best weight, it also evaluates other decision criteria or alternatives. Such weights, evaluated using other criteria or alternatives, are called cross-weights [30]. The evaluations done by other criteria or alternatives are called peer-evaluation. Obviously, cross-weights may not be desirable for decision criteria or alternatives. Therefore, the use of the most desirable weights is not suitable for a comprehensive decision-making.To generate a comprehensive weight that is also logical for every decision criterion or alternative, Wang, Luo [28] proposed the cross-weight evaluation technique for weight differentiation. The cross-weight evaluation assessed the weights of a pairwise comparison matrix not only from its standpoint, but also from a peer standpoint. Therefore, the weights generated from the cross-weight evaluation technique are more logical and fair. The models proposed by Wang et al. [28] were among the optimistic models in DEA. Although those models are more optimal than available DEAHP models in differentiation, similar to other DEAHP models, they may sometimes evaluate some decision criteria or alternatives at the same level, making decision-making problematic.The present paper proposed a new approach, called “analysis of the most undesirable weight,” to obtain the weights of decision criteria and alternatives. It enables us to rank a set of decision criteria and alternatives, even those assessed at the same level from an optimistic view. The principal condition for the analysis of the most undesirable weight is that, in addition to the most desirable weight, the most undesirable weight can also be assigned to every decision criterion and alternative. The most desirable and undesirable weights for a decision criterion or alternative define the weight interval of that criterion or alternative. Two numerical examples will be provided to show the advantages and potential applications of the proposed model.The remaining parts of the paper are organized as follows: Section2 briefly reviews the DEAHP models for the generation of the most desirable weights for pairwise comparison matrices. Section 3 deals with the cross-weight evaluation technique from a pessimistic standpoint. Section 4 presents numerical examples. Section 5 presents comparison with other prioritization methods. Section 6 is devoted to the conclusion.


## 2. DEAHP Models for Generating Most Desirable Weights

Assume that(1)A=aijn×n=a11a12⋯a1na21a22⋯a2n⋮⋮⋯⋮an1an2⋯ann,is a pairwise comparison matrix with aii=1 and aji=1/aij for j≠i and W=w1,…,wnT is its priority vector. In DEAHP, each row of A is considered a DMU, and each column is considered an output. Accordingly, Wang, Chin [25] proposed DEA model (2) to generate weights from pairwise comparison matrices A:(2)maxwo,s.t.wi=∑j=1naijvj≤1,i=1,…,n,wjβ≤vj≤wjn,j=1,…,n,where o refers to the criterion or alternative under the evaluation. By solving model (2) for each wo (o=1,…,n), the most desirable weights for n decision criteria or alternatives can be obtained. vj (j=1,…,n) are decision variables, and wj/β≤vj≤wj/n (j=1,…,n) are the AR imposed on the DEA model. β is the upper boundary of the maximum eigenvector of the pairwise comparison matrix A=aijn×n, which is determined from the following equation:(3)β=minmaxi1ri∑j=1naijrj,maxi1ci∑j=1najicj,where r1,…,rn and c1,…,cn are, respectively, the sums of rows and columns of A=aijn×n. If there is a set of positive weights vj∗, j=1,…,n to fulfill wo∗=1, the decision criterion or alternative is called DEAHP efficient; otherwise, it is called DEAHP nonefficient. Typically, the best decision criterion or alternative can be selected from DEAHP-efficient decision criteria or alternatives.Another technique for generating weight in the DEAHP is the use of cross-weight evaluation to obtain priorities. Model (2) only considers the most desirable weights obtained from self-evaluation and may generate several optimal weight vectors. To solve the problem of nonuniqueness, Wang et al. [28] proposed the cross-weight model (4) that generates unique weights:(4)max∑j=1,j≠onwj,s.t.∑j=1naojvj=wo∗,wi=∑j=1naijvj≤1,i=1,…,nwjβ≤vj≤wjn,j=1,…,n,,where wo∗ is the most desirable weight of criterion or alternative under investigation based on model (2).


## 3. DEAHP Models for Generating Most Undesirable Weights

Model (2) may recognize more than one decision criterion or alternative as efficient. These efficient decision criteria or alternatives cannot be differentiated based on their most desirable weights. However, we can consider the most undesirable weights. The most undesirable weight is in contrast to the most desirable weight and represents the weight of each decision criterion or alternative in the most undesirable condition. Theoretically, the most desirable and undesirable weights should be obtained in the same range, which should present an interval for each decision criterion or alternative. For example, they can be measured in the interval ofα,1, where α>0 is a predefined parameter [31–33]. The corresponding model can be created as follows:(5)minw^o,s.t.w^i=∑j=1naijvj≥α,i=1,…,n,w^jβ≤vj≤w^jn,j=1,…,n.,Nevertheless, if the most undesirable weight is measured in this way, the major problem is the need to predefine an appropriate value forα. To avoid the problem of determining the value of α, the most undesirable weight of each decision criterion or alternative can be measured with the following model:(6)minw^os.t.w^i=∑j=1naijvj≥1,i=1,…,nw^j/β≤vj≤w^j/n,j=1,…,n.This model can be solved for all considered decision criteria and alternatives. The decision criterion or alternative with the greatest weight can be selected. The advantage of model (6) relative to model (2) is that it allows for differentiating between decision criteria and alternatives of DEAHP efficient. If there was a set of positive weights for which the value of an optimal objective function of model (6) is 1 orw^o∗=1, it would be said that the decision criterion or alternative is DEAHP inefficient; otherwise, it is called DEAHP non-inefficient.Theorem 1.
IfA=aijn×n was a perfectly consistent pairwise comparison matrix, then model (6) would generate the following weights:(7)w^i∗=w^iminj∈1,…,nw^j,i=1,…,n,which are the normalization of true weights w^i, i=1,…,n of the pairwise comparison matrix A=aijn×n.Proof.
SinceA=aijn×n is a perfectly consistent pairwise comparison matrix, it can be recognized by the weights of eigenvector w^j=1/∑i=1naij (j=1,…,n) in the form of aij=w^i/w^j (i,j=1,…,n). Accordingly, ∑j=1nvj/w^j≥1/w^i, i=1,…,n can be obtained from ∑j=1naijvj=∑j=1nw^i/w^jvj=w^i∑j=1nvj/w^j≥1, i=1,…,n. Therefore, we have ∑j=1nvj/w^j≥maxi1/w^i=1/minj∈1,…,nw^j.The minimum value of the objective function of model (6) can be obtained in the form ofw^o∗=w^o∑j=1nvj∗/w^j=w^o/minj∈1,…,nw^j, wherew^o∈w^1,…,w^n.
Model (6) only considers the most undesirable weights obtained from self-evaluation and may generate several optimal weight vectors. To solve the problem of nonuniqueness, cross-weight model (8), which generates unique weights, is recommended:(8)min∑j=1,j≠onw^j,s.t.∑j=1naojvj=w^o∗,w^i=∑j=1naijvj≥1,i=1,…,n,w^j/β≤vj≤w^j/n,j=1,…,n,,where w^o∗ is the most undesirable weight of criterion or alternative under investigation, based on model (6).


## 4. Numerical Examples

In this part, two numerical examples were investigated using the proposed approach to show its application and capability in the differentiation of efficient decision criteria or alternatives.Example 1.
Consider the following pairwise comparison matrix of Wang and Chin [27]:(9)A=11/31/311/2311/21/213211/2212211211/211.
This pairwise comparison matrix has a good consistencyCR=0.0999. β=6.3810 was obtained for this pairwise comparison matrix. Table 1 shows the priorities obtained from EM and DEA/AR models (2) and (6). According to Table 1, it can be seen that EM and the DEA/AR model (6) evaluate C3 as the most important criterion or alternative. DEA/AR models (2) and (6) differ in the evaluation of C3and C4. The DEA/AR model (2) assesses C3 and C4 at the same level (defines C3 and C4 as efficient) and cannot differentiate between them, while the DEA/AR model (6) can easily differentiate C3from C4, and evaluates C3 as more important than C4. In other words, DEA/AR model (6) provides a general rank of decision criteria or alternatives.
Tables2 and 3 show the results from the evaluation of cross-weights obtained from DEA/AR models (2), (4), (6), and (8). Obviously, the mean cross-weights generated using the DEA/AR models (2) and (4) (Table 2) indicate that C3 and C4 are at the same level of importance, whereas the mean cross-weights generated using the DEA/AR models (6) and (8) (Table 3) indicate that C3 is more important than C4. Therefore, the mean cross-weights obtained from DEA/AR models (6) and (8) have greater differentiation performance than the mean cross-weights obtained from DEA/AR models (2) and (3).Table 1
Priority of pairwise comparison matrixA and their ranks.
ModelDecision criteria or alternativesC1C2C3C4C5EM0.1129 (5)0.1763 (4)0.2661 (1)0.2648 (2)0.1799 (3)DEA/AR model (2)0.4454 (5)0.6836 (4)1.0000 (1)1.0000 (1)0.6945 (3)DEA/AR model (6)1.0000 (5)1.4716 (4)2.2291 (1)2.1827 (2)1.5448 (3)Table 2
Results from the cross-weight evaluation based on DEA/AR models (2) and (4).
Criteria or alternativesTarget criterion or alternativeAverage cross-weightsRankC1C2C3C4C5C10.44540.44540.44540.44540.44540.44545C20.68360.68360.68360.68360.68360.68364C31111111C41111111C50.69450.69450.69450.69450.69450.69453Table 3
Results from the cross-weight evaluation based on DEA/AR models (6) and (8).
Criteria or alternativesTarget criterion or alternativeAverage cross-weightsRankC1C2C3C4C5C11111115C21.47741.47161.52401.56831.47161.50264C32.24212.24312.22912.31842.24312.25522C42.28782.29932.26282.18272.29932.26631C51.54491.54481.55281.58661.54481.55483Example 2.
Consider the supplier selection problem of BEKO (a major TV manufacturer in Turkey), derived from Sevkli et al. [34]. The hierarchical structure of the supplier selection problem for purchasing CRTs is presented in Figure 1. It consists of six evaluation criteria, 25 subcriteria, and three suppliers. The six evaluation criteria are as follows:C1: performance assessmentC2: human resourcesC3: quality system assessmentC4: manufacturingC5: business criteriaC6: using information technology
Each criterion is divided into 3–6 subcriteria, forming a total of 25 subcriteria. These 25 subcriteria are as follows:C11: shipment QualityC12: deliveryC13: cost analysisC21: number of EmployeesC22: organizational structureC23: trainingC24: number of technical staffC31: management commitmentC32: inspectionC33: quality planningC34: quality assuranceC41: production capacityC42: predictive and preventive maintenanceC43: lead-timeC44: up-to-date techniques and equipmentC45: transportation–storage and packagingC46: new product developmentC51: reputationC52: geographic locationC53: priceC54: patentC55: technical capacityC61: radio-frequency identification (RFID)C62: electronic data interchange (EDI)C63: internet
For anonymity, the three supplier companies are named by numbers 1, 2, and 3. In Tables4–16, the pairwise comparison matrix has been provided for six evaluation criteria, 25 subcriteria, and three suppliers. Moreover, their local weights are reported in the last two columns of Tables 4–16, using the EM and model (8).
The local weights of three suppliers given each subcriterion of each criterion are presented in Tables17–22 to obtain a compound weight vector of each criterion. In Table 23, the compound weight vectors are accumulated in the form of a comprehensive weight vector relative to the supplier accumulation. In Tables 17–23, the weights of EM and model (8) are both normalized until their maximum value equates to 1. According to Table 23, EM and model (8) generate similar final decisions. They assessed Supplier 2 as the best supplier.Figure 1
Hierarchical structure of supplier selection problem.Table 4
Pairwise comparison matrix for six criteria and their local weight.
CriteriaC1C2C3C4C5C6EM weightsModel (8)C114321/270.2457.586C21/411/21/31/820.0541.690C31/3211/21/540.0942.928C41/23211/350.1534.732C52853190.42213.108C61/71/241/51/910.0321.000Consistency ratio 0.0128.Table 5
Pairwise comparison matrix for three subcriteria of C1 and their local weights.
CriteriaC11C12C13EM weightsModel (8)C111560.7267.101C121/5120.1721.684C131/61/210.1021.000Consistency ratio 0.0251.Table 6
Pairwise comparison matrix for four subcriteria of C2 and their local weights.
CriteriaC21C22C23C24EM weightsModel (8)C2111/51/61/30.0611.000C22511/230.3105.011C2362140.4958.022C2431/31/410.1342.165Consistency ratio 0.0292.Table 7
Pairwise comparison matrix for four subcriteria of C3 and their local weights.
CriteriaC31C32C33C34EM weightsModel (8)C3111/41/41/60.0601.000C32411/31/30.1562.564C334311/30.2734.383C3463310.5128.460Consistency ratio 0.0717.Table 8
Pairwise comparison matrix for six subcriteria of C4 and their local weights.
CriteriaC41C42C43C44C45C46EM weightsModel (8)C411231/241/30.1523.956C421/211/21/421/70.0611.597C431/3211/321/60.0792.044C44243161/20.2416.266C451/41/21/21/611/90.0381.000C463762910.42811.143Consistency ratio 0.0168.Table 9
Pairwise comparison matrix for five subcriteria of C5 and their local weights.
CriteriaC51C52C53C54C55EM weightsModel (8)C51121/81/31/70.0521.499C521/211/91/51/80.0351.000C53891520.47913.745C54351/511/30.1283.654C55781/2310.3068.754Consistency ratio 0.0294.Table 10
Pairwise comparison matrix for three subcriteria of C6 and their local weights.
CriteriaC61C62C63EM weightsModel (8)C6111/61/70.0701.000C62611/20.3485.005C637210.5828.361Consistency ratio 0.0279.Table 11
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C1 and their local weights.
SupplierSupplier1Supplier 2Supplier 3EM weightsModel (8)A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to shipment quality (C11) (consistency ratio 0.0332)Supplier 11350.6376.066Supplier 21/3130.2582.461Supplier 31/51/310.1051.000B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to delivery (C12) (consistency ratio 0.0251)Supplier 111/51/60.0811.000Supplier 2511/20.3424.211Supplier 36210.5777.101C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to cost (C13) (consistency ratio 0)Supplier 111/31/60.1001.000Supplier 2311/20.3003.000Supplier 36210.6006.000Table 12
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C2 and their local weights.
SupplierSupplier 1Supplier 2Supplier 3EM weightsModel (8)A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to the number of employees (C21) (consistency ratio 0.0032)Supplier 111/31/50.1091.000Supplier 2311/20.3092.823Supplier 35210.5825.313B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to organization structure (C22) (consistency ratio 0.0462)Supplier 11460.6917.526Supplier 21/4130.2182.373Supplier 31/61/310.0911.000C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to the number training (C23) (consistency ratio 0.0462)Supplier 11460.6917.526Supplier 21/4130.2182.373Supplier 31/61/310.0911.000D. Comparison of suppliers with respect to the number of technical staff (C24) (consistency ratio 0.0032)Supplier 111/320.2301.882Supplier 23150.6485.313Supplier 31/21/510.1221.000Table 13
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C3 and their local weights.
SupplierSupplier 1Supplier 2Supplier 3EM weightsModel (8)A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to management commitment (C31) (consistency ratio 0.0739)Supplier 11450.6746.635Supplier 21/4130.2262.226Supplier 31/51/310.1001.000B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to inspection and control (C32) (consistency ratio 0.0559)Supplier 11570.7318.972Supplier 21/5130.1882.316Supplier 31/71/310.0811.000C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to quality planning (C33) (consistency ratio 0.0187)Supplier 11790.79310.416Supplier 21/7120.1311.724Supplier 31/91/210.0761.000D. Comparison of suppliers with respect to quality assurance (C34) (consistency ratio 0.0559)Supplier 11570.7318.972Supplier 21/5130.1882.316Supplier 31/71/310.0811.000Table 14
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C4 and their local weights.
SupplierSupplier 1Supplier 2Supplier 3EM weightsModel (8)A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to production capacity (C41) (consistency ratio 0.0739)Supplier 111/51/40.0941.000Supplier 25130.6276.635Supplier 341/310.2802.968B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to predictive and preventive maintenance (C42) (consistency ratio 0.0332)Supplier 11350.6376.066Supplier 21/3130.2582.461Supplier 31/51/310.1051.000C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to lead-time (C43) (consistency ratio 0.0212)Supplier 1121/40.2001.708Supplier 21/211/50.1171.000Supplier 34510.6835.840D. Comparison of suppliers with respect to up-to-date techniques and equipment (C44) (consistency ratio 0)Supplier 11140.4444.000Supplier 21140.4444.000Supplier 31/41/410.1111.000E. Comparison of suppliers with respect to transportation-storage and packaging (C45) (consistency ratio 0.0634)Supplier 1131/30.2682.277Supplier 21/311/40.1171.000Supplier 33410.6145.205F. Comparison of suppliers with respect to new product development (C46) (consistency ratio 0.0634)Supplier 111/360.2854.554Supplier 23180.65310.409Supplier 31/61/810.0621.000Table 15
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C5 and their local weights.
SupplierSupplier 1Supplier 2Supplier 3EM weightsModel (8)A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to reputation (C51) (consistency ratio 0.0634)Supplier 11380.65310.409Supplier 21/3160.2854.554Supplier 31/81/610.0621.000B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to geographical location (C52) (consistency ratio 0.0739)Supplier 11450.6746.635Supplier 21/4130.2262.226Supplier 31/51/310.1011.000C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to price (C53) (consistency ratio 0.0634)Supplier 111/31/40.1171.000Supplier 2311/30.2682.277Supplier 34310.6145.205D. Comparison of suppliers with respect to patents (C54) (consistency ratio 0)Supplier 11110.3331.000Supplier 21110.3331.000Supplier 31110.3331.000E. Comparison of suppliers with respect to technical capability (C55) (consistency ratio 0.0614)Supplier 111/450.2313.312Supplier 24190.70911.666Supplier 31/51/910.0601.000Table 16
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C6 and their local weights.
SupplierSupplier 1Supplier 2Supplier 3EM weightsModel (8)A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to RFID (C61) (consistency ratio 0)Supplier 11130.4293.000Supplier 21130.4293.000Supplier 31/31/310.1431.000B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to EDI (C62) (consistency ratio 0)Supplier 11130.4293.000Supplier 21130.4293.000Supplier 31/31/310.1431.000C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to internet (C63) (consistency ratio 0)Supplier 11130.4293.000Supplier 21130.4293.000Supplier 31/31/310.1431.000Table 17
Compound weights of three suppliers from the view of C1.
C11C12C13Compound weightNormalisationA. EM weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight1.0000.2370.141Supplier 11.0000.1410.1671.0571.000Supplier 20.4050.5930.5000.6160.583Supplier 30.1641.0001.0000.5420.513B. Model (8) weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight1.0000.2370.141Supplier 11.0000.1410.1671.0571.000Supplier 20.4060.5930.5000.6170.584Supplier 30.1651.0001.0000.5430.514Table 18
Compound weights of three suppliers from the view of C2.
C21C22C23C24Compound weightNormalisationA. EM weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1240.6271.0000.270Supplier 10.1881.0001.0000.3541.7461.000Supplier 20.5310.3150.3231.0000.8560.490Supplier 31.0000.1320.1360.1880.3940.225B. Model (8) weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1250.6251.0000.270Supplier 10.1881.0001.0000.3541.7461.000Supplier 20.5310.3150.3151.0000.8560.490Supplier 31.0000.1330.1330.1880.3940.225Table 19
Compound weights of three suppliers from the view of C3.
C31C32C33C34Compound weightNormalisationA. EM weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1170.3040.5331.000Supplier 11.0001.0001.0001.0001.9551.000Supplier 20.3350.2580.1660.2580.4640.237Supplier 30.1490.1110.0960.1110.2130.109B. Model (8) weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1180.3030.5181.000Supplier 11.0001.0001.0001.0001.9391.000Supplier 20.3350.2580.1660.2580.4620.238Supplier 30.1510.1110.0960.1110.2120.109Table 20
Compound weights of three suppliers from the view of C4.
C41C42C43C44C45C46Compound weightNormalisationA. EM weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.3550.1430.1840.5630.0901.000Supplier 10.1491.0000.2921.0000.4370.4371.2890.637Supplier 21.0000.4050.1711.0000.1911.0002.0251.000Supplier 30.4460.1641.0000.2501.0000.0950.6920.342B. Model (8) weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.3550.1430.1830.5620.0901.000Supplier 10.1511.0000.2921.0000.4370.4381.2890.637Supplier 21.0000.4060.1711.0000.1921.0002.0231.000Supplier 30.4470.1651.0000.2501.0000.0960.6920.342Table 21
Compound weights of three suppliers from the view of C5.
C51C52C53C54C55Compound weightNormalisationA. EM weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1090.0721.0000.2660.639Supplier 11.0001.0000.1911.0000.3260.8470.599Supplier 20.4370.3350.4371.0001.0001.4141.000Supplier 30.0950.1491.0001.0000.0851.3420.949B. Model (8) weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1090.0731.0000.2660.637Supplier 11.0001.0000.1921.0000.2840.8210.581Supplier 20.4380.3350.4371.0001.0001.4121.000Supplier 30.0960.1511.0001.0000.0861.3420.950Table 22
Compound weights of three suppliers from the view of C6.
C61C62C63Compound weightNormalisationA. EM weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1190.5981.000Supplier 11.0001.0001.0001.7181.000Supplier 21.0001.0001.0001.7181.000Supplier 30.3330.3330.3330.5730.333B. Model (8) weights are normalised to make their maximum oneSubcriteria weight0.1190.5981.000Supplier 11.0001.0001.0001.7181.000Supplier 21.0001.0001.0001.7181.000Supplier 30.3330.3330.3330.5730.333Table 23
Global weights of the three suppliers with respect to the total Goa.
C1C2C3C4C5C6Global weightNormalisationA. EM weights are normalised to make their maximum oneCriteria weight0.5800.1290.2240.3621.0000.076Supplier 11.0001.0001.0000.6370.5991.0001.8380.971Supplier 20.5830.4900.2371.0001.0001.0001.8921.000Supplier 30.5130.2250.1090.3420.9490.3331.4490.766B. Model (8) weights are normalised to make their maximum oneCriteria weight0.5790.1290.2230.3611.0000.076Supplier 11.0001.0001.0000.6370.5811.0001.8180.961Supplier 20.5840.4900.2381.0001.0001.0001.8911.000Supplier 30.5140.2250.1090.3420.9500.3331.4500.767


## 5. Comparison with Other Prioritization Methods

This section compares the proposed prioritization method with Eigenvector Method (EM), Least Squares Method (LSM) [35], Weighted Least Square Method (WLSM) [10], Logarithmic Least Squares Method (LLSM) [11], and Correlation Coefficient Maximization Approach (CCMA) [36] to indicate their differences, advantages, and disadvantages.According to Saaty [2], EM calculates eigenvector weights by solving the following eigenvector equations:(10)∑j=1naijwj=λmaxwi,i=1,…,n,where λmax is the maximum eigenvalue of pairwise comparison matrix A, wi (i=1,…,n) applies in wi>0, and we have ∑i=1nwi=1. A weakness of EM is its non-linearity. Should the matrix have greater dimensions, it will be time-consuming to calculate eigenvalues and eigenvectors.Saaty and Vargas [35] formulated LSM as follows [37]:(11)minz=∑i=1n∑j=1naij−wiwj2s.t.∑i=1nwi=1,wi≥0,i=1,…,n.Model (11) is clearly non-linear.Chu et al. [10] formulated WLSM as follows:(12)minz=∑i=1n∑j=1naijwj−wi2s.t.∑i=1nwi=1,wi≥0,i=1,…,n.Model (12) is also non-linear.Crawford [11] formulated LLSM as follows:(13)minz=∑i=1n∑j=1nlnaij−lnwi/wj2s.t.∑i=1nwi=1,wi≥0,i=1,…,n.By solving Model (13), which is non-linear too,wi(i=1,…,n) will be computed.By an overview, it can be stated that Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and LLSM minimize arithmetic mean of errors and geometric mean of errors respectively.Wang et al. [36] formulated CCMA as follows:(14)MaxJ=∑i=1n∑j=1naij−1/n+βw^i∗1/n+βw^j∗2,s.t.β≥0,where w^i∗ is calculated by the following equations:(15)w^i∗=∑j=1nbij∑i=1n∑j=1nbij2,i=1,…,n,bij=aij−a¯j∑k=1nakj−a¯j2,i,j=1,…,n,where a¯j=1/n∑i=1naij.Example 3.
Consider the following inconsistent comparison matrix studied by Lipovetsky and Conklin [38]:(16)A=1537661/31/41/511/35331/51/71/33163461/51/71/51/611/31/41/71/81/61/31/3311/21/51/61/61/31/44211/51/6351/675511/247586621.
In this pairwise comparison matrix, we haveβ=13.2372
Table24 shows priority vectors obtained from different prioritization methods. As can be seen, various prioritization methods generate different rankings. This is mainly due to the fact that the initialization vector A was highly inconsistent and should be therefore adjusted. Lipovetsky and Conklin [37] showed that the order of the adjusted ranking is asw8>w7>w1>w3>w2>w6>w5>w4. Ranking in DEA/AR Model (8) is exactly of the same order as ranking in EM.Table 24
Priority vectors and ranking order obtained from different prioritization methods.
DEA/AR Model (8)EMWLSMLSMLLSMCCMAw19.0062 (3)0.1730 (3)0.1427 (2)0.2202 (2)0.1748 (2)0.1815 (3)w22.8338 (5)0.0540 (5)0.0543 (5)0.0468 (5)0.0626 (5)0.0825 (5)w310.4515 (2)0.1881 (2)0.1213 (3)0.1494 (4)0.1487 (4)0.1508 (4)w41.0000 (8)0.0175 (8)0.0301 (8)0.0290 (8)0.0193 (8)0.0214 (8)w51.7471 (7)0.0310 (7)0.0465 (6)0.0413 (7)0.0356 (7)0.0426 (7)w62.0066 (6)0.0363 (6)0.0465 (6)0.0416 (6)0.0423 (6)0.0565 (6)w78.8996 (4)0.1668 (4)0.0891 (4)0.2029 (3)0.1670 (3)0.1818 (2)w818.1511 (1)0.3332 (1)0.4695 (1)0.2687 (1)0.3496 (1)0.2829 (1)


## 6. Conclusion

Although obtaining weights in the AHP has already been investigated by different studies, this problem needs more clarification. This paper proposed a new approach for generating weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. The proposed approach considers the most undesirable weight for each decision criterion or alternative and selects a decision criterion or alternative with the greatest weight. Two numerical examples, including BEKO in Turkey on CRT supplier selection, conducted by Sevkli, Lenny Koh [34], were investigated using the proposed approach. Moreover, the proposed method proved its ability to effectively differentiate decision criteria and alternative of DEAHP efficient.



---

*Source: 3217120-2021-11-24.xml*