Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy Process

By Thomas L. Saaty. 2000

3,181 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b4a43a269d42fbc2f233c3fbe9f87b6786fa2cb7

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Identifying and ranking of strategies to implement green supply chain management in Indian manufacturing industry using Analytical Hierarchy Process (2013, methodology): “Tables 1 shows the value of the RI for matrices of order(N) 1 to 10 obtained by approximating random indices using a sample size of 500 (Saaty, 2000).”
A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP (2014, methodology): “Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) introduced by Saaty (1977, 1980, 2000) is one of the widely used multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods (Peng, Kou, Wang, Wu, & Shi, 2011).”
GIS-based landslide susceptibility mapping using analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and certainty factor (CF) models for the Baozhong region of Baoji City, China (2015, background): “It provides a relative dominance value ranging from 1 to 9 to calibrate the qualitative and quantitative performances of priorities (Thanh and De Smedt 2012; Saaty 2000).”
A novel hybrid MCDM model combining the SAW, TOPSIS and GRA methods based on experimental design (2016, methodology): “Saaty’s 9-point scale [40] is used for the experimental design.”
Multi-criteria decision analysis and environmental risk assessment for nanomaterials (2007, methodology): “Similar to MAUT, AHP (Saaty, 1994) aggregates various facets of the decision problem using a single optimization function known as the objective function.”
A material selection model based on the concept of multiple attribute decision making (2006, background): “Another advantageous point is that when a large number of alternatives are considered, the high number of comparisons required by methods such as the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) [44,45] is avoided.”
A note on the use of the analytic hierarchy process for environmental impact assessment. (2001, methodology): “For aggregation, the following principle of hierarchic composition (Saaty, 2000) is used: Final priority of House H 1 D i Local priority of H 1 with respect to C i ð Local priority of C i with respect to the goal”
Evaluating Relationship of Consistency Ratio and Number of Alternatives on Rank Reversal in the AHP (2006, background): “The AHP deals with consistency explicitly because in making paired comparisons, just as in thinking, people do not have the intrinsic logical ability to be always consistent (Saaty, 1994 ).”
Multi-criteria selection of offshore wind farms: Case study for the Baltic States (2017, methodology): “An Eigenvalue method (Saaty, 2000) is used to calculate a priority vector that represents the relative ranking of importance for the identified criterions.”
Greener supplier selection: state of the art and some empirical evidence (2013, methodology): “…Dou, and Sarkis (2010) developed methodologies based on the analytic hierarchy process and its network variant analytic network process (AHP/ANP) (Saaty 1980, 1994, 2001); Feyzioğlu and Büyüközkan (2008) employed the Choquet Integral approach, while Bai and Sarkis (2010a, 2010b) utilised the…”
Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: a New Approach (2006, methodology): “max Aw w λ = (3) In the eigenvector method, w is the weight vector that is our goal.”
Quantitative models for performance measurement system (2000, methodology): “Even though Saaty [28] provides formula for computing the priority of group judgement using geometric mean, getting consensus among the members of the group in "lling the score in the pairwise comparison matrices seems better than just using the geometric mean.”