Group Decis Negot (2012) 21:233254

DOI 10.1007/s10726-009-9182-x
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights
Generation and Group Decision Making in the Analytic
Hierarchy Process
Seyed Saeed Hosseinian Hamidreza Navidi
Abas Hajfathaliha
Published online: 4 November 2009
Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract This paper proposes a new linear programming method entitled by
LP-GW-AHP for weights generation in analytic hierarchy process (AHP) which
employs concepts from data envelopment analysis. We propose four specially con-
structed linear programming (LP) models which are used to derive weight vector from
a pair-wise comparison matrix or a group of them. We can use both interval and relative
importance weights for each decision maker in LP-GW-AHP. In this method, solving
only one LP model is enough for local weights derivation from pair-wise comparison
matrices. Five numerical examples are examined to illustrate the potential applica-
tions of the LP-GW-AHP method. We show that not only derived weights of the new
method have slight differences than Saatys eigenvector weights but sometimes they
are better than eigenvector method weights in the tting performance index as well.
LP-GW-AHP is compared with a method which has been recently proposed for the
weights derivation in the group AHP and it becomes obvious that LP-GW-AHP pro-
vides better weights. The simple additive weighting method is utilized to aggregate
local weights without the need to normalize them.
Keywords Group decision making Analytic hierarchy process Data
envelopment analysis Interval importance weight Relative importance weight
Fitting performance
S. S. Hosseinian (B) A. Hajfathaliha
Department of Industrial Engineering, Shahed University, P.O. Box 18155/159, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: Saeedie@Gmail.com; ssaeed_80@yahoo.com
A. Hajfathaliha
e-mail: Hajfathaliha@Shahed.ac.ir
H. Navidi
Department of Mathematics, Shahed University, P.O. Box 18155/159, Tehran, Iran
e-mail: Navidi@Shahed.ac.ir
1 3
234 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
1 Introduction
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) was developed by Saaty (1980). AHP is one the
most popular multi criteria decision making MCDM tools for formulating and analyz-
ing decisions (Ramanathan 2006). Most of the MCDM techniques require numerous
parameters, which are difcult to be determined precisely requiring extensive sen-
sitivity analysis (Srinivasa Raju and Nagesh Kumar 2006). How to deriving priority
vector froma pair-wise comparison matrix has being an important research topic in the
AHP and is substantially investigated in the AHP literature. Apart from Saatys well-
known eigenvector method (EM), quite a number of alternative approaches have been
suggested such as the weighted least-square method (WLSM), the logarithmic least
squares method (LLSM), the geometric least squares method (GLSM), the fuzzy pro-
gramming method (FPM), the gradient eigenweight method (GEM), and so on (Wang
and Chin 2009). Ho (2008), and Vaidya and Kumar (2006) provided an overview of
AHP applications.
DEA is a nonparametric approach which was developed by Charnes et al. (1978)
based on linear programming to evaluate relative efciency of similar decision mak-
ing units (DMUs) and it utilizes multiple inputs to produce multiple outputs. Relative
efciency is dened as the ratio of total weighted output to total weighted input. The
main limitation of DEA models is running a separate linear program for each DMU.
This will be computationally intensive when the number of DMUs is large (Srinivasa
Raju and Nagesh Kumar 2006). Interested Readers can see the more details of the
DEA theory and applications in Charnes et al. (1994) and Cooper et al. (2000).
Recently, some papers have used DEA approach for weights derivation from pair-
wise comparison matrices in AHP which they will be surveyed in next section. In this
paper, we propose a new method to generate weights from a pair-wise comparison
matrix or a group of them in AHP which uses concepts from DEA. We can use both
relative importance weight and interval importance weight for dening the possible
weights of each decision maker. This new method is called A linear programming
method to generate weights in the AHP (LP-GW-AHP). In this method, solving only
one LP model is enough for local weights derivation from a pair-wise comparison
matrix or group of them and it doesnt need to normalize derived weight vector.
The paper is organized as follow: After introduction, Sect. 2 begins with a brief
literature survey on the integrated DEA-AHP approach then reviews weights genera-
tion methods that used DEAapproach. In Sect. 3, we propose LP-GW-AHP method to
derive local weights in AHP and two numerical examples are examined and analyzed.
In Sect. 4, LP-GW-AHP method is extended to handle the importance of each decision
makers opinions. The aggregation of the local weights by SAW is provided in Sect.
5. The paper is concluded in Sect. 6.
2 Literature Review
2.1 A Literature Survey on the Integrated DEA-AHP Methodology
It has been recognized for more than a decade that the MCDM and DEA formulations
coincide if inputs and outputs can be viewed as criteria for performance evaluation,
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 235
Table 1 The combined AHP-DEA approach and its specic areas
Sr. no. Author/s (year) Specic areas Other tool/s used
1 Tseng et al. (2009) Business performance evaluation TOPSIS
2 Korpela et al. (2007) Selecting the warehouse
operator network

3 Yang and Kuo (2003) Facility layout selection

problem

4 Farzipoor Saen et al. (2005) Evaluation the efciency of

research organizations

5 Wang et al. (2008) Bridge risk assessment SAW

6 Takamura and Tone (2003) Relocation of several
government agencies
Assurance region
and Delphi
procedure
7 Ertay et al. (2006) Facility layout selection
problem

8 Azadeh et al. (2008) Railway system improvement

and optimization
Simulation model
9 Bowen (1990) Site selection
10 Shang and Sueyoshi (1995) Flexible manufacturing
system selection
Simulation model
11 Jyoti et al. (2008) Evaluation the performance
of R&D organizations

with minimization of inputs and/or maximization of outputs as associated objectives

(Ramanathan 2006). In this section we do not want to survey the link between MCDM
and DEA, we especially survey link between AHP and DEA. The utilization of inte-
grated DEA-AHP approach is not new and there have been some utilizations of this
approach. Some of these studies are summarized in Table 1 and are described in the
following paragraphs.
Shang and Sueyoshi (1995)used the integrated DEA-AHP approach for the exi-
ble manufacturing system selection of a manufacturing organization. They used three
modules: an AHP, a simulation module and an accounting procedure. Both AHP and
simulation models were used to generate the necessary outputs for the DEA and an
accounting procedure was used to determine the DMU outputs.
Farzipoor Saen et al. (2005) proposed the combined DEA-AHP approach to deter-
mine the relative efciency for slightly non-homogeneous DMUs and demonstrated
the application of proposed method for the efciency evaluation of eighteen Iranian
research organizations.
Azadeh et al. (2008) applied combined DEA-AHP approach for railway system
improvement and optimization. First, computer simulation was used to modeling,
verifying and validating the system. Second, AHP methodology was used to determi-
nate the weight of any qualitative criteria (inputs or outputs). Finally, the DEA model
used to solve the multi objective model to identify the best alternative.
Jyoti et al. (2008) used the integrated DEA-AHP approach for the performance
evaluation of Indian research and development organizations. The performance was
evaluatedinterms of relative efciencybyapplyingthe integratedDEA-AHPapproach
and standard DEA. The results of these two approaches were compared and discussed.
1 3
236 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
Takamura and Tone (2003) used combined DEA-AHP approach to relocate sev-
eral government agencies out of Tokyo. There were eighteen criteria for site selection
problem and AHP was adopted to obtain the relative importance of the criteria. The
assurance regions model of DEA was used to evaluate effectiveness of alternatives.
Delphi procedure was discussed, too.
Tseng et al. (2009) applied the synthetic DEA-AHP approach to determine the rel-
ative business performance of high-tech manufacturing companies. AHP was applied
to determine the relative importance weights of all indicators and dimensions. The
performance scores of the qualitative indicators were obtained by using fuzzy set the-
ory and cost efciency indicator score was obtained by using the DEA method. By
normalizing the companies performance scores, including the qualitative and quan-
titative indicators, they aggregated the weights of the evaluated indicators. Finally,
Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach
was used to rank the performance of the companies.
Korpela et al. (2007) applied the combined DEA-AHPapproach to select warehouse
operator network. AHP was used to derive priorities of seven subcriteria and the DEA
outputs were formed by AHP analysis. Both direct and indirect costs were accounted
as inputs. Finally, DEA was used for analyzing the service/cost-effectiveness of the
warehouse operators.
Some papers have used this approach to solve the facility layout design problems.
Ertay et al. (2006) applied the combined DEA-AHP approach to the facility layout
design that was very similar to which was presented in Yang and Kuo (2003).
In these papers, AHP was often used for alternatives evaluation with respect to qual-
itative criteria and DEA for nal ranking. In another kind of integrated DEA-AHP
applications, AHP has utilized for full ranking DMU used in DEA (Sinuany-Stern
et al. 2000). Some studies have separately applied AHP and DEA for a given problem
and have compared and explored different results (Tone 1989; Bowen 1990).
2.2 Weights Generation Methods with DEA Approach in the AHP
In this section, we briey reviewthe papers that have used DEAfor weights derivation
from pair-wise comparison matrices.
In some studies, linguistic terms and ordinal numbers have used in the decision
making to rank DMUs and this has not been based on the pair-wise comparisons. For
example, Wang et al. (2007) proposed two LP models and a nonlinear programming
(NLP) model to assess weights and utilized ordinal numbers to rank DMUs. Wang et
al. (2008b) proposed an integrated DEA-AHP methodology to evaluate bridge risks
of hundreds or thousands of bridge structures, based on maintenance priorities. They
utilized AHP only to determine the criteria weights. Linguistic terms such as High,
Medium, Low and None were utilized to assess bridge risks under each criterion and
DEA methodology to determine the value of the linguistic terms. Finally, they used
the SAW method to get nal weight for each bridge structure.
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 237
2.2.1 DEAHP Method
Ramanathan (2006) used DEA for the local weights derivation from pair-wise com-
parison matrices for alternatives in the AHP. He proposed a new method and called
it DEAHP. Let A =
_
a
i j
_
nn
be a pair-wise comparison matrix with a
i i
= 1 and
a
i j
= 1/a
i j
and W = (w
1
, . . . , w
n
)
T
be its weight vector. The DEAHP has n outputs
and one dummy constant input. Based on the input-oriented CCR model (1), the alter-
natives weights were calculated separately for each alternative using a separate linear
programming model. This method was used for the aggregation of the local weights
to get nal weights. When the DEAHP is applied for perfectly consistent matrices, it
estimates weights correctly. Sevkli et al. (2007) used the DEAHP model in a supplier
selection problem.
Max w
0
=
n

j =1
a
0 j
v
j
subject to
_

_
u
1
= 1,
n

j =1
a
i j
v
j
u
1
0, i = 1, . . . , n,
u
1
; v
j
0, j = 1, . . . , n.
(1)
2.2.2 DEA/AR Method
Wang et al. (2008a) showed that the DEAHP method has some drawbacks and pre-
sented that the DEAHP may produce counterintuitive local weights for inconsistent
pair-wise comparison matrices and the DEAHP is sometimes over insensitive to some
comparisons in a pair-wise comparison matrix. To overcome these drawbacks of the
DEAHP, They proposed a DEAmethod with assurance regions (AR) for weights deri-
vation in the AHP and nally SAW (Hwang and Yoon 1981) used to get nal weights.
The DEA/AR model was proposed as Follow:
Max w
0
=
n

j =1
a
0 j
v
j
subject to
_
_
_
w
i
=
n

j =1
a
i j
v
j
1, i = 1, . . . , n,
w
j
/ v
j
w
j
/n, j = 1, . . . , n.
(2)
In this model, subscript zero refers to the decision criterion or alternative under eval-
uation and w
0
should be let w
1
, . . . , w
n
, respectively, and solve the above DEA/AR
model to derive weight vector. The second constraints in model (2) were provided as
follow:
Before describing them, rst a Lemma is introduced.
Lemma 1 Let A =
_
a
i j
_
nn
be a nonnegative matrix with nonzero row sums r
1
, . . . ,
r
n
and maximal eigenvalue
max
. Then
min
i
_
_
1
r
i
n

j =1
a
i j
r
j
_
_

max
max
i
_
_
1
r
i
n

j =1
a
i j
r
j
_
_
(3)
1 3
238 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
Since the nonnegative matrix A and its transpose A
T
have the same maximal eigen-
value, the above inequality also holds for the transpose of A, i.e.
min
i
_
_
1
c
i
n

j =1
a
i j
c
j
_
_

max
max
i
_
_
1
c
i
n

j =1
a
i j
c
j
_
_
(4)
where c
1
, . . . , c
n
are the column sums of A.
Consider the following characteristic equation for the pair-wise comparison matrix
A =
_
a
i j
_
nn
:
n

j =1
a
i j
w
j
=
max
w
i
, i = 1, . . . , n, (5)

max
is the maximal eigenvalue of A. Eq. (5) can be rewritten as
n

j =1
a
i j
(w
j
/
max
) = w
i
, i = 1, . . . , n. (6)
Let
v
j
=
w
j

max
, j = 1, . . . , n, (7)
Then, Eq. (7) can be equivalently expressed as
n

j =1
a
i j
v
j
= w
i
, i = 1, . . . , n. (8)
For any pair-wise comparison matrix, it has already been known that
max
n.
By Lemma 1, the upper bound of
max
can also be determined. Let be the upper
bound for
max
determined by Lemma 1. Then we have n
max
. Using Eq. (7),
n
max
can be equivalently shown as n w
j
/v
j
for j = 1, . . . , n that is
w
j
/ v
j
w
j
/n, j = 1, . . . , n. (9)
These constraints were called assurance regions (AR).
2.2.3 Wang and Chin Method
Recently, Wang and Chin (2009) proposed a new DEA method for the weight vector
derivation froma pair-wise comparison matrix, extended it to the group AHP situation
and utilized the SAW to get nal weights. They proposed model (10) for the weight
vector derivation from a pair-wise comparison matrix and proposed model (10) in
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 239
Table 2 The proposed DEA
view of the pair-wise
comparison matrix in the
LP-GW-AHP method
Criteria (alternative) Outputs with DEA view
1 2 n
Alternatives with DEA view
1 a
11
a
12
a
1n
2 a
21
a
22
a
2n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n a
n1
a
n2
a
nn
the group AHP situation. In these models, A
k
=
_
a
k
i j
_
nn
is a pair-wise comparison
matrix provided by the kth decision maker (DM
k
) (k = 1, . . . , m) , h
k
> 0 is its rel-
ative importance weight. The weights were calculated for each alternative or criterion
singly by using a separate model. This is called Wang and Chin method in this paper.
Max w
0
=
n

j =1
a
0 j
z
j
subject to
_

_
n

j =1
_
n

i =1
a
i j
_
z
j
= 1,
n

j =1
a
i j
z
j
nz
i
, i = 1, . . . , n
z
j
0, j = 1, . . . , n.
Max w
0
=
n

j =1
_
m

k=1
h
k
a
(k)
oj
_
z
j
subject to (10)
_

_
n

j =1
(
m

k=1
n

i =1
h
k
a
(k)
i j
)z
j
= 1,
n

j =1
(
m

k=1
h
k
a
(k)
i j
)z
j
nz
i
, i = 1, . . . , n,
z
j
0, j = 1, . . . , n.
(11)
3 The LP-GW-AHP Method
In this section, we propose LP-GW-AHP method to derive local weights in AHP. In
DEA models, DMUs are placed in rows and outputs (inputs) in columns and the pur-
pose is either to minimize inputs or to maximize outputs. Now, Let A = (a
i j
)
nn
be a pair-wise comparison matrix which is provided by a decision maker (DM) with
a
i i
= 1, a
j i
= 1/a
i j
for j = i and W = (w
1
, . . . , w
n
)
T
be its weight vector.
With DEA approach, the i th criteria (alternative) of the matrix A is viewed as a DMU
for(i = 1, . . . , n). Thus, the LP-GW-AHP method will have n DMUs. Also, j th cri-
teria (alternative) is viewed as an output for( j = 1, . . . , n) . Thus, the LP-GW-AHP
method will have n outputs. The proposed DEA view of pair-wise comparison matrix
is shown in Table 2.
1 3
240 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
We propose model (12) for the local weights derivation froma pair-wise comparison
matrix.
Max Z, Subject to
_

_
w
i
Z, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

j =1
a
i j
v
j
w
i
= 0, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

i =1
w
i
= 1,
v
i

1

w
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n,
v
i

1
n
w
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n,
w
i
0; v
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n.
(12)
Here, w
i
(i = 1, . . . , n) are the local weights for criteria (alternatives),v
j
( j = 1, . . . ,
n) are the outputs weights which are determined by LP model and a
i j
(i, j = 1, . . . , n)
are elements of pair-wise comparison matrix. In this LP model, the constraints v
i

(1/) w
i
0 and v
i
(1/n)w
i
0 for (i = 1, . . . , n) are assurance regions (AR)
which were described in Sect. 2.2.2 and is determined by Lemma 1. That is
= min
_
_
_
max
i
_
_
1
r
i
n

j =1
a
i j
r
j
_
_
, max
i
_
_
1
c
i
n

j =1
a
i j
c
j
_
_
_
_
_
, (13)
where r
1
, . . . , r
n
and c
1
, . . . , c
n
are respectively the row sums and column sums of
the pair-wise comparison matrix A = (a
i j
)
nn
.
Theorem 1 deals with the results of Model (12) for perfectly consistent comparison
matrices.
Theorem 1 model (12) produces true local priorities for perfectly consistent pair-
wise comparison matrices.
Proof let A = (a
i j
)
nn
be a perfectly consistent pair-wise comparison matrix. Then
it can be characterized by a normalized priority vector W

= (w

1
, . . . , w

n
)
T
as A =
(w

i
/w

j
)
nn
, where the priority vector W

= (w

1
, . . . , w

n
)
T
satises

n
i =1
w

i
= 1.
We should show that w
i
= w

i
.
The fth constraint of model (12) will be binded for any perfectly consistent
pair-wise comparison matrix, therefore v
i
= w
i
/n. So using the second, third and fth
constraint of model (12), we will have

n
i =1
w
i
=

n
i =1

n
j =1
a
i j
v
j
=

n
i =1

n
j =1
w

i
w

j
w
j
n
=
1
n
(

n
i =1
w

i
)(

n
j =1
w
j
w

j
) = 1. Since

n
i =1
w

i
= 1 we will have

n
j =1
w
j
w

j
= n. Accordingly, the rst constraint of model (12) can be written as
w
i
=

n
j =1
a
i j
v
j
=

n
j =1
w

i
w

j
w
j
n
=
w

i
n

n
j =1
w
j
w

j
=
w

i
n
n w

i
which completes the
proof
Now, we extend the model (12) to group AHP. One of the important properties of
a pair-wise comparison matrix A = (a
i j
)
nn
is the reciprocity of the judgments. That
is a
i j
= 1/a
j i
. This property must be preserved in any comparison matrix and also in
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 241
Table 3 The DEA view of the pair-wise comparison matrices in the group AHP
Criteria (alternative) Outputs with DEA view
1 2 N
Alternatives with DEA view
1
k
_
m

k=1
a
k
11
k
_
m

k=1
a
k
12

k
_
m

k=1
a
k
1n
2
k
_
m

k=1
a
k
21
k
_
m

k=1
a
k
22

k
_
m

k=1
a
k
2n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n
k
_
m

k=1
a
k
n1
k
_
m

k=1
a
k
n2

k
_
m

k=1
a
k
nn
aggregated comparison matrix of a group of DMs. The geometric mean of some pair-
wise comparison matrices preserves the reciprocity. Therefore, we use geometric mean
for aggregate pair-wise comparison matrices. Let A
k
=
_
a
k
i j
_
nn
be a pair-wise com-
parison matrix provided by the DM
k
(k = 1, . . . , m). In the group AHP situation, we
use
k
_

m
k=1
a
k
i j
instead of a
i j
in model (12) to derive local weights frompair-wise com-
parison matrices. Where
k
_

m
k=1
a
k
i j
is the geometric mean of a
k
i j
for(k = 1, . . . , m).
The proposed DEAviewof pair-wise comparison matrices in the group AHP situation
is shown in Table 3.
Therefore, in the group AHP situation the LP model (12) is changed as follow:
Max Z, Subject to
_

_
w
i
Z, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

j =1
(
k
_
m

k=1
a
k
i j
)v
j
w
i
= 0, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

i =1
w
i
= 1,
v
i

1

w
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n,
v
i

1
n
w
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n,
w
i
0; v
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n.
(14)
In these LP models, Z is maximized under the condition that the same weights (v
j
)
are used in evaluating all DMUs (criteria or alternatives). One of the features of This
LP model is that it will be used only once for the weight vector derivation from a
pair-wise comparison matrix or the group of pair-wise comparison matrices in AHP.
Example 1 Consider the following pair-wise comparison matrices, in which A is bor-
rowed from Ramanathan (2006), B,C and D are borrowed from Wang et al. (2008a),
and E and F are borrowed from Wang and Chin (2009) . This example uses only one
DM for each pair-wise comparison. Thus, we use model (12).
1 3
242 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
A =
_
_
_
_
1 1 4 5
1 1 5 3
1/4 1/5 1 3
1/5 1/3 1/3 1
_

_
, B =
_
_
1 2 5
1/2 1 3
1/5 1/3 1
_
_
, C =
_
_
1 9 5
1/9 1 3
1/5 1/3 1
_
_
,
D =
_
_
1 5 5
1/5 1 3
1/5 1/3 1
_
_
, E =
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 1 3 4 1
1 1 1 1/2 1/3
1/3 1 1 1/2 1/2
1/4 2 2 1 1/2
1 3 2 2 1
_

_
, F =
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 2 1 1 1
1/2 1 1/2 1 1
1 2 1 1/2 1
1 1 2 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
_

_
.
Accordingly, model (12) for the pair-wise comparison matrix A can be written as
follow:
Max Z,
Subject to
_

_
w
1
Z,
w
2
Z,
w
3
Z,
w
4
Z,
v
1
+v
2
+4v
3
+5v
4
w
1
= 0,
v
1
+v
2
+5v
3
+3v
4
w
2
= 0,
(1/4)v
1
+(1/5)v
2
+v
3
+3v
4
w
3
= 0,
(1/5)v
1
+(1/3)v
2
+(1/3)v
3
+v
4
w
4
= 0,
w
1
+w
2
+w
3
+w
4
= 1,
v
1
(1/4.885)w
1
0,
v
2
(1/4.885)w
2
0,
v
3
(1/4.885)w
3
0,
v
4
(1/4.885)w
4
0,
v
1
(1/4)w
1
0,
v
2
(1/4)w
2
0,
v
3
(1/4)w
3
0,
v
4
(1/4)w
4
0,
w
i
0; v
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n.
As it was mentioned before is determined by Lemma 1 as bellow:
= min
_
_
_
max
i
_
_
1
r
i
n

j =1
a
i j
r
j
_
_
, max
i
_
_
1
c
i
n

j =1
a
i j
c
j
_
_
_
_
_
,
Therefore, for matrix A, calculation is shown in Table 4.
The local weights for matrix A are shown in Table 5. Besides the LP-GW-AHP
method, we derive local weights by EM, DEAHP, DEA/AR and Wang and Chin
methods which were described in Sect. 2.2 and the results are shown in Table 5.
The DEAHP produces exactly the same weights for matrices B, C and D. In the
DEAHP, DEA/AR and Wang and Chin methods for the local weights derivation
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 243
Table 4 The calculation for matrix A in Example 1
Row r
i
n

j =1
a
i j
r
j
1
r
i
n

j =1
a
i j
r
j
Column c
i
n

j =1
a
i j
c
j
1
c
i
n

j =1
a
i j
c
j
1 11 48.133 4.376 1 2.45 9.967 4.068
2 10 48.850 4.885 2 2.533 11.050 4.362
3 4.45 14.800 3.326 3 10.333 36.800 3.561
4 1.867 8.883 4.759 4 12 62.850 5.238
= min {max(4.376, 4.885, 3.326, 4.759), max(4.068, 4.362, 3.561, 5.238} = 4.885
from a pair-wise comparison matrix such as A =
_
a
i j
_
nn
we need to solve n LP
models, but in LP-GW-AHP method, solving only one LP model is sufcient. Eigen-
vector method is nonlinear in nature (Wang and Chin 2009) but LP-GW-AHP method
is formulated as an LP model where it is much easier than EM to derive weights in
AHP.
As can be seen from Table 5, derived weights from LP-GW-AHP method are not
too far from Saatys eigenvector weights and ranks from two methods are equal in all
matrices.
Finally, for comparing the quality of the derived local weights in different meth-
ods, we use tting performance (FP) index, in which is measured by the following
Euclidean distance (Wang et al. 2008a):
FP =

_
1
n
2
n

i =1
n

j =1
(a
i j
w
i
/w
j
)
2
, a
i j
A, B, C, D, E, F. (15)
Since the elements of a consistent comparison matrix can be written as ratios of local
weights, its FP value will be zero. For inconsistent matrices, the FP value will not be
zero but the smaller value of FP shows the higher quality of the derived weights. In Eq.
(15) w
i
and w
j
are the derived weights of each matrix. As can be seen from Table 6,
derived weights of LP-GW-AHP method for the matrix C and A perform better than
other methods in FP index and are better than Saatys eigenvector weights for the
matrices B and D. Also LP-GW-AHP method weights of the pair-wise comparison
matrices E and F have slight differences from Saatys eigenvector method in tting
performances.
Example 2 Consider four matrices A
(1)
, A
(2)
, A
(3)
and A
(4)
that are comparisons
about the relative importance of ve alternatives with respect to a criterion. This
example is related to group AHP situation and there are four DMs in it. Thus, the
amount of k is four in the model (14).
The LP-GW-AHP and the EM are used for weights derivation and are compared with
each other for purposes of the derived weights and ranks. In EM, geometric mean is
used to aggregate four matrices. As can be seen from Table 7, two methods have equal
ranks, derived weights dont have many differences and FP values are almost equal.
1 3
244 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
Table 5 Local weights of the pair-wise comparison matrices (A, B,C, D,E,F), produced by different meth-
ods
Comparison matrix w
1
w
2
w
3
w
4
w
5
A: Eigenvector method (EM) weights
A 0.400 0.393 0.128 0.078
B 0.582 0.309 0.109
C 0.764 0.149 0.087
D 0.701 0.202 0.097
E 0.314 0.135 0.1050160 0.285
F 0.223 0.152 0.200 0.232 0.193
B: DEAAHP method weights (normalized)
A 0.341 0.341 0.205 0.114
B 0.556 0.333 0.111
C 0.556 0.333 0.111
D 0.556 0.333 0.111
E 0.230 0.230 0.115 0.197 0.230
F 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200
C: DEA/AR method weights (normalized)
A 0.396 0.395 0.129 0.080
B 0.582 0.309 0.109
C 0.747 0.159 0.093
D 0.695 0.205 0.099
E 0.306 0.138 0.106 0.162 0.288
F 0.223 0.153 0.201 0.230 0.193
D: Wang and Chin method weights (normalized)
A 0.396 0.394 0.129 0.080
B 0.582 0.309 0.109
C 0.754 0.155 0.091
D 0.705 0.205 0.099
E 0.315 0.136 0.106 0.161 0.282
F 0.222 0.153 0.201 0.232 0.193
E: LP-GW-AHP method weights
A 4.885 0.401 0.387 0.130 0.081
B 3.056 0.582 0.309 0.109
C 3.978 0.751 0.156 0.093
D 3.606 0.695 0.205 0.099
E 5.823 0.310 0.133 0.107 0.163 0.286
F 5.300 0.222 0.154 0.199 0.231 0.193
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 245
Table 6 Fitting performances by different local weights
Comparison
matrix
Consistency
ratio
Fitting performances by
EM DEAAHP DEA/AR Wang and Chin LP-GW-AHP
A 0.09 0.815 1.184 0.810 0.807 0.801
B 0.003 0.128 0.1160 0.128 0.127 0.127
C 0.31 1.854 2.450 1.804 1.813 1.792
D 0.12 0.950 1.119 0.912 0.929 0.913
E 0.09 0.596 0.843 0.599 0.595 0.597
F 0.04 0.306 0.387 0.307 0.307 0.307
Table 7 The local weights and
ranking of the alternatives by
EM and LP-GW-AHP methods
Alternative EM Rank LP-GW-AHP Rank
A
1
0.3111 1 0.3102 1
A
2
0.1738 4 0.1743 4
A
3
0.2498 2 0.2506 2
A
4
0.1797 3 0.1792 3
A
5
0.0855 5 0.0858 5
FP 0.312 0.310
In Eq. (15), w
i
and w
j
are the derived weights of each method and a
i j
is the geometric
mean of a
k
i j
for (k = 1, . . . , 4).
The LP-GW-AHP method solves one LP model to derive local weights from four
pair-wise comparison matrices that is too easier than eigenvector method.
A
(1)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 1 3 4 2
1 1 1/2 2 5
1/3 2 1 3 6
1/4 1/2 1/3 1 1
1/2 1/5 1/6 1 1
_

_
A
(2)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 2 3 1/9 2
1/2 1 1/8 1 1/2
1/3 8 1 1/2 4
9 1 2 1 5
1/2 2 1/4 1/5 1
_

_
A
(3)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 3 1/5 7 5
1/3 1 1 1/3 2
5 1 1 5 5
1/7 3 1/5 1 1
1/5 1/2 1/5 1 1
_

_
A
(4)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 2 3 5 2
1/2 1 1 4 5
1/3 1 1 1/6 1
1/5 1/4 6 1 7
1/2 1/5 1 1/7 1
_

_
1 3
246 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
4 The LP-GW-AHP Method with Considering the Importance of Decision
Makers Opinions
4.1 Relative Importance Weights
Let A
k
=
_
a
k
i j
_
nn
be a pair-wise comparison matrix provided by the DM
k
(k =
1, . . . , m), and h
k
be its relative importance weight that satisfying

m
k=1
h
k
= 1. We
use the

m
k=1
(a
k
i j
)
h
k
instead of
k
_

m
k=1
a
k
i j
in model (14), that is the geometric mean
of a
k
i j
with considering h
k
for (k = 1, . . . , m).
Thus, the model (14) changes as follow:
Max Z, Subject to
_

_
w
i
Z, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

j =1
(
m

k=1
(a
k
i j
)
h
k
)v
j
w
i
= 0, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

i =1
w
i
= 1,
v
i

1

w
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n,
v
i

1
n
w
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n,
w
i
0; v
i
0, i = 1, . . . , n.
(16)
This LP model is used to derive local weights when there are relative importance
weights for DMs.
Example 3 Consider four pair-wise comparison matrices A
(1)
, A
(2)
, A
(3)
and A
(4)
that
are borrowed from Wang and Chin (2009). They are pair-wise comparison matrices
about the relative importance of ve decision criteria in the group AHP. Four matrices
are provided by four DMs and each DM has relative importance weight(h
k
). Four
matrices are as follow:
A
(1)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 1 3 4 1
1 1 1 1/2 1/3
1/3 1 1 1/2 1/2
1/4 2 2 1 1/2
1 3 2 2 1
_

_
A
(2)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 8 1 2 2
1/8 1 1/8 1/3 1/5
1 8 1 2 1
1/2 3 1/2 1 1
1/2 5 1/2 1 1
_

_
A
(3)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 8 1 1 1
1/8 1 1/8 1/5 1/8
1 8 1 2 1
1 5 1/2 1 1
1 8 1 1 1
_

_
A
(4)
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 2 1 1 1
1/2 1 1/2 1 1
1 2 1 1/2 1
1 1 2 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
_

_
This problem is solved by Wang and Chin method (model (10) in this paper), EM
and LP-GW-AHP method. Derived weights are shown in Table 8. The tting perfor-
mance (FP) index is used to compare the quality of the derived local weights by two
methods. In Eq. (15) w
i
and w
j
are the derived weights of each method and a
i j
is the
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 247
Table 8 Fitting performances by different local weights, produced by different methods in the group AHP
Sample Relative importance
weights of four DMs
Method Local weights
w
1
w
2
w
3
w
4
w
5
FP
1 (50%, 30%, 15%, 5%) EM 0.3108 0.0793 0.1881 0.1724 0.2494 0.339
Wang and Chin 0.3091 0.0906 0.2054 0.1662 0.2287 0.378
LP-GW-AHP 0.3105 0.0795 0.1880 0.1724 0.2495 0.338
2 (50%, 16.7%, 16.7%, 16.7%) EM 0.3006 0.0913 0.1771 0.1810 0.2500 0.283
Wang and Chin 0.2967 0.1006 0.1912 0.1762 0.2353 0.300
LP-GW-AHP 0.2995 0.0911 0.1762 0.1798 0.2534 0.279
3 (25%, 25%, 25%, 25%) EM 0.2830 0.0749 0.2211 0.1891 0.2320 0.145
Wang and Chin 0.2803 0.0863 0.2291 0.1845 0.2198 0.229
LP-GW-AHP 0.2830 0.0749 0.2211 0.1890 0.2320 0.145
geometric mean of a
k
i j
for (k = 1, . . . , 4) with considering DMs relative importance
weights.
As can be seen from Table 8 derived weights of LP-GW-AHP method are closer to
EM weights and perform better FP values rather than Wang and Chin method.
4.2 Interval Importance Weights
Let A
k
=
_
a
k
i j
_
nn
be a pair-wise comparison matrix provided by DM
k
(k = 1, . . . ,
m), and h
k
be its interval importance weight, that h
k

k
with
k
,
k
[0, 1].
The proposed DEA view of pair-wise comparison matrices when there are interval
importance weights is shown in Table 9.
We propose model (17) to derive local weights frompair-wise comparison matrices
when there are interval importance weights. This model can be equivalently expressed
as model (19) linear form.
Max Z, Subject to
_

_
n

j =1
h
k
a
k
i j
v
j
Z, i = 1, . . . , n; k = 1, . . . , m,
m

k=1
n

j =1
h
k
a
k
i j
v
j
w
i
= 0, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

i =1
w
i
= 1.
w
i
0; v
j
0,
i, j = 1, . . . , n.
(17)
Let h
k
v
j
= s
.
kj , k = 1, . . . , m; j = 1, . . . , n.
1 3
248 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
Table 9 The DEA view of the pair-wise comparison matrices when there are interval importance weights
Criteria (alternative) Outputs with DEA view
1 2 n
Alternatives with DEA view
DM
1
1 a
1
11
a
1
12
a
1
1n
2 a
1
21
a
1
22
a
1
2n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n a
1
n1
a
1
n2
a
1
nn
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
DM
m
1 a
m
11
a
m
12
a
m
1n
2 a
m
21
a
m
22
a
m
2n
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
n a
m
n1
a
m
n2
a
m
nn
If
k
h
k

k
, Then it can be equivalently expressed as

k
h
k

k

k

s
kj
v
j

k

_
s
kj

k
v
j
0, j = 1, . . . , n,
s
kj

k
v
j
0, j = 1, . . . , n.
(18)
Then, model (17) is changed as follow:
Max Z, Subject to
_

_
n

j =1
s
kj
a
k
i j
Z, k = 1, . . . , m; i = 1, . . . , n,
m

k=1
n

j =1
s
kj
a
k
i j
w
i
= 0, i = 1, . . . , n,
n

i =1
w
i
= 1.
s
kj

k
v
j
0, j = 1, . . . , n,
s
kj

k
v
j
0, j = 1, . . . , n,
w
i
0; v
j
0;s
kj
0, i, j = 1, . . . , n; k = 1, . . . , m.
(19)
when there are interval importance weights for DMs, model (19) is used to derive local
weights from a group of pair-wise comparison matrices in AHP.
Example 4 Consider four pair-wise comparison matrices A
(1)
, A
(2)
, A
(3)
and A
(4)
in
Example 3 and their interval importance weights for DMs are as follow:
0.1 h
1
0.3,
0.2 h
2
0.25,
0.3 h
3
0.6,
0.2 h
4
0.5.
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 249
Table 10 The local weights with interval importance weights for Example 4
Local weights
w
1
w
2
w
3
w
4
w
5
0.275 0.065 0.263 0.166 0.230
Fig. 1 A hierarchical structure by analytic hierarchy process
This example is solved by model (19) and the results are shown in Table 10.
5 Aggregation of Local Weights to Get Final Weights
In this section, we propose the aggregation of local weights to get nal weights by LP-
GW-AHP. In the DEAHP, DEA/AR and Wang and Chin models the sum of resulted
weights may be more than one because they are not normalized. However, it is neces-
sary to normalize them before aggregation to have the AHP nal weights but when we
use LP-GW-AHP method to derive local weights there is no need to normalize local
weights before aggregation. This is one of the superiority of our model comparing
with other models discussed in this paper. A hierarchical structure in AHP is shown
in Fig. 1 that has m criteria and n alternatives. Let w
1
, . . . , w
m
be the local weights
of m criteria that all have been derived by LP-GW-AHP method and w
1 j
, . . . , w
nj
be
the local weights for alternatives with respect to the j
t h
criterion ( j = 1, . . . , m). The
nal weights are shown in the last column of Table 11.
Example 5 In this example, we illustrate the SAW method using a hierarchical struc-
ture and data set that are taken fromChen and Huang (2004). The objective is selection
of high-tech industries for the Hsinchu Science-based Industrial Park (HSIP) where
placed at the top level of the analytic hierarchy is shown in Fig. 2. Here, there are
seven criteria including utility consumption, technology support, industry relevance,
land supply, technology level, government policy, and market potential for assessing
objective. Finally, six high-tech industries are placed at the bottom of the analytic
hierarchy. They are: semiconductor, computer, communications, photo electronics,
precision equipment, and biotechnology. In this example, was used some experts to
perform pair-wise comparison of the criteria with respect to the overall goal and pair-
wise comparisons of the alternatives with respect to each criterion. Then, the geometric
1 3
250 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
Table 11 Aggregation of local weights to get nal weights
Alternative Criteria Final weights
w
1
w
2
w
m
A
1
w
11
w
12
w
1m
m

j =1
w
1 j
w
j
A
2
w
21
w
22
w
2m
m

j =1
w
2 j
w
j
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
A
n
w
n1
w
n2
w
nm
m

j =1
w
nj
w
j
Semiconductor Computer Communications Photo-
electronics
Precision
equipment
Biotechnology
Utility
consumption
Technology
support
Industry
relevance
Land supply Technology
level
Government
policy
Market
potential
Selection of high-tech industries
Fig. 2 A hierarchical structure for selection of high-tech industries
means of the DMs pair-wise comparison matrices was calculated. For example, the
geometric mean of the pair-wise comparison matrices of criteria with respect to the
goal is shown in Table 12. We use LP-GW-AHP method to derive criteria local weights
and the results show in the last column of Table 12. The alternatives local weights that
derived by LP-GW-AHP method are shown in Table 13. The SAW method is used to
calculate alternatives nal weights that are shown in the last column of Table 13.
6 Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we proposed a new method to derive weights from a pair-wise com-
parison matrix or a group of pair-wise comparison matrices in AHP which employs
the concepts from DEA and called it LP-GW-AHP. Several numerical examples were
provided to illustrate the potential applications of LP-GW-AHP method.
The LP-GW-AHP method with utilizing the DEA approach has formulated as an
LP model that is much easier to derive weights than eigenvector method which is non-
linear in nature. In LP-GW-AHP method, we can use interval and relative importance
weights for each decision maker.
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 251
T
a
b
l
e
1
2
P
a
i
r
-
w
i
s
e
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
o
f
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
w
i
t
h
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
g
o
a
l
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
L
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
l
y
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
l
e
v
e
l
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
M
a
r
k
e
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
L
o
c
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
1
.
0
0
0
0
.
7
4
6
0
.
7
0
7
1
.
0
4
6
0
.
4
9
3
0
.
4
5
6
0
.
4
8
8
0
.
0
9
2
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
1
.
0
0
0
0
.
9
2
3
1
.
5
6
1
0
.
8
0
2
0
.
7
9
4
0
.
5
4
2
0
.
1
2
9
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
1
.
0
0
0
1
.
1
8
8
0
.
8
0
4
0
.
6
2
4
0
.
5
2
3
0
.
1
2
3
L
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
l
y
1
.
0
0
0
0
.
5
1
1
0
.
6
1
1
0
.
5
4
5
0
.
0
9
7
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
l
e
v
e
l
1
.
0
0
0
1
.
1
1
9
0
.
6
4
2
0
.
1
6
9
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
1
.
0
0
0
0
.
6
9
7
0
.
1
6
9
M
a
r
k
e
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
1
.
0
0
0
0
.
2
2
2
1 3
252 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
T
a
b
l
e
1
3
T
h
e

n
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
s
f
o
r
h
i
g
h
-
t
e
c
h
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
e
s
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
C
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
n
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
(
0
.
0
9
2
)
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
(
0
.
1
2
9
)
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
y
r
e
l
e
v
a
n
c
e
(
0
.
1
2
3
)
L
a
n
d
s
u
p
p
l
y
(
0
.
0
9
7
)
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
l
e
v
e
l
(
0
.
1
6
9
)
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
p
o
l
i
c
y
(
0
.
1
6
9
)
M
a
r
k
e
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
(
0
.
2
2
2
)
F
i
n
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
S
e
m
i
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
o
r
0
.
1
4
9
0
.
1
3
8
0
.
1
5
4
0
.
1
8
1
0
.
1
6
1
0
.
1
4
5
0
.
1
7
3
0
.
1
5
8
C
o
m
p
u
t
e
r
0
.
1
1
8
0
.
1
1
0
0
.
1
3
2
0
.
1
3
3
0
.
1
2
7
0
.
0
8
8
0
.
0
9
7
0
.
1
1
2
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
0
.
1
5
8
0
.
1
4
6
0
.
1
5
7
0
.
1
6
1
0
.
1
4
2
0
.
1
5
7
0
.
1
7
5
0
.
1
5
7
P
h
o
t
o
-
e
l
e
c
t
r
o
n
i
c
s
0
.
1
7
8
0
.
1
7
3
0
.
2
0
9
0
.
1
8
3
0
.
1
7
8
0
.
1
9
3
0
.
2
2
4
0
.
1
9
4
P
r
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
0
.
1
4
6
0
.
2
1
0
0
.
1
7
6
0
.
1
6
0
0
.
1
8
8
0
.
1
5
0
0
.
1
3
5
0
.
1
6
5
B
i
o
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
0
.
2
5
2
0
.
2
2
3
0
.
1
7
3
0
.
1
8
3
0
.
2
0
4
0
.
2
6
7
0
.
1
9
6
0
.
2
1
3
1 3
A New Linear Programming Method for Weights Generation 253
In this paper, we proposed an LP model for weights derivation from a pair-wise
comparison matrix and also some LP models in the group AHP situation. We showed
that the LP-GW-AHP method provides better tting performance (FP) value than
Wang and Chin method in group AHP with relative importance weights for DMs.
In LP-GW-AHP method, we have needed to solve only one LP model to derive
local weights from a pair-wise comparison matrix or several pair-wise comparison
matrices in group AHP, but in DEAHP, DEA/AR and Wang and Chin methods for
a pair-wise comparison matrix such as A =
_
a
i j
_
nn
we need to solve n LP models.
In addition, we showed that LP-GW-AHP method is easy to use and has implemented
without the need to any normalization on derived weights.
These good characteristics make LP-GW-AHP method very practical and effective.
Further researches can extend the LP-GW-AHP method to handle fuzzy AHP and
improve the LP-GW-AHP method until it has fewer tting performances of derived
local weights.
References
Azadeh A, Ghaderi SF, Izadbakhsh H (2008) Integration of DEA and AHP with computer simulation for
railway system improvement and optimization. Appl Math Comput 195:775785. doi:10.1016/j.amc.
2007.05.023
Bowen WM (1990) Subjective judgements and data envelopment analysis in site selection. Comput Environ
Urban 14(2):133144. doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90018-O
Charnes A, Cooper WW, Lewin AY, Seiford LM (1994) Data envelopment analysis: theory methodology
and application. Kluwer, Boston
Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E (1978) Measuring the efciency of decision making units. Eur J Oper
Res 2: 429444. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(79)90229-7
Chen CJ, Huang CC (2004) A multiple criteria evaluation of high-tech industries for the science-based
industrial park in Taiwan. Inform Manag 41: 839851. doi:10.1016/j.im.2003.02.002
Cooper WW, Seiford LM, Tone K (2000) Data envelopment analysis: a comprehensive text with models,
applications, references and DEA-solver software. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston
Ertay T, Ruan D, Tuzkaya UR (2006) Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the
facility layout design in manufacturing systems. Inform Sci 176: 237262. doi:10.1016/j.ins.2004.12.
001
Farzipoor Saen R, Memariani A, Hosseinzadeh Lot F (2005) Determining relative efciency of slightly
non-homogeneous decision making units by data envelopment analysis: a case study in IROST. Appl
Math Comput 165: 313328. doi:10.1016/j.amc.2004.04.050
Ho W (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applicationa literature review. Eur J Oper Res
186: 211228. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.01.004
Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin
Jyoti T, Banwet DK, Deshmukh SG (2008) Evaluating performance of national R&D organizations
using integrated DEA-AHP technique. Int J Prod Perform Manag 57(5):370388. doi:10.1108/
17410400810881836
Korpela J, Lehmusvaara A, Nisonen J (2007) Warehouse operator selection by combining AHP and DEA
methodologies. Int J Prod Econ 108: 135142. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.12.046
Ramanathan R (2006) Data envelopment analysis for weight derivation and aggregation in the analytic
hierarchy process. Comput Oper Res 33: 12891307. doi:10.1016/j.cor.2004.09.020
Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Sevkli M, Lenny Koh SC, Zaim S, Demirbag M, Tatoglu E (2007) An application of data envelopment
analysis hierarchy process for supplier selection: a case study of BEKO in Turkey. Inter J Prod Res
45(9): 19732003. doi:10.1080/00207540600957399
Shang J, Sueyoshi T (1995) A unied framework for the selection of a exible manufacturing system. Eur
J Oper Res 85(2): 297315. doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)00041-A
1 3
254 S. S. Hosseinian et al.
Sinuany-Stern Z, Abraham M, Yossi H (2000) An AHP/DEA methodology for ranking decision making
units. Int T Oper Res 7(2):109124. doi:10.1016/S0969-6016(00)00013-7
Srinivasa Raju K, Nagesh Kumar D (2006) Ranking irrigation planning alternatives using data envelopment
analysis. Water resour Manag 20:553566. doi:10.1007/s11269-006-3090-5
Takamura Y, Tone K (2003) A comparative site evaluation study for relocating Japanese government agen-
cies out of Tokyo. Socio Econ Plan Sci 37: 85102. doi:10.1016/S0038-0121(02)00049-6
Tone K (1989) A comparative study on AHP and DEA. Int J Poly Inform 13:5763
Tseng FM, Chiu YJ, Chen JS (2009) Measuring business performance in the high-tech manufacturing
industry: a case study of Taiwans large-sized TFT-LCT panel companies. Omega-Int j Manag S 37:
686697. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2007.07.004
Vaidya OS, Kumar S (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res 169:
129. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.028
Wang YM, Chin KS (2009) A new data envelopment analysis method for priority determination and group
decision making in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 195:239250. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.
2008.01.049
Wang YM, Chin KS, Yang JB (2007) Three new models for preference voting and aggregation. J Oper Res
Soc 58:13891393
Wang YM, Chin KS, Poon GKK (2008a) A data envelopment analysis method with assurance region for
weight generation in the analytic hierarchy process. Decis Support Syst 45: 913921. doi:10.1016/j.
dss.2008.03.002
Wang YM, Liu J, Elhag TMS (2008b) An integrated AHP-DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment.
Comput Ind Eng 54: 513525. doi:10.1016/j.cie.2007.09.002
Yang T, Kuo C (2003) A hierarchical DEA-AHP methodology for the facilities layout design problem. Eur
J Oper Res 147: 128136. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00251-5
1 3
Reproducedwith permission of thecopyright owner. Further reproductionprohibited without permission.