Showing papers by "Thomas L. Saaty published in 2015"

When is a Decision-Making Method Trustworthy? Criteria for Evaluating Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methods

Abstract: Decision makers often face complicated decision problems with intangible and conflicting criteria. Numerous multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) methods have been proposed to handle the measurement of the priorities of conflicting tangible/intangible criteria and in turn use them to choose the best alternative for a decision. However, the presence of many MCDM methods bewilders users. The existence of these methods becomes a decision problem in itself, and decision makers may be uncertain about which one to use. Thus the comparative analysis and evaluation of various MCDM methods has come under scrutiny by both researchers and practitioners in order to discover if there are logical, mathematical, social or practical reasons why one method is better than another. Criteria for their evaluation are the first important issue that needs to be resolved. In this paper, 16 criteria are introduced that may be used to judge and evaluate various MCDM methods. The criteria proposed and some guidelines for their evaluation are given to help readers evaluate these MCDM methods.

The Rationality of Punishment — Measuring the Severity of Crimes: An AHP-Based Orders-of-Magnitude Approach

Abstract: We propose an innovative AHP-based model to assess the severity of the harms a criminal commits to society in a comprehensive and coherent way. Different from the traditional approach of structuring alternatives into one level, we organize the alternatives into multiple levels of that hierarchy. This arrangement and evaluation of alternatives differs from one criterion to another, which adds to the sophistication of the task when assessing numerous heterogeneous criminal activities. Structuring multifaceted decisions with the proposed model enables us to better deal with its inherent complexity. Our approach can systematically tackle problems of widespread orders of magnitude of criteria and alternatives. When the sizes are actually very small or very large, the accuracy of rating alternatives one at a time is very low. With the proposed method, we are able to obtain priorities with greater precision.

About a Hundred Years of Creativity in Decision Making

Abstract: Can all the methods people invented to do decision making be right all the time? Maybe for making trivial decisions, but not in the case of those that involve dependence and feedback and need complete analysis of benefits, opportunities, costs and risks to get an overall justifiable outcome.

A structured scientific solution to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict: the analytic hierarchy process approach

Abstract: While the Israeli–Palestinian conflict has raged for decades, in all of its ramifications there has never been a totally structured or scientific approach to the conflict with all of its details. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) approaches the problem along these lines. There are a plethora of reasons why the traditional face to face negotiations have broken down over the years. This paper identifies a significant number of those impediments and indicates how the AHP can productively address them. A summary of the highlights of the AHP approach precedes how it has been applied to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. To date, the participants, significant members of both communities, have derived and agreed upon a solution that includes all the major issues, except for the refugee problem. That problem is currently being worked on, but will take an extended period because of the unique factors involved. What has been provided is an agreed upon solution to virtually all of the issues impeding past negotiations, including borders, settlements, the status of Jerusalem, the Holy Places, security and expectations of each side.

Ranking countries more reliably in the summer olympics

Abstract: In this paper we consider the many intangible criteria that influence the outcome of the Summer Olympics by using the Analytic Network Process, and apply the ideas to evaluate the medals won and the country scores in the 2012 London Olympics. Both the categories of games and the events in each game are considered in this weighting process. Different events of the same category game could have different properties. This work shows that the current way of counting the total number of medals is not a bad way of ranking countries. With minor modifications, this systematic approach for ranking countries can be used for any Summer Olympics.Â

Hierarchon Vol. 2: A dictionary of AHP Hierarchies

Abstract: Researchers have been continually developing ways and means to improve quality in decision making. The success of a methodology is judged by its acceptability by the decision makers. In this context, it is beyond any argument that AHP has been massively successful. Readers of this volume will see, once again, that AHP has been applied in widely diverse areas. However, there are many more applications of AHP in other areas that are not reported here. We also don’t claim that the set of applications of AHP in the reported areas is exhaustive; it is far from complete. In fact, it will not be possible to capture all the real-world applications of AHP even by publishing many volumes of this kind. We hope that the readers will find the present compilation useful.

A Marijuana Legalization Model Using Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks BOCR Analysis

Abstract: Marijuana has been regarded as an evil in our society because of abuse and addiction. However, its legalization and use in several states have shown that from the standpoint of its benefits, opportunities, costs and risks BOCR the overall decision should be to legalize it in our greater society. This is an elementary application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to analyze that decision that is now before Congress for action.

Rank Preservation and Reversal in Decision Making

Abstract: There are numerous real life examples done by many people which show that the alternatives of a decision sometimes can reverse their original rank order when new alternatives are added or old ones deleted and without bringing in new criteria. There is no mathematical theorem which proves that rank must always be preserved and there cannot be because of real life and hypothetical counter examples in decision making methods. Rank preservation came to be accepted as the standard because of techniques that could only rate alternatives one at a time treating them as independent. Thus an alternative receives a score and it will not change when other alternatives are added or deleted. All methods that only rate alternatives one at a time, thus always preserving rank, may not lead to the right decision; even if they may be right in certain areas of application. In reality, to determine how good an alternative is on an intangible criterion needs experience and knowledge about other alternatives and hence in their evaluation, the alternatives cannot be completely considered as independent of one another.