main| new issue| archive| editorial board| for the authors| publishing house|
Ðóññêèé
Main page
New issue
Archive of articles
Editorial board
For the authors
Publishing house

 

 


ABSTRACTS OF ARTICLES OF THE JOURNAL "INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES".
No. 6. Vol. 25. 2019

DOI: 10.17587/it.25.331-339

A. S. Nefedov, Assistant at the Department of Industrial heat and power engineering,
e-mail: Domino1991@rambler.ru, V. A. Shakirov, Dean of faculty of Energy engineering and automation, e-mail: mynovember@mail.ru, Bratsk State University (BrSU), Bratsk, 665709, Russian Federation

Automation of the Procedure for Filling Matrices of Pairwise Comparison of Alternatives by Criteria when using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

The main stages of analytic hierarchy process are considered, advantages and disadvantages are presented. A modification of one of the stages of the method is proposed. It is associated with filling in the matrices of pairwise comparisons of alternatives by criteria. The modification consists in constructing a model of preferences of the decision maker regarding pairs of evaluations by criterion, taking into account different values for the decision maker, evaluations by criterion at the beginning and end of the scale. A preference model is formed on the basis of a comparison of one pair of alternatives according to the criterion by which the preferences match with the assessment of the scale of relative importance. The answer obtained allows us to make an assumption that the scale scores correspond to other pairwise comparisons of alternatives by criterion. The new procedure allows to significantly reduce the number of requests to the decision maker, to ensure a high consistency of preferences expressed in pairwise comparisons, to take into account changes in preferences throughout the entire evaluation interval of the criterion. The application of the modified procedure is considered on the example of choosing the site for a power plant.
Keywords: analytic hierarchy process, pair comparisons, model of preferences, evaluation of alternatives.

P. 331–339

 

 

To the contents