Determination of Priority Weights under Multiattribute Decision-Making Situations: AHP versus Fuzzy AHP
Publication: Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 141, Issue 2
Abstract
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach has been widely applied in multiattribute decision-making situations since being introduced in 1980. It has been believed that the AHP is appropriate to assist decision-making problems characterized by a number of interrelated factors. Recently, a derivative of the AHP, the so-called fuzzy AHP, has been developed by mixing AHP with a fuzzy set theory. This new method increasingly extends its application areas in construction management. Despite extensive use of the fuzzy AHP, little research has been conducted as to the comparability of calculated priority weight vectors by the fuzzy AHP with those by the traditional AHP. Therefore, this paper mainly focuses on the comparison of two AHP approaches by investigating weight vectors produced from a real case study. From the previous studies, four different fuzzy AHP approaches are prepared by applying different fuzzy fundamental scales and weight aggregations, and are tested to identify which method produces the most comparable results with the traditional AHP. The main findings and results obtained from the four approaches are presented and discussed in detail.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
Abdelgawad, M., and Fayek, A. R. (2010). “Risk management in the construction industry using combined fuzzy FMEA and Fuzzy AHP.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 1028–1036.
Aczel, J., and Saaty, T. L. (1983). “Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments.” J. Math. Psychol., 27(1), 93–102.
Bertolini, M., Braglia, M., and Carmignani, G. (2006). “Application of the AHP methodology in making a proposal for a public work contract.” Int. J. Project Manage., 24(5), 422–430.
Chang, D. Y. (1996). “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 95(3), 649–655.
Cooksey, S. R., Jeong, H. S., and Chae, M. J. (2011). “Asset management assessment model for state departments of transportation.” J. Manage. Eng., 159–169.
Fong, S. W., and Choi, K. Y. (2000). “Final contractor selection using the analytic hierarchy process.” Constr. Manage. Econ., 18(5), 547–557.
Hastak, M., and Halpin, D. W. (2000). “Assessment of life-cycle benefit-cost of composites in construction.” J. Compos. Constr., 103–111.
Khazaeni, G., Khanzadi, M., and Afshar, A. (2012). “Fuzzy adaptive decision making model for selection balanced risk allocation.” Int. J. Project Manage., 30(4), 511–522.
Lee, S. (2000). “Analytical methods for bid-markup decisions in microtunneling projects.” Independent Research Study for Master’s Degree, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN.
Lee, S., and Chang, L. M. (2004). “Bid-markup determination for microtunneling projects.” Tunneling Underground Space Technol., 19(2), 151–163.
Li, F., Phoon, K. W., Du, X., and Zhang, M. (2013). “Improved AHP method and its application in risk identification.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 312–320.
Li, J., and Zou, P. X. W. (2011). “Fuzzy AHP-based risk assessment methodology for PPP projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 1205–1209.
Miller, G. A. (1956). “The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.” Psychol. Rev., 63(2), 81–97.
Mostafavi, A., and Karamouz, M. (2010). “Selecting appropriate project delivery system: Fuzzy approach with risk analysis.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 923–930.
Pan, N. F. (2008). “Fuzzy AHP approach for selecting the suitable bridge construction method.” Autom. Constr., 17(8), 958–965.
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process, McGraw-Hill, London.
Saaty, T. L. (1986). “Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process.” Manage. Sci., 32(7), 841–855.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). “How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 48(1), 9–26.
Sadiq, R., Rajani, B., and Kleiner, Y. (2004). “Fuzzy-based method to evaluate soil corrosivity for prediction of water main deterioration.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 149–156.
Sayyadi, G., and Awasthi, A. (2013). “AHP-based approach for location planning of pedestrian zones: Application in Montreal, Canada.” J. Transp. Eng., 239–246.
Shapira, A., and Goldenberg, M. (2005). “AHP-based equipment selection model for construction projects.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 1263–1273.
Singh, D., and Tiong, R. L. K. (2005). “A fuzzy decision framework for contractor selection.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 62–70.
Skibniewski, M., and Chao, L. C. (1992). “Evaluation of advanced construction technology with AHP method.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 577–593.
Soroor, J., Tarokh, M. J., and Abedzadeh, M. (2012). “Automated bid ranking for decentralized coordination of construction logistics.” Autom. Constr., 24, 111–119.
Su, C. W., Cheng, M. Y., and Lin, F. B. (2006). “Simulation-enhanced approach for ranking major transport projects.” J. Civ. Eng. Manage., 12(4), 285–291.
Vargas, L. G. (1990). “An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 48(1), 2–8.
Yazdani-Chamzini, A., and Yakhchali, S. H. (2012). “Tunneling boring machine (TBM) selection using fuzzy multicriteria decision making methods.” Tunneling Underground Space Technol., 30, 194–204.
Yu, J., Liu, Y., Chang, G. L., Ma, W., and Yang, X. (2011). “Locating urban transit hubs: Multicriteria model and case study in China.” J. Transp. Eng., 944–952.
Zadeh, L. A. (1965). “Fuzzy sets.” Inf. Control, 8(3), 338–353.
Zeng, J., An, M., and Smith, N. J. (2007). “Application of a fuzzy based decision making methodology to construction project risk assessment.” Int. J. Project Manage., 25(6), 589–600.
Zhang, G., and Zou, P. X. W. (2007). “Fuzzy analytical hierarchy process risk assessment approach for joint venture construction projects in China.” J. Constr. Eng. Manage., 771–779.
Zhu, K. J., Jing, Y., and Chang, D. Y. (1999). “A discussion on extent analysis method and applications of fuzzy AHP.” Eur. J. Oper. Res., 116(2), 450–456.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management
Volume 141 • Issue 2 • February 2015
Copyright
© 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Jan 3, 2014
Accepted: May 9, 2014
Published online: Sep 2, 2014
Published in print: Feb 1, 2015
Discussion open until: Feb 2, 2015
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.