Evaluating AHP as multi-stakeholder decision tool

Luuk P. A. Simons, V. Wiegel
{"title":"Evaluating AHP as multi-stakeholder decision tool","authors":"Luuk P. A. Simons, V. Wiegel","doi":"10.1109/ITMC.2009.7461367","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is increasingly used as decision support method in concurrent innovation projects with multiple stakeholders. AHP is welcomed for supporting procedural justice, which regards transparency and fairness of decisions. This is useful for policy settings, with diverse stakeholder interests, for prioritization questions with diverse criteria or for allocation of scarce resources. However, AHP's promises for procedural justice are partly grounded in its supposed numerical accuracy. We show that the numerical basis of AHP is not as unambiguous as current `AHP standard practice' suggests. By contrast, AHP can contribute to the other criteria for procedural justice (efficiency and participation), which may explain AHP's continuing and growing popularity. We conclude that the research and practitioner community should on the one hand continue to develop AHP's procedures for full participation of all types of stakeholders, while on the other hand finding solutions to the accuracy problems.","PeriodicalId":124214,"journal":{"name":"2009 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2009 IEEE International Technology Management Conference (ICE)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/ITMC.2009.7461367","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is increasingly used as decision support method in concurrent innovation projects with multiple stakeholders. AHP is welcomed for supporting procedural justice, which regards transparency and fairness of decisions. This is useful for policy settings, with diverse stakeholder interests, for prioritization questions with diverse criteria or for allocation of scarce resources. However, AHP's promises for procedural justice are partly grounded in its supposed numerical accuracy. We show that the numerical basis of AHP is not as unambiguous as current `AHP standard practice' suggests. By contrast, AHP can contribute to the other criteria for procedural justice (efficiency and participation), which may explain AHP's continuing and growing popularity. We conclude that the research and practitioner community should on the one hand continue to develop AHP's procedures for full participation of all types of stakeholders, while on the other hand finding solutions to the accuracy problems.
评价AHP作为多利益相关者决策工具
层次分析法(AHP)作为一种决策支持方法越来越多地应用于多利益相关者的并行创新项目中。AHP因支持程序正义而受到欢迎,程序正义涉及决定的透明度和公正性。这对于具有不同利益相关者利益的政策设置、具有不同标准的优先问题或分配稀缺资源非常有用。然而,AHP对程序公正的承诺部分基于其假定的数字准确性。我们表明,AHP的数值基础并不像目前的“AHP标准实践”所建议的那样明确。相比之下,层次分析法可以促进程序公正的其他标准(效率和参与),这可以解释层次分析法的持续和日益普及。我们的结论是,研究和从业者社区一方面应该继续发展AHP的程序,使所有类型的利益相关者充分参与,另一方面寻找准确性问题的解决方案。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信