IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- The application of AHP-PROMETHEE II
Analytical Hierarchy Process and PROMETHEE for supplier selection
Muhammad Akmal Md Isa, Nor Shahirah
as Decision Making Tool: A Review Saharudin, Natasha Bella Anuar et al.

- A PROMETHEE based multi criteria

decision making analysis for selection of
To cite this article: Aulia Ishak et al 2019 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 505 012085 optimum site location for wind energy
project
Vasupalli Manoj, Aakula Swathi and
Vemireddi Tejeswara Rao

- Performance analysis of combination of

View the article online for updates and enhancements. fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP)
algorithms with preference ranking
organization method for enrichment
evaluation algorithm (PROMETHEE II) in
the ranking process to determine the
increase in employee class
M. Irfan Ramadhan, Muhammad Zarlis
and Benny Benyamin Nasution

This content was downloaded from IP address 36.82.225.39 on 25/03/2023 at 23:16

1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

Analytical Hierarchy Process and PROMETHEE as Decision

Making Tool: A Review

Aulia Ishak1, Asfriyati2, Vina Akmaliah3

1,3
Industrial Engineering Department, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Jl. Almamater,
Kampus USU, Medan
2
Public Health Faculty, Universitas Sumatera Utara, Jl. Universitas, Kampus USU, Medan

E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract. Journal reviews published on a typical topic are called review literature. AHP is a multi-
criteria decision that is widely used that makes research tools in various fields and continues to
improve its use, so we can conduct a review of AHP and PROMETHEE to get the most commonly
studied topics. AHP provides a proven and effective way to handle complicated decision making
and can assist in analyzing collected data and speeding up decision making methods and identifying
and weighing criteria. Rating Organization Method Preference for Enrichment Evaluation
(PROMETHEE) is an established decision support system that deals with the assessment and
selection of a series of options based on several criteria with the aim of obtaining rank among them.
Simultaneously can deal with qualitative and quantitative criteria. The purpose of this paper is to
find out about the use of PROMETHEE and Analytical Hierarchy processes as decision-making
tools.

1. Introduction
AHP is a multi-criteria decision making tool that is widely used. In contrast to other conventional
methods, AHP uses paired comparisons that allow verbal judgment and improve the accuracy of results.
Pairwise comparisons are used to reduce the ratio and accurate priority scale. Developed by Thomas Saaty
[1], the AHP method has a proven and effective way to handle complicated decision making and can help
in analyzing the data collected and speeding up the decision making process and identifying and weighing
available selection criteria.

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

AHP helps determine the steps of subjective and objective evaluation of alternative choices, providing
a mechanism that is useful for examining alternative consistency thereby reducing bias in decision making
[2]. When making complex decisions involving many criteria, the first stage is to describe the main
objectives of the AHP into sub-objectives of the constituents or sometimes called goals, progressing from
the general to the specific. In its simplest form, this structure consists of objectives, criteria or objective
and alternative levels. Each set of criteria will then be subdivided into the right level of detail, recognizing
that the more criteria entered, the less important each individual criterion. [3]
Each hierarchical structure of AHP methodology can measure and synthesize various factors from
complex decision-making processes in a hierarchical manner, making it easy to combine parts as a whole
and in their entirety. A bibliometric study [4] found that the number of publications related to MCDM -
Multi Criteria / MAUT Decision Making - Multiattibute Utility Theory increased by 4.2 times than before,
from 1992 to 2006. This event was largely due to continued growth of publications increase in AHP and
EMO. - Evolutionary Multi-Purpose Optimization.
So, there are three functions of AHP's main research methodology, namely: synthesis, measurement,
and structuring of complexity. For the first function of the AHP, Saaty said that to resolve the complexity
of the decision process, at this stage we need to identify all the factors that have differences that influence
decisions and regulate them in the hierarchical structure of "homogeneous factor groups". Measurements
on the ratio scale are obtained by comparing these alternatives in pairs. The weight of each factor in the
hierarchy will be found in the process in which each factor is compared to the parent factor. The priority
(weight) at all levels of the hierarchy will be found by multiplying the priority of one factor at each factor
level to prioritize the factor with the first connected (parent factor). This method is important because of
its ability to measure and synthesize many factors in the hierarchy to get the best alternative, even though
the AHP method has an analytic name, because AHP separates abstract entities into its constituent
elements. [5].
An Organization's Assessment of Enrichment Evaluation Preference Methods (PROMETHEE) is an
established decision support system that deals with the assessment and selection of a series of choices
based on several criteria with the aim of ranking among factors. PROMETHEE can simultaneously handle
qualitative and quantitative criteria. This method can process information that is uncertain and unclear.
Founded by Brans & Vincke in 1985. Organizational methods rank preferences for enrichment evaluation
methods (PROMETHEE) analysis decisions. In solving facility location problems where there are eight
criteria for four alternative location solutions usually using the PROMETHEE II Method (Athawale and
Chakraborty, 2010).
This method will eventually produce the best alternative from several choices with the lowest
cost and ranking. Maragoudaki and Tsakiris (2005) argue that those who can handle the MCDA
method are the PROMETHEE method, this method is used for flood mitigation plans in the
evacuation process and evaluated using the AHP method and PROMOTHEE criteria
(Anagnostopoulos et al., 2005) [36].

2. Research Methods
This paper discusses the most common topics in Analytical Hierarchy Process as Decision Making
Tool, by reviewing the literature that has been published in a systematic way.

2.1. Approach and phase of research

In this paper, the approach includes four processes in conducting systematic literature review as shown
below :
a. Planning review : make research objectives and aims, develop research protocol

2
1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

b. Conduct reviews : setting the relevant criteria, search and retrieve paper, paper selection, Quality
assessment for relevant studies, data output.
c. Document review : Reporting systematic review literature as well as detailed reviews results and
publishing the review.
2.2. The criteria
Journals in research articles are conducted through academic journals in the AHP field which are
published in the best database journals. Databases include Elsevier, Taylor and Francis, Emerald Insight,
Springer, and Inderscience. Journal reviews must be made for articles that discuss the Analytical
Hierarchy Process as a decision-making tool for its decision. Research articles related to Analytical
Hierarchy Processes as decision-making tools are defined as research criteria. Based on existing data, it
was found that most articles explained the AHP method and the PROMETHEE method and their
applications were published since 2000.
Table 1. Information of AHP Papers in Academic
Id Problem Type Industry Tecnique Used Year
[6] Selection Food Indusrty AHP, ANP 2011
[7] Selection Textile Industry AHP 2011
[8] Selection Oil Industry AHP 2010
[9] Ranking Small Industry ANP 2015
[10] Selection Aluminum Industry AHP 2016
[11] Ranking Healthcare Industry Fuzzy AHP 2012
[12] Ranking Telecommunications AHP 2012
[13] Ranking Education Fuzzy AHP 2012
[14] Selection Public Adminstration Fuzzy AHP 2012
[15] Selection Electronics Industry Fuzzy AHP 2012
[16] Selection Shipping Industry Fuzzy AHP 2012
[17] Ranking Education AHP 2011
[18] Ranking Public Adminstration Fuzzy aHP 2011
[19] Ranking Manudacturing Industry Fuzzy AHP 2013
[20] Ranking ICT Industry Fuzzy AHP 2015
Stochastic
[32] Evaluate Harvesting 2005
PROMETHEE
Fuzzy
[33] Evaluate Environment 2003
PROMETHEE
[34] Evaluate Credit Risk PROMETHEE 2002
Fuzzy
[35] Evaluate Environment 2000
PROMETHEE

2.3. Paper selection

The search literature is derived from academic databases including Elsevier, Taylor and Francis, Emerald
Insight, Springer, and Inderscience. String search is used as follows AHP, decision making, hierarchy, etc.
The literature search is only in English. Selection is done in two stages, with the first step is to select the
journal by looking at the contents of the abstract of the journal. The second stage reads the journal as a
whole.

3
1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

After the selection of journals, the journal obtained 19 journals from 30 AHP and
PROMETHEE journals in accordance with the criteria. We review journals published not only in
one country but some countries such as Arab, USA, Turkey, Italy, India, Taiwan, China.

2.4. Data output

Journal that has been selected as many as 19 journals will be read back to consider the implementation of
AHP and PROMETHEE, and founded 19 case study journals. Information about 19 journals on AHP and
PROMETHEE as decision making tool can be seen in Table 1.

3. Results
After research into the AHP and PROMETHEE journal collected, point of problem has been found. This
section will present the most common topics in the manufacturing sector based on the collected journals.

3.1. Define the problem

As shown in Table 1, a study discussing the palm oil industry has several alternative problems
and choices. The problem specified will be solved by this method. Some studies discuss the
importance of problem-solving methods using applied mathematics. Then this method is
influenced by expert systems and applications. As far as the purpose of the article (column type
problem in Table 1) is related, seven choose alternatives and eight aim to rank alternatives.

3.2. Structure the decision hierarchy

In general, the factors of influence are the criteria in the group. However, they are also called aspects
[6,11] attributes [7], classes [12], and dimensions [19]. In the previous case, as can be seen in table 1, the
process of selecting criteria sources was based on a literature journal; in a number of other relevant cases,
the process is based on selecting criteria that are considered relevant for the organization. Only in four
cases was the source to choose criteria supported by external specialist contributions.
Before applying the AHP method several criteria must be selected beforehand. But in the
previous study there were only 2 cases that identified alternatives to assess existing strengths and
criteria: The screening method used 6 variables, including 7 suppliers out of 10 analyzed; in this
journal the criteria chosen are many because the criteria do not meet the organization's terms and
conditions. The previous three articles analyzed the criteria from 109 to 20, from 109 to 60, then
44 to 5 in the end. A good criterion that the AHP remains consistent and redundancy is
recommended the number of criteria is 7 or less. This suggestion was taken from several studies
taken as guidelines, as can be seen in point a in Figure 1, according to the pattern structure. In 3
studies there were levels of structure. At the first level the hierarchy is the goal or goal in solving
a problem. At the second level there are 2 or 20 criteria that can be observed in making a
comparison of criteria. The average is 4.76 criteria and mode 3 criteria. The third level has ten
sub-criteria and the average and other methods. Often the imbalance of the criteria with one
another will occur in the discussion of the problem. In contrast to the other 8 cases where there
were no alternatives that met the terms and conditions, because basically this method was to
identify and evaluate criteria, a maximum of 117 average 11 and 3 studies were the objectives. b
duck in Figure 1 was built to represent the hierarchical structure of standards and mode values for
layers, criteria, subcriteria and alternative structures.

4
1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

3.3. Construct matrices

The first step is to calculate a set of paired comparisons and calculate the weights for each
element of the criteria. Table 1 refers to ways to develop group assessments as individuals
separate. The individual assessment aggregation method (AIJ) is used in the initial situation,
identity and decision for each pair of criteria. Nine methods of adopting AIP were not included in
the criteria for analysis. In some cases such as qFD, approach methods (AM), and similarity
aggression methods (SAM), all methods can measure the degree of conformity. AHP has 2 ways
of evaluating observed alternatives; Absolute assessment is usually used, criteria and quantitative
analysis and relative assessment. There are only 16 cases that use this problem as a means of
eradicating pests. The previous two methods discuss situations where many are needed, but this
method requires a predetermined scale.
The method often used to evaluate criteria is AHP and FAHP with other techniques can be
seen in table 1, In solving AHP solutions only calculates the weight of criteria and selection of
the best alternatives. Different techniques can also use AHP. At 14 AHP is the only one used in 7
studies and fuzzy logic, and can be added with TOPSIS to compare weights. Saaty said that the
consistency ratio (CR) of pairwise comparison matrices for each criterion is a measure used in
AHP to increase the validity of accurate calculation results, that is, when the comparison matrix
has inconsistencies, decision makers must change their opinion. about several comparisons to
improve the consistency of results. In the FAHP, this inconsistency cannot be shown in the results
and the inconsistency of decisions remains. "AHP has a level of uncertainty successfully
corrected by using intermediate values on a scale of 1-9 combined with a verbal scale and that
seems to work better to get accurate results than using obscurity to change numbers for
convenience and somewhat arbitrarily". However, the purpose of this article is not to assess the
use of methods, but what methods are used.
From several articles, there are 7 problems that use alternative methods as in table 1, Analytic
Network Process (ANP) is a network structure to see the nature of dependence of alternatives and
the available criteria are often called AHP evolution, complex proportional assessment
(COPRAS), which "work on ranking and stepwise evaluation procedures of alternatives in terms
of significance and utility level." [31]; . Elimination and Revealing Reality Options (ELECTRE)
is an evolutionary process of criteria for setting alternatives (decision matrix), maximum limits,
criteria values (weights) and other parameters. "This method develops preference modeling with
higher relationships, followed by exploitation procedures" [18]; Gray Relational analysis (GRA)
compares "reference schemes and optional and closer schemes to be chosen as the best treatment
alternative"; . One way to identify solutions from a limited number of alternatives, where "the
optimal solution must have the shortest distance from a positive Ideal solution and the farthest
from a negative ideal solution" is often called Technique for sequence performance by similarity
with the ideal solution (TOPSIS). the compromise ranking method (called VIKOR) "is a multi-
attribute decision making technique that has a simple calculation procedure that allows
simultaneous consideration of proximity to ideal and anti-ideal alternatives"; The Maximum
Approach that "this weighted criterion is to maximize and minimize operator performance" and in
the same article "testing of non-parametric statistics to identify a series of effective operators".

5
1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

3.4. Comparison

Multi criterion Decision-Making (MCDM) is increasingly important over time as a tool that has the
ability to analyze complex real problems because of the inherent ability of this method to assess the
various alternatives available (options, strategies, policies, scenarios can also be used synonymously) on
various criteria for possible selection. best / suitable alternative (s). These selected alternatives can be
explored more deeply for their final implementation. Decision makers clearly need to carry out a final
examination of the impact of their overall alternative choices on the entire evaluation matrix, but a
systematic and active assessment of all elements, even those that are excessive, such as the characteristics
for AHP, can be avoided. [36].
Table 2. Comparison Between Characteristics of Diffetent Decision Models
Characteristic AHP PROMETHEE
Handle real data NO YES
Different weight between criteria YES NO
Provide multi preference structure NO YES
Best choice NO NO

Table 3. Methods: Strength and Weaknesses

Method Strength Weakness
In accordance with the Group
Decision Matrix Addressing several
Perfect consistency is very
complex criteria
difficult. Time consuming with
AHP Doesn‟t involve complex large numbers. Doesn‟t take into
mathematics. A certain value of account the uncertainty.
consistency is allowed Easy to capture
and convenient
The partial ranking is forced into a
complete ranking of the
Trade-offs are avoided. The
alternatives; this may also lead to
dominance relation is enriched rather
the loss of data. General criteria
PROMETHEE than impoverished. It does not provide
really need to be determined so
structuring possibility. PROMETHEE
that it is possible for
needs much less inputs.
inexperienced users to be easily
reached.

4. Conclusion
In 19 articles, it will be compared to the rest, the easy start and the type of knowledge in the
journal is the technique. The selected criteria use number 07 or there are 2 or 3, the substantiates
reduce the number of criteria. From the results of several cases that are initiated, for example 109
analyzed, decision making will build other people so that the criteria become the best choice.
Method ii uses individual aggression research.. However, how consensus is obtained and whether
inconsistencies in AHP applications occur are not commented on. To calculate criteria weights,
AHP or Fuzzy AHP is used in all cases, while authors prefer to use other techniques to assess
alternatives, such as TOPSIS, COPRA, ELECTRE. Another technique that is rarely used AHP is
rating or rating, also called absolute valuation, which can make AHP applications faster and easier. The
number of cases using Fuzzy AHP is relevant, even though AHP's father, Saaty, does not agree with that.
Comments about the results of implementing AHP only rely on the adequacy of the models and techniques

6
1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

used for that. This finding can support recommendations for future studies on the difficulty in applying
AHP to choose the best criteria, to get consensus, and whether the results meet stakeholder expectations or
whether the structure must be changed and use other methods.

References
[1] Saaty T L 1980 The Analytical Hierarchy Process (New York: McGraw-Hill)
[2] Alessio I and Markus L 2002 An Intelligent Tutoring System for AHP pp 215- 223
[3] Dalaah et al 2010 Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in MultiCriteria Analysis of
the Selection of Cranes pp 568
[4] Wallenius J et ak 2008 Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent
Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead. 54 pp 1336–1349
[5] Forman E and Gass S 2001 The Analytic Hierarchy Process: An Exposition 49 pp 469–486
[6] Bottero M et al 2011 Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Analytic Network
Process for the assessment of different wastewater treatment systems pp 1211
[7] Pophali G R 2011 Optimal selection of full scale tannery effluent treatment alternative using
integrated AHP and GRA approach. Expert Syst Appl 38 pp 10889–10895
[8] Amiri M P 2010 Project selection for oil-fields development by using the AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS
methods.37 pp 6218–6224.
[9] Molinos M et al 2015 Assessment of wastewater treatment alternatives for small communities: An
analytic network process approach pp 676
[10] Ozmen M et al 2016 Developing a Decision-Support System for Waste Management in Aluminum
Production pp 803
[11] Büyüközkan G and Çifçi G 2012 A combined fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS based strategic analysis
of electronic service quality in healthcare industry. 39 pp 2341–2354
[12] Bentes A V et al 2012 Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC
and AHP 65 pp 1790–1799
[13] Das M C 2012 A framework to measure relative performance of Indian technical institutions using
integrated fuzzy AHP and COPRAS methodology 46 pp 230–241
[14] Ju Y et al 2012 Evaluating emergency response capacity by fuzzy AHP and 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic
approach 39 pp 6972–6781
[15] Ho W et al 2012 Strategic logistics outsourcing: An integrated QFD and fuzzy AHP approach 39 pp
10841–10850
[16] Bulut E et al 2012 Use of consistency index, expert prioritization and direct numerical inputs for
generic fuzzyAHP modeling: A process model for shipping asset management 39 pp 1911–1923
[17] Rad A et al 2011 Clustering and ranking university majors using data mining and AHP algorithms: A
case study in Iran 38 pp 755–763
[18] Kaya T and Kahraman C 2011 An integrated fuzzy AHP-ELECTRE methodology for environmental
impact assessment 38 pp 8553–8562
[19] Rostamzadeh R and Sofian S 2011 Prioritizing effective 7Ms to improve production systems
performance using fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS (case study) 38 pp 5166–5177
[20] Calabrese A et al 2013 Using Fuzzy AHP to manage Intellectual Capital assets: An application to the
ICT service industry 40 pp 3747–3755
[21] Hsu Y-L et al 2010 The application of Fuzzy Delphi Method and Fuzzy AHP in lubricant
regenerative technology selection 37 pp 419–425
[22] Celik M et al 2009 Application of fuzzy extended AHP methodology on shipping registry selection:
The case of Turkish maritime industry 36 pp 190–198.

7
1st International Conference on Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 505 (2019) 012085 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/505/1/012085

[23] Cebeci U 2009 Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile
industry by using balanced scorecard 36 pp 8900–8909
[24] Su J P et al 2007 Analyzing policy impact potential for municipal solid waste management decision-
making: a case study of Taiwan 51(2) pp 418–434
[25] Rousis K et al 2008 Multi-criteria analysis for the determination of the best WEEE management
scenario in Cyprus 28(10) pp 1941–1954
[26] Achillas C et al 2013 The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management
problems: a literature review 31(2) pp 115–129
[27] Vego G et al 2008 Application of multi-criteria decision-making on strategic municipal solid waste
management in Dalmatia, Croatia 28(11) pp 2192–2201
[28] Nas B et al 2010 Selection of MSW landfill site for Konya, Turkey using GIS and multi-criteria
evaluation. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 160(1–4) pp 491– 500
[29] Bowen M 1995 A Thurstonian comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and probabilistic
multidimensional scaling through application to the nuclear waste site selection decision 29(2) pp
151–163
[30] Merkhofer M W and Keeney R L 1987 A multi attribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the
disposal of nuclear waste 7(2) pp 173–194
[31] Chang N et al 2009 Fair fund distribution for a municipal incinerator using GIS-based fuzzy analytic
hierarchy process 90 (1) pp 441-454
[32] Huth A et al 2005 Using multicriteria decision analysis and a forest growth model to assess impacts
of tree harvesting in Dipterocarp lowland rain forests 207 pp 215–232
[33] Martin J M et al 2003 Constructing linguistic versions for the multicriteria decision support systems
preference ranking organization method for enrichment evaluation I and II 18 pp 711–731
[34] Zopounidis C and Doumpos M 2002 Multi-criteria decision aid in financial decision making:
Methodologies and literature review 11 pp 167–186
[35] Goumas M and Lygerou V 2000 An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in
fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects 123 pp 606–613
[36] Vyas G S 2013 Comparative Study of Different Multi-criteria Decision-making Methods pp 9-12