Selection Procedure of the Approximation Methods for Deriving Priorities: A Case of Inconsistent Pairwise Comparisons

1 Abele-Nagy, K., Bozóki, S., & Rebák, Ö. (2018). Efficiency analysis of double perturbed pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 69(5), 707–713. https://doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2017.1409408 Search in Google Scholar

2 Ágoston, K. C., & Csató, L. (2022). Inconsistency thresholds for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. Omega, 108, 102576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2021.102576 Search in Google Scholar

3 Bastič, M. (2003). Izvedbeni management: Optimizacijski modeli [Operations Management: Optimization Models, in Slovenian] (2nd ed.). Maribor, Slovenia: University of Maribor, Faculty of Economics and Business. Search in Google Scholar

4 Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4 Search in Google Scholar

5 Chakrabortty, R. K., Abdel-Basset, M., & Ali, A. M. (2023). A multi-criteria decision analysis model for selecting an optimum customer service chatbot under uncertainty. Decision Analytics Journal, 6, 100168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dajour.2023.100168 Search in Google Scholar

6 Chen, T. (2020). Enhancing the efficiency and accuracy of existing FAHP decision-making methods. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 8(3-4), 177-204. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40070-020-00115-8 Search in Google Scholar

7 Choo, E. U., & Wedley, W. C. (2004). A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers & Operations Research, 31(6), 893-908. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0305-0548(03)00042-x Search in Google Scholar

8 Čančer, V. (2012). Criteria weighting by using the 5Ws & H technique. BSRJ, 3(2), 41-48. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10305-012-0011-3 Search in Google Scholar

9 Čančer, V., Tominc, P., & Rožman, M. (2023). Multi-Criteria Measurement of AI Support to Project Management. IEEE Access, 11, 142816-142828. https://doi.org/10.1109/access.2023.3342276 Search in Google Scholar

10 Grzybowski, A. Z. (2012). Note on a new optimization based approach for estimating priority weights and related consistency index. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(14), 11699-11708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2012.04.051 Search in Google Scholar

11 Ishizaka, A. (2019). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Extensions. Multiple Criteria Decision Making, 81-93. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11482-4_2 Search in Google Scholar

12 Jabra^GN. (2023, November 8). Jabra PanaCast 50 Tech Sheet 08112023. Retrieved from https://www.jabra.com/supportpages/jabra-panacast-50#/#8200-232 Search in Google Scholar

13 Kazibudzki, P. T. (2019). The Quality of Ranking during Simulated Pairwise Judgments for Examined Approximation Procedures. Modelling and Simulation in Engineering, 2019, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/1683143 Search in Google Scholar

14 Koczkodaj, W. W., Mikhailov, L., Redlarski, G., Soltys, M., Szybowski, J., Tamazian, G., Wajch, E., & Yuen, K. K. F. (2016). Important Facts and Observations about Pairwise Comparisons (the special issue edition). Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3-4), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.3233/fi-2016-1336 Search in Google Scholar

15 Kuske, C., Soltys, M., & Kułakowski, K. (2019). Approximating consistency in pairwise comparisons. Procedia Computer Science, 159, 814–823. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2019.09.240 Search in Google Scholar

16 Plantronics. (2024). Poly Studio X50. Retrieved from https://www.poly.com/us/en/products/video-conferencing/studio/studio-x50 Search in Google Scholar

17 Promentilla, M. A. B., Aviso, K. B., Lucas, R. I. G., Razon, L. F., & Tan, R. R. (2018). Teaching Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) in undergraduate chemical engineering courses. Education for Chemical Engineers, 23, 34–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ece.2018.05.002 Search in Google Scholar

18 Render, B., Stair, R. M., Hanna, M. E., & Hale, T. S. (2021). Quantitative Analysis for Management (13th ed). Harlow, England: Pearson. Search in Google Scholar

19 Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijssci.2008.017590 Search in Google Scholar

20 Saaty, T. L. (2012). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World (3rd ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications. Search in Google Scholar

21 Saaty, T. L., & Sodenkamp, M. (2010). The Analytic Hierarchy and Analytic Network Measurement Processes: The Measurement of Intangibles: Decision Making under Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks. Applied Optimization, 91-166. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-92828-7_4 Search in Google Scholar

22 SpiceLogic. (2022). Analytic Hierarchy Process Software: AHP Calculation Methods. Retrieved from https://www.spicelogic.com/docs/ahpsoftware/intro/ahp-calculation-methods-396 Search in Google Scholar

23 Vrigazova, B. (2021). The Proportion for Splitting Data into Training and Test Set for the Bootstrap in Classification Problems. Business Systems Research Journal, 12(1), 228-242. https://doi.org/10.2478/bsrj-2021-0015 Search in Google Scholar

24 Vrigazova, B. (2020). Tenfold Bootstrap as Resampling Method in Classification Problems. ENTRENOVA - ENTerprise REsearch InNOVAtion, 6(1), 74–83. Retrieved from https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/entrenova/article/view/13435 Search in Google Scholar

25 Yealink. (2023). MeetingBar A30 Datasheet. Retrieved from https://support.yealink.com/en/portal/knowledge/show?id=6459d53b0a11b818a75424c6 Search in Google Scholar