An overview of current debates and contemporary research devoted to the modeling of decision-making processes and their\nfacilitation directs attention to the quality of priority ratios estimation through pairwise comparisons. At the core of the process\nare various approximation procedures for a pairwise comparison matrix which, in a sense, reflects preferences of decision-makers.\nCertainly, when judgments regarding these preferences are perfectly consistent (cardinally transitive), all approximation procedures\ncoincide and the quality of the prioritization process is exemplary. However, human judgments are very rarely consistent,\nand thus the quality of priority ratios estimation may significantly vary. Obviously, the range of these variations depends on the\napplied approximation procedure for a pairwise comparison matrix. Although there are many approximation procedures which\ncan be applied in the prioritization process, it has been promoted for many decades that only one should be applied and no others\nqualify. This paper suggests this opinion is a fallacy. Research results argue that a genuine, commonly applied approximation\nprocedure for a pairwise comparison matrix may deteriorate the quality of priority ratios estimation. Thus, a number of solutions\nare also proposed which can improve the process of priority ratios estimation. In order to provide credible and high quality results,\nthe problem is studied via a properly designed and coded seminal simulation algorithm, executed in Wolfram Mathematica 8.0.
Loading....