Nolberto Munier

Nolberto Munier
Polytechnic University of Valencia | UPV · Institute for the Management and Innovation of Knowledge (INGENIO)

Ph.D. Project Management

About

279
Publications
181,524
Reads
How we measure 'reads'
A 'read' is counted each time someone views a publication summary (such as the title, abstract, and list of authors), clicks on a figure, or views or downloads the full-text. Learn more
1,297
Citations
Introduction
Ph.D. in Project Management- Valencia Polytech. Univ. (UPV, Spain); M.Sc. in Project Management - UPV; Mechanical Engineer -Univ. Nac. Córdoba (UNC, Argentina); Lecturer at universities: UNC, UPV, Vrije (The Netherlands); Karlsruhe( Germany), BUAP (México), Tecamachalco (México), ITBA (Argentina); Associate Researcher at UPV for Innovation; Writer of 28 technical books especially on Operations Research and Construction Management; Publisher of technical articles in journals and at university level , Reviewer of technical papers for journals; Field experience in Project Management in Planning, Scheduling & Control, for large hydroelectric dams, mining, chemicals and other projects; Author of SIMUS, a MCDM method; Current research interest: Decision-Making methods and sensitivity analysis.
Additional affiliations
November 2011 - present
Valencia Polytechnic University
Position
  • Research Associate
Description
  • We are engaged in addressing economic problems and suggesting mathematical measures to treat them.. For instance: * Determination of a composite indicator to measure country growth * Measure of interaction between university, government and enterprises
September 2012 - June 2015
Valencia Polytechnic University, Spain
Position
  • Professor (Associate)
Description
  • I was a co-professor of two courses oriented at obtaining a Master Degree in Innovation. both since 2012 The other two professors are Dr. Fernando Jimenez Saez and Dr. Javier Ortega
Education
July 2010 - November 2011
Polytechnic University of Valencia, Spain
Field of study
  • Project Management
October 2008 - July 2010
Polytechnic University of Valencia
Field of study
  • Project Management
March 1957 - November 1960

Publications

Publications (279)
Chapter
This Chapter describes a methodology aimed at selecting a strategy based on SWOT (Strength, Weakness, Opportunities, and Threats) model (Humphrey, Swot analysis for management consulting. SRI Alumni Newsletter. SRI International, 1970). Once the SWOT matrix is established, it is converted to a numerical SWOT matrix, and from there, the methodology...
Chapter
This chapter deals with a very important issue. Group Decision-Making, where the decisions are not taken by a sole DM but by a group of DMs. This is a normal procedure for large projects where it is essential to have a great level of certitude, most especially in performance values corresponding to qualitative, or even quantitative, criteria. A maj...
Chapter
Considering the questions posed by hundreds of practitioners in a scientific forum such as Research Gate (RG) over several years, it appears that there exists confusion about the different elements of a MCDM scenario, as well as the scope of them, and how to approach some real-life situations. This section tries to clarify them. Needless to say, it...
Chapter
This chapter is mainly devoted to a critical task: modelling a scenario. It addresses two main aspects: Elements of the initial decision matrix. How to method a scenario. Naturally, it is impossible in the second aspect to deal with the innumerable cases that correspond to a myriad of different projects and scenarios. The chapter aims at providing...
Chapter
This chapter examines some uncommon and complex scenarios that illustrate the ability of LP and SIMUS to solve them. Normally, they are related to the need of considering a scenario as a whole and where peripheral considerations intervene and linked to the main objective.
Chapter
Modelling, which is the preparation of a mathematical model, normally the IDM, is the core of decision-making, and results depend on how it is built. This chapter analyzes what aspects are normally missing.
Chapter
This chapter deals with the commencement, history, and evolution of multi-criteria decision-making process. It gives the reader a bird’s-eye glance of the birth, development, and present-day status of this discipline, which is nowadays taught in most technical universities around the world. Its purpose is to make the reader aware of why it was conc...
Chapter
Decisions are taken by human beings. It does not matter how many different methods are available for this activity and how accurate they seem to be; they are simply tools to organize and process information and to support the DM. Once the processing of data is finished, they provide results but not definite valuable conclusions. It is the decision-...
Chapter
It is a proven fact that at present, there is no course of action that can evaluate or validate the reliability of the solution reached by a MCDM method, because the “true” solution is not known, and it is impossible to make a comparison to assess the efficiency of a result found. This Chapter presents a procedure that can help in this endeavor. It...
Chapter
In a portfolio with different projects, and where a project may participate simultaneously in various scenarios, this chapter addresses the issue of assigning projects to each one, which usually have different demands and characteristics. These scenarios may involve, for instance, different plots of land situated in different places or countries, a...
Chapter
This chapter incorporates innovation in science and technical books, at least in the MCDM area, since it simulates readers addressing the author with questions of varied nature related to situations that may be present in decision-making when modelling a problem. There are 101 questions and doubts distributed over eleven main topics, covering the w...
Chapter
This chapter aims at explaining the SIMUS method, trying to show without formulas how it works. Its purpose is to illustrate the DM about its principles and characteristics for him or her to understand and apply it without going into complex mathematical demonstrations. That is, one thing is to understand a method, to know how to use it, and to kno...
Chapter
This chapter addresses a fundamental subject: sensitivity analysis. It is not only a checking procedure but also a tool, which allows the DM to answer questions from stakeholders as well as a way to study different attitudes; without it a MCDM process is incomplete. The main reason for its use lies in the uncertainty of data, and therefore, a test...
Article
Full-text available
Pioneered by most advanced countries a global trend is taking place to eliminate fossil fuels (including green natural gas) and in some extent, nuclear plants, for electric energy generation. Part of these efforts aim at improving known and proven technologies such as wind, solar, hydro and biomass, by increasing their efficiency, as well as decrea...
Article
Full-text available
Economists establish a clear-cut distinction between the idea of Economic Growth (EG) and Economic Development (ED). However, the definition of the second one tends to be fuzzier than it is for the first one, giving room to misunderstandings and a wrong use and manipulation of the "ED" concept. In this article, the authors propose an analysis of a...
Article
Full-text available
This research identifies the critical risk factors in the management of construction projects and assesses their relationship on the project implementation constraints of cost, time, and quality, in order to gain a deeper understanding of those factors hindering project success in in Caribbean small island developing states experiencing the dilemma...
Preprint
Full-text available
Pioneered by most advanced countries a global trend is taking place to eliminate fossil fuels (including green natural gas) and in some extent, nuclear plants, for electric energy generation. Part of these efforts aim at improving known and proven technologies such as wind, solar, hydro and biomass, by increasing their efficiency, as well as decrea...
Method
Full-text available
Descripcion of the SIMUS method for MCDM, its characteristics, advantages, and real applications
Article
Full-text available
Water contamination is a serious global issue that affects a country's economy, human health, and aquatic life, potentially compromising people's livelihoods who rely on fishing. Contamination can occur due to various factors such as industrial wastes, domestic sewage, seawater, eutrophication, and in many countries as a result of oil extraction, r...
Article
This paper considers that actual methods for addressing MODM or MCDM scenarios share two shortcomings along these lines: a) Failing to show equal results when different MCDM methods solve the same problem. b) Inability to replicate actual scenarios, by not taking into account existing conditions, and thus, producing an approximate representation of...
Article
Full-text available
Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans (SUMP) are increasingly popular planning tools in cities with environmental issues where numerous actions are usually proposed to reduce pollution from urban transport. However, the diagnosis and implementation of these processes requires broad consensus from all stakeholders and the ability to fit them into urban p...
Article
Full-text available
Traditionally, the groundwater resource has supported extensive agricultural irrigation, mainly based on fossil fuels for pumping purposes. However, current international agreement and policies are promoting climate change mitigation and sustainable development in most of sectors. With this aim, the main challenge presented by groundwater pumping s...
Chapter
This chapter proposes 44 questions normally asked by MCDM partitioners. Each question has two parts: The first explains and clarifies them; the questions start with complex scenarios and explain their meaning and scope. It is considered very important for the practitioner to have a clear understanding of his/her scenario, since in real life normall...
Chapter
This chapter analyzes 26 questions to perform MCDM, as well as approaches. It examines structures, such as the top-down procedure, the reasoning in using pair-wise comparisons followed by some methods, the real utility of weights, the intriguing of different rankings for the same problem using different methods, using DM preferences, the hierarchic...
Chapter
This chapter addresses mathematical modelling, probably the most important aspect in MCDM, which unfortunately has received little attention from researchers and scholars. It is followed by another issue that was scarcely treated, if ever, related to feasibility of a given scenario and reflected in the initial decision matrix (the model). It is con...
Chapter
This chapter is devoted to briefly explaining Linear Programming (LP) and the SIMUS method. The first was developed in the mid-twentieth century (1940), during the WW2 to determine the best use of Russian resources to repel German invasion. It was so successful that its creators were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. It was the first rational m...
Chapter
Since in other chapters it has been mentioned how SIMUS proceeds, it is now the time to explain how the method can perform as stated; this is the objective of this chapter. It starts explaining which platform the method uses, and how it can address problems in different areas involving Business, Economics, Society, Environment, Industry, Government...
Method
Full-text available
SIMUS method is used to solve many different types of problems, and it is particularly efficient for complex ones
Article
Full-text available
This study is useful for railway operators as it enables them to verify their decisions against the results of the application of the techniques of strategic planning and multi-criteria analysis. It gives railway stakeholders concise, objective and unbiased information so that they can then make decisions and also allows them to determine the stren...
Article
Full-text available
This paper proposes a methodology aiming at determining the most influent working variables and geometrical parameters over the pressure drop and heat transfer during the condensation process of several refrigerant gases using heat exchangers with pipes mini channels technology. A multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methodology was used; this MCD...
Article
Full-text available
To increase the level of adequacy in multi-criteria decision-making in the case of uncertainty, it is essential to reduce the subjectivism and to increase the reality of obtained results. The study aims to propose a novel fuzzy multi-criteria method based on the fuzzy linear programming method and sequential interactive model for urban systems meth...
Book
This book examines the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, its varied uses, as well as its limitations for solving real-world scenarios. While the simplicity of the method compels users to find shortcuts to a real-world problem, it also leads to obtaining wrong results that do not represent reality.
Chapter
This chapter investigates and examines a general criticism of the AHP method and 30 specific subjects, shortcomings and drawbacks. It establishes the procedure as follows: These subjects have been identified and analysed in depth by these authors, according to their own research and methodology, not using mathematics, but reasoning, common sense an...
Chapter
This chapter examines the fundamental aspects of the AHP method related with its procedure, especially its preferences and their quantification, its relationship with reality and its appreciation of people’s problems originated by projects, that is, the chapter questions its logic, judgement and rationality. It is explained here the reasons that ju...
Chapter
It is devoted to examine and analyse the concept of complex projects or scenarios and what this term involves. Since there are no clear definitions about the meaning and scope of this phrase, this chapter proposes ten scenarios, although necessarily briefly, where different features are present and incorporated in their modelling, and including rea...
Chapter
This book consists of a series of discussions and analysis on certain issues identified as ‘subjects’, regarding the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) with respect to its structure and shortcomings. It is addressed to Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) practitioners, professors and students in the process of learning or using this method for de...
Chapter
This chapter proposes a structure for solving MCDM complex problems. It analyses the different relationships between alternatives, their dependency and their modeling.
Chapter
This chapter addresses a fundamental issue in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) problems consisting in how to model complex scenarios. It starts by defining complex scenarios and examines the hierarchical structure followed by the AHP method, considered not suitable for modelling them, as well as their relationship with the decision-maker. It p...
Chapter
This chapter synthetizes and tabulates the conclusion of the issues addressed in the precedent six chapters.
Book
This book is intended as a guide to and manual on modeling complex problems in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM). It encourages practitioners to consider the practicalities of real-world scenarios when modeling, while at the same time providing tips and examples of how to incorporate these realities into the initial decision matrix. The goal is...
Method
Full-text available
This is a list from 2004 to December 2020 revealing the areas and subareas where the SIMUS method was utilized
Method
Full-text available
Dr. Triantaphyllou requeste a feedback on an articles. This is my answer
Preprint
Full-text available
The agricultural sector production in developing countries is highly dependent on rains, being affected by scarcityperiods and important water resource reductions in summers. It is very common in countries of the Mediterranean basin that need to pump water for the irrigation of crops, mainly due to the problems of drought and shortage of surface wa...
Preprint
Full-text available
Practitioners very often declare, in writing, that a problem was successfully solved using a certain MCDM method. Probably, it was…., only for verifying that the algorithm worked and performed according with what it was designed, like using a mathematical formula, but certainly, it does not necessarily mean that the problem was solved, since a resu...
Article
Full-text available
Railway networks have different levels of development, which affects the overall transport process and integrated sustainable development. This paper presents a methodology to assess and classify the railway network performance along the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T) core network corridor. The Orient–East Med corridor (OEM) has been exam...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
We normally find a solution of a MCDM problem, however, are we sure that the solution we get, irrelevant of the method used, which is pure consequence of an algorithm and personal preferences, is feasible or viable? That is, how do we know that the best solution we get is possible? Are we sure, that we have considered all aspects that make if feas...
Technical Report
Full-text available
This paper points at providing an easy and friendly introduction to Linear Programming (LP), the first multi-criteria method developed about 1948. It aims at explaining without mathematical language what this method is, how it works, and how because its mathematical foundation, it is by far the most reliable and complete MCDM method, and then, appr...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Against the popular belief shared by many authors that AHP/ANP can solve complex problems - it is in reality a cliché, because those models were not designed for that – and then, they can’t solve them. To discuss and justify this author’s assessment, in this paper it is first defined and discussed what a complex project is, which for sure is quite...
Method
Full-text available
Describes a methodology to find the most appropriate MCDM method for a project
Method
Full-text available
Interactive and automatic tool for selecting a MCDM method
Article
Full-text available
This file must be open to understand file 298 in Words
Article
Full-text available
This is an example of an urban planning problem with the objective of minimizing costs. The novelty of this development is that it permits making a quantitative comparison between sub-objectives or criteria, which resource values are established a priori, and the amount of resources really needed revealed by the computation All the results are opti...
Chapter
Decisions are made by human beings. It does not matter how many different methods are available for this activity and how accurate they seem to be; they are simply tools to organize and process information and to support the DM. Once the processing of data is finished, they provide results but not definite valuable conclusions. It is the decision-m...
Chapter
This chapter deals with a very important issue. Group decision-making is where the decisions are not taken by a sole DM but by a group of DMs. This is a normal procedure for large projects where it is essential to have a great level of certitude, most especially in performance values corresponding to qualitative, or even quantitative, criteria. A m...
Chapter
This chapter aims at explaining the SIMUS method, trying to show without formulas how it works. Its purpose is to illustrate the DM about its principles and characteristics for him/her to understand and apply it without going into complex mathematical demonstrations. That is, one thing is to understand a method and to know how to use it and how to...
Chapter
Modelling, that is, the preparation of a mathematical model, normally the IDM, is the core of decision-making, and results depend on how it is built. In this chapter, it is analysed by what aspects are normally missing.
Chapter
This chapter is mainly devoted to a critical task: modelling a scenario. It addresses two main aspects: (a)Elements of the IDM(b)How to model a scenario Naturally, it is impossible in the second aspect to deal with the innumerable cases that correspond to a myriad of different projects and scenarios. The chapter aims at providing as much informatio...
Chapter
It is a proven fact that at present, there is not a course of action that can evaluate or validate the reliability of the solution reached by a MCDM method, because the ‘true’ solution is not known, and it is impossible to make a comparison to assess the efficiency of a result found. This chapter presents a procedure that can help in this endeavour...
Chapter
This chapter examines some uncommon and complex scenarios that illustrate the ability of LP to solve them. Normally, they are related to the need of considering a scenario as a whole, and where peripheral considerations intervene but that are linked, with the main objective.
Chapter
This chapter describes a methodology aimed at selecting a strategy based on SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunities and threats) model (Humphey, Swot analysis for management consulting. SRI Alumni Newsletter. SRI International, 1970/2005). Once the SWOT matrix is established, it is converted to a numerical SWOT matrix, and from there, the methodolo...
Chapter
This chapter addresses a fundamental subject: sensitivity analysis. It is not only a checking procedure but also a tool that allows the DM to answer questions from stakeholders as well as a way to study different attitudes; without it a MCDM process is incomplete. The main reason for its use lies in the uncertainty of data, and therefore, a test mu...
Chapter
In a portfolio with different projects, and where a project may participate simultaneously in various scenarios, this chapter addresses the issue of assigning projects to each one, which usually have different demands and characteristics. These scenarios may involve, for instance, different plots of land situated in different places or countries, w...
Chapter
This chapter refers to linear programming (LP) Kantorovich (The best uses of economic resources, 1939), Dantzig (Linear Programming and extensions. United States Air Force, 1948). Fylstra (Solver) https://www.solver.com/. Accessed 5 May 2018), which is fundamental to understanding the SIMUS method (Sequential Interactive Method for Urban Systems),...
Chapter
This chapter deals with the commencement, history and evolution of multi-criteria decision-making process. It gives the reader a bird’s-eye glance of the birth, development and present-day status of this discipline, which is nowadays taught in most technical universities and others around the world. Its purpose is to make the reader aware of why it...
Book
This book examines multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) and presents the Sequential Interactive Modelling for Urban Systems (SIMUS) as a method to be used for strategic decision making. It emphasizes the necessity to take into account aspects related to real world scenarios and incorporating possible real life aspects for modelling. The book al...
Article
Full-text available
It is easy to check just by inspecting papers published on MCDM problems solved by different methods, that for whatever reasons many aspects of the real world are not considered. This omission is what in this paper is called ‘malpractice’, and it points out 10 aspects that are not taken into account and that sustain this assert.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper deals with the philosophy used by MCDM methods by simplifying, at least in part, conditions existing in actual scenarios. It maintains that these methods do not represent on several accounts, actual existing conditions, and focuses in the absence of considering current relationships between criteria, and in conclusions that are extracted...
Experiment Findings
Full-text available
I requested feed back on my paper [265] ' Calling for reflection on actual MCDM process and suggestions' Klaus Goepel made valuable and documented comments on it, and I think that his opinions and my corresponding answers maybe useful to people working in MCDM. Of course, everybody is welcome to express his/her opinions, positive and negative abo...
Method
Full-text available
This report presents a template aimed at helping practitioners to correctly model a MCDM scenario. It enumerates most aspects that have to be taken into account, and then allowing the Decision-Maker (DM) select the most appropriate method to handle and process that information. Therefore, none method is recommended, since it is a DM’s choice after...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The aim of this paper is to answer questions related to Multi Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM). Naturally there are perhaps more questions to be made, however I consider that the paper covers most of them, based on experience gathered in reading hundreds of papers and working in many projects, and in responding Researchgate questions posed by practi...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This presentation deals with sensitivity analysis and the examination of results obtained using Multi Criteria Decision-Making Models. Nowadays, most of the Decisions-Makers do not have a clear methodology to ascertain the most important criteria to be varied; they just act over the criterion with the maximum weight, which variation does not produc...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Nowadays MCDM problems are ‘solved’ using a myriad of different models standing alone or in combination with other models; only advances, and some debatable, have been made in new tools regarding uncertainty data. Amongst the plethora of models based on different assumptions the most usual are AHP, ANP, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, TOPSIS and VIKOR, and tha...
Article
Full-text available
This paper deals with selecting contractors for large projects. Normally in a large project a main contractor is selected and then individually subcontractors are chosen by the promoter or the Project Manager. However, this paper addresses the problem of selecting simultaneously all contractors and subcontractors and at all levels. That is, multipl...
Article
Full-text available
This paper develops and exemplifies a new methodology for delivering quantitative and significant information to allow DMs and stakeholders to adopt the right strategy
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This short paper suggests that it is necessary a revamping of the MCDM process or framework, for it to represent reality more faithfully. It is only a guide to encourage researchers and practitioners to think about the ways in which MCDM is performed nowadays, because the authors consider that whatever the model used it does not represent reality e...
Article
Full-text available
This paper considers that actual philosophy for performing Multi Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) analysis must be deeply reviewed; this assertion relates to the universal way in which this analysis operates. All models start by the Decision-Maker (DM) introducing from the very beginning factors that are alien to the problem such as using preference...
Article
Full-text available
This paper offers a step-by-step review of what is considered a sound and feasible road to formulate a scenario correctly. Given a scenario of a portfolio of projects it aims at proposing a mathematical initial configuration that tries to replicate reality as close as possible. The paper is not analyzing any specific MCDM heuristic model, but pavin...
Article
Full-text available
The fundaments were explained in the former version. Now, I suggest the following steps to better understand the method
Article
Full-text available
Decision-making is as old as civilization, but nowadays it faces more complicated challenges than ever because new issues enter the scenario due to social, environmental and quality aspects, since in the past only economics and finance were significant. Because this heterogeneity, decision-making is no longer the deed of one person but the contribu...
Article
Full-text available
This paper investigates the reasons by which most projects finish with times and budget overruns. Unfortunately this has been a very common outcome for decades; it is a persistent and complex quandary that has not been solved yet in spite of efforts made to ameliorate it. Naturally, this paper is not the first to address this matter; however, it un...
Article
Full-text available
This paper examines the components for modeling a scenario to be solved by Multi Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) models. From the technical literature it is apparent that not too much attention to detail is in general placed in modeling an actual scenario, or may be it is considered too complex to be represented by a mathematical model, and may be...
Article
Full-text available
There are many methods for Multicriteria Decision-Making (MCDM) and hundreds, or perhaps thousands of papers written on applications and improvements. Many publications address issues such as lack of coincidence when a scenario is solved by different methods and then each one yielding a different result, or being short of robustness materialized by...
Method
Full-text available
This paper addresses a problem of assigning projects out of one or various portfolios, into one or several scenarios, each one with different demands and characteristics. These scenarios may be for instance different plots of land situated in different places or countries and where different kinds of undertakings for land use are contemplated, and...
Technical Report
Full-text available
Este método propone un enfoque integral de la gestión empresarial para cualquier proyecto, sea éste comercial, de I+D, educativo, de salud, etc. Se puede aplicar a proyectos de construcción complejos, pero esa actividad no se detalla en este trabajo aunque se encara en forma similar pero independientemente debido a sus características propias, que...
Technical Report
Full-text available
Examining literature on Multi Criteria Decision-Making, in addition to hundreds, if not thousands of papers with applications, there are many papers dealing with comparing different aspects of this discipline, studying and discussing characteristics such as advantages and disadvantages of different heuristic models, combining them to take advantage...
Book
Full-text available
This book refers to the Multi Criteria Decision-Making, a process, half art and half science that facilitates the labor of the Decision-Maker. Why and art? Because given a set of alternatives or projects the Decision-Maker needs to apply his/her knowledge, expertise and common sense to select a set of projects and for determining on what basis thes...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
A partir del desarrollo del método SIMUS y especialmente con la reciente versión beta de su software, hemos considerado interesante y útil su difusión entre los miembros de la EPIO, por considerarlo un método muy interesante tanto para enseñar en materias relacionadas a la Investigación de Operaciones como para aplicarlo a casos reales en actividad...

Questions

Questions (215)
Question
# 198
Dear Bartłomiej Kizielewicz, Tomasz Tomczyk, Michal Gandor, Wojciech Sałabun
I read your paper:
Subjective weight determination methods in multi-criteria decision-making: a systematic review
My comments:
1- Page 3 you say”…. such as pairwise comparison of criteria, evaluation of
criteria against alternatives, or scoring. Based on their experience and knowledge”
I don’t think that you can talk on experience and knowledge using pair-wise comparisons, since it is a matter of feelings
Comparing criteria with this procedure the DM simply assigns a ratio, that is, a quantitative value based on the DM intuition. This is only a set of wishes without any mathematical support. There is no reasoning, no research, no analysis, no nothing, onlya value which, by the way, can be absurd, like saying for instance that maintenance is 3 times more important than safety in evaluating projects, and a value that can changed next day according to the mood of the DM.
It is legitimate to compare two compare two criteria; what is illogical is to assign a value to that relationship. For instance, how can the DM compare subjective criteria, like tenderness and love, and give a value for the preference?
I have been working in MCDM for the last 30 years, and I still cannot understand how this illogical comparison still takes place, especially, when a myriad of researchers have rejected it.
It is of course only my opinion, and I would be happy if somebody can explain me its rationality.
It is paramount of course to take advantage of the know-how an experience of the DM, but not trusting in what he believes or feel, at least in serious projects. It is also essential to quantify the relative importance of each criterion, no doubt about it, but using this method, against any rational thinking? Where is the logic?
2-Because they can structure complex decision-making problems”
You refer to AHP and in my opinion this is inexact. Precisely due to its lineal hierarchical structure the method is unable to solve not even medium complex problems. The reasons?
a) Using pair-wise comparisons and assigning weights does not have any mathematical or common-sense support. However, it can be used in simple personal problems where the problem is related to the DM, like selecting a movie to watch or a restaurant to dine. But the DM can’t apply it to large projects that involve thousands of people.
This is what Arrow in his ‘Incompatibility Theorem’, calls ‘dictatorship”, because nobody can vote for others, and this is exactly what AHP does. This is a well-known theorem, however, users of AHP remain silent as also remain silent on many other aspects of the method. WHY?
b) Since AHP only accepts independent criteria, it cannot be used in problems where criteria are related, as happens probably in the 99% of the real-life scenarios. The method is not to be blamed for this, because it was built in this way. It is people that are using a method that is not appropriate for their problems.
c) AHP demands that the initial matrix must be transitive, and if not, demands to correct it, what normally is almost impossible and unnecessary in complex problems to comply with this requirement, which in addition does not have any non-sense. Why a DM can’t be inconsistent? Who said that? Ans especially, on what grounds that restriction is imposed?
d) AHP assumes that what is the mind of the DM can apply, as by a decree, to the real-world. This is completely illogical from any point of view and whatever the reasoning, and Saaty himself wrote about it, when saying that this may or may be not the truth. It is also what Arrow says, since the DM is forcing the real-world to accept what he thinks
For years I have mentioned these aspects many times in RG, papers, conferences and books, but surprisingly nobody in 10 years of my participation in ResearchGate has denied or rebutted what I say. Why?
Because there are no valid arguments to support what the AHP method proposes.
With due respect, I wonder why thousands of people continue using this method, and still worse, researchers trying to “improve” it in hundreds of papers, by applying fuzzy, or discussing of preferences or analyzing inconsistencies. In my opinion, there is a trend to being blind to the whole picture by analyzing details. The whole is that the method is faulty and flawed.
In my opinion, the only reason for its wide acceptance , at least for practitioners and students, is due to the easiness of the method. The user just put what is in his mind or feeling, press the start button and voila! , gets the result, provided that a formula does not force him to change his estimates.
Sincerely, Dr. Kizielewicz, where is rationality or at least common sense in this procedure? Where is the mathematics here? Why to spend time by trying to improve something, that probably was right at its conception, since most industries, about 1950, followed
the lineal hierarchical structure, centuries old, but not longer valid in the 70s or 80s, let alone these days, when most firms adopted the network organization structure, with
multiples relationships in any direction. Even Saaty, assumed the networking by creating the ANP.
I have read hundreds of articles using AHP, and I am not judging them, because nobody appointed me as a judge. I only try to understand why this method is still used. It looks that the work of Roy, Brands, Hwang & Yang, Opricovic, that created probably imperfect but rational and thought methods, like SAW, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE, TOPSIS, VIKOR and many others, following a different way, do not have the popularity of AHP.
I guess that these methods demand reasoning, thinking, consulting, experience, know-how, analyzing, something that AHP does not ‘necessitates’, for with feelings it is enough….
If possible, I would very much appreciate your answer, either public or private (nolmunier@yahoo.com)
3- “Methods based on linear programming are advanced tools in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, enabling precise and optimal determination of criteria weights. Thanks to its mathematical basis, linear programming ensures consistency and accuracy in the decision-making process, which is particularly important in contexts requiring high precision
and minimization of subjective error. Using linear models for determining criteria weights allows for unambiguous results that reflect the actual importance of individual criteria, which is crucial for making informed and accurate decisions”.
Precise and optimal? Both are unattainable in any MCDM method
You are right regarding LP, but not on “minimization of subjective error.” LP, does not minimize subjective errors, they are not even introduced in the method. What it does is to minimize costs, pollution, water consumption etc., or maximize IRR, production or benefits looking for a balance, a compromise solution, not an optimal
What you say about LP quantifying criteria weights is true, but unfortunately, criteria weights are useless to evaluate alternatives (Shannon’s Theorem).
When you apply LP to a decision matrix you get the best ranking of projects, and at the same time the marginal utility values for only the criteria involved in the selection of the best alternative. Those utility or marginal values can in a sense, rank criteria relatively
4- “ Within methods based on linear programming, there are several widespread approaches, such as BestWorst Method (BWM), FUll COnsistency Method (FUCOM ……)”
As per my understanding the only MCDM using LP are Goal Programming and SIMUS
5- “However, all these approaches share a common feature - the desire to optimize decision-making processes by precisely determining criteria weights using linear programming.”
I believe that you are mistaken.
These are my comments. I hope they can help
Nolberto Munier
Question
# 196
Dear Paola Villalba, Antonio J. Sánchez-Garrido, Victor Yepes
I read your paper:
A review of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making methods for building assessment, selection, and retrofit
My comments:
1- In the abstract you say “assess the vulnerability of buildings.”
Why buildings should be vulnerable, unless after an earthquake of severe flooding or a tornado? Retrofitting a building 60 years old, probably still strong, although maybe it needs some repairs in the body or in its pipes, but normally they are old but not vulnerable, unless it has been severely damaged by war, fire or flood. In many cities you can see a beautiful high tower on an old first floor, and making a beautiful contrast.
I really don’t see the link between an old building and society, unless it is a ruin, home for rodents and insects. In my understanding any building must be linked to society, health and environment, regarding electricity efficiency, appropriate pipes, removing asbestos or improving the heating
2- I do not think that you must perform a bibliometric search to look for criteria. An engineer or architect can tell you what is needed; for a particular property, however, this search may be useful to complete the assessment of these two experts, who in addition, are probably more updated of new trends, materials, necessity to integrate with the environment, health, economics, law and municipal regulations, weather, earthquakes, structural conditions, etc., than exiting publications.
Remember that in the last 40- or 50-years fundamental concepts have changed, for instance schools’ organization, hospital new services, lighting, heating, water conservation, forestation of cities, new structures for offices, transportation, insulation materials, paints, earthquake resistance, nearby highways, etc., and of course, considering that there is never a structure identical to another.
3- In page 8 you mention using pair-wise comparison method. In my opinion that procedure, that allows criteria pair preference, is the most senseless method used in MCDM, and has been discussed, and rejected by most researchers since the late 80s. It is OK to establish preferences on a criterion over another, we do that hundred of times everyday, but it is absurd to put a quantitative value for that preference, especially with subjective criteria, as cultural gain and using GIS
4- In page 7 you used these two words ‘Anti-Corruption measures’ related to schools. Sorry, but I unable to find a social issue and corruption linked to education, unless you are talking about sociology.
5- Page 7 “achieve seismic and energy efficiency”
I understand energy efficiency but seismic efficiency? Wouldn’t be better to talk about seismic resistance?
6- Page 8 “Pairwise comparison methods are used to determine the weight of different criteria based on decision makers’ knowledge; the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)”
Redetermine? Based on intuitions? I would say that the trade- ffs obtained, not weights, from AHP, only represent what is in the mind and mood of the DM, and after they are mandatorily “corrected” by a formula ,if they do not produce a transitive matrix. Very mathematical indeed!
There not feedbacks in ANP, that was an assumption that Saaty never explained.
7- Page 9 “Weights were generated by averaging the ANP and AHP models”
This seems incorrect because you cannot compute an average of two different things as AHP and AN P, because the first only works with independent criteria and only in a hierarchical top-down approach, while ANP can work with any type of criteria and in a y direction. The first follows line of operations while the second follows networks
8- Page 9 “Therefore, 29 articles included sensitivity analyses through the variation of criteria weights”
And this is incorrect because variation of criteria produced by weights do not participate in the evaluation of alternatives, that mostly depend on the discrimination in each criterion, something not related to weights
9- Page 9 “Several studies have combined pairwise comparison MCDM methods with fuzzy methodologies to improve the accuracy of decision-making processes: the hierarchical analytic fuzzy method using fuzzy triangular numbers
Fuzzy is a very good technique when used wisely, which is not the case of AHP, since the weights are invented values, and what fuzzy does is to have the average of those values which does not have any utility in real projects. They only represent the coherence of throe DM
10- In Figure 6 page 11 it is shown a Venn diagram showing the intersection of three criteria. This is the correct way to work, however, the diagram should have as many circles as the number of criteria, and the intersection of possibly most of them, determines the common space where are all feasible solutions of the problem. In this case the warped triangular with 17% is the common space for these three criteria. This same representation is very commonly used to illustrate the mutual interdependency in sustainability, linking Society, Environment and Economics. I like very much your contribution on this aspect
11- Page 11 “The literature review underscores the necessity of achieving consensus within the scientific community regarding the criteria to be evaluated across various dimensions”
Agreed, albeit I recommend not using the word ‘dimension’, because it has another meaning, especially in rank reversal, where it is equivalent to number of alternatives
12- Page 12 “Regarding building retrofitting, the current approach emphasizes the integration of four dimensions: safety, economic, social, and environmental”
I wouldn’t put it as a new approach since researcher and practitioners have been inputting the four of them since 1960.
These are my comments, I hope they can help
Nolberto Munier
Question
# 197
Dear Mai Mohamed, Asmaa Elsayed
I read your paper
Evaluation of Renewable Energy Sources for a Sustainable Future: A Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Approach
My comments:
1- Page 2 you say “Wind energy is a clean, renewable source with a relatively low environmental impact during operation”
Yes, it provides clean energy during operation, but from the environmental point of view it also produces hundred of thousands of bird deaths, noise, and at the end of their useful life, the enormous blades must be buried in land fields, because at present there are not further uses for them.
In addition, their load factor may be very variable with the corresponding generation variability. They can work day and night provided that wind is blowing between a range of force, and of course, this is not guaranteed. They are very expensive and capital intensive., are more efficient than photovoltaic (PV) and demanding much less land for the same output than PV
2- Page 5 “This method is advantageous for its ability to emphasize the relative importance of criteria by considering both the absolute and relative differences in criteria values “
Relative criteria values are useful to rank criteria importance and producing trade-offs, useful in compensation methods. Criteria values are useless to evaluate alternatives, berceuse they consider a criterion as the envelop of a series of performance values.
This is irrelevant for alternatives evaluation because it depends on discrimination of these performance values, within the envelope. There is a theorem on this (Shannon). Therefore, the LOPCOW method does not appear to be very useful
3- I would like to know how the MAIRCA method can compare obtained alternatives evaluations with an ideal. TOPSIS uses a similar procedure but using inputted real data.
4- Page 6 “of T2NN [43] In the context of T2NN, linguistic values are used to express subjective assessments or evaluations in decision-making processes. These linguistic values are used to capture the uncertainty”
Therefore, you apply a method with very high subjectivity. How could it be compared with a real-life scenario? Another team of experts could reach different values? Which is correct, the first team or the second?
5- In page 9 you detail the different criteria. Do you really believe that with only five criteria you can evaluate a complex problem like this? I would have added many more like:
· Load factor for wind and PV that depends on many factors
· Relation of wind and PV to wind force, due to over high force wind
· An ancillary work is to construct steel towers for wind turbines, maintenance, loss of energy when the wind passes through rows, of turbines in rows
· Material and environmental cost for dismantling towers at the end of their life
· Possibility of towers and PV sharing available land
· Nearness of constructions or natural mountains that decrease the wind force
· Cost of transportation of blades 100 metres long,
· Wind stability and continuity, etc.
Regarding PV. Depending on:
· Latitude
· Weather
· Max air temperature
· Humidity
· Cost of metal structure
· Cost of cells
· Cost installation
· Environmental contamination, etc.
Same for other alternatives
6- Page 5 “Evaluating renewable energy options requires a comprehensive approach considering environmental, economic, and social factors. However, integrating these diverse perspectives into a cohesive decision-making framework is a significant challenge. One of the main hurdles is coordinating and managing collaboration among experts from different fields
I am 100% in agreement with you. It is interesting what you say in the second d paragraph when speaking about integration. This is exactly the same I say further in my comment. Does your method do it? Apparently not
The third paragraph is still more important and it is something that I have pointed out many times in RG, i.e. how to coordinate the opinions on certain aspects, for instance, between a geologist and an environmental guy, or an engineer and a financial guy? They talk different languages
7- Page 11. You solve a problem and find a ranking of Wind > Geo > Hydro > PV
I also solve this problem using SIMUS method and got: PV > Geo > Wind > Hydro
Your Qi value gives the importance of each alternative and therefore, it is equivalent to the score used in most MCDM methods to quantify the importance of each alternative.
The only difference is that for you the smaller the Qi corresponds to the best a;ternative ,while in general in MCDM the larger the sc ore the better, but of course both are valid
Both rankings are different. Let me tell you something; SIMUS does not use any weights or subjectivity. It is based on Linear Programming (LP) that follows the Simplex algorithm with results guaranteed by a very well-known theorem. Consequently, there is a big chance that its results are correct. This, naturally has no relation with the quality of your procedure and SIMUS. No comparison is made
I perform a sensitivity analysis on both the best alternatives that is Wind in your case and PV in my case.
Both solutions coincide in proving that both solutions are very strong, yours better than mine, in the sense that your shows that criteria have a wider leeway for incr4easing the important criteria., which is a good measure of strength for an alternative.
However, both first alternatives were tested using sensitivity analysis b y SIMUS, which is not really the case here.
Now, look at the scores for each alternative in each case:
SIMUS: 0.51>0.5 >0.32 > 0.20, or PV>Geo>Wind> Hydro
T2NN and
TOPSIS: 0.09> 0.19 >0.13 > 0.19, or Wind>Geo>Hydro>PV
Examining SIMUS result and investigating rationally about this ranking we have these comments from reputed sources
a) ENERDATA-In 2023, global renewable installation reached new records, with 349 GW of new solar capacity (twice the 2022 installations) and 113 GW of new wind capacity.
b- Artificial Intelligence asked about PV vs Wind -Solar PV
Answer: Growth: Solar PV generation has grown rapidly in recent years, especially in China, the United States, the European Union, and India.
c- International Energy Agency (IEA)- Solar PV generation increased by a record 270 TWh (up 26%) in 2022, reaching almost 1 300 TWh. It demonstrated the largest absolute generation growth of all renewable technologies in 2022, surpassing wind for the first time in history. Solar PV generation increased by a record 270 TWh (up 26%) in 2022, reaching almost 1 300 TWh. https://www.iea.org/energy-system/renewables/solar-pv.
I strongly suggest to look curves in Figure “Share of renewable electricity generation by technology, 2000-2030”
Why this sharp difference between SIMUS and 2TNN-MAIRCA, when the latter puts PV in the last place?
Hard to say, however, in my opinion, it is due that SIMUS is the only MCDM method that works considering simultaneously all criteria and all alternatives, that is, considering the initial matrix as the mathematical representation of a system, and in so doing taking into account all the possible interrelationships. I remind that TOPSIS and all MCDM methods (except LP),work considering criterion by criterion.
Since SIMUS does not use weights, it clearly shows that weights do not play any function in alternatives evaluation.
Nonetheless, wind surpasses PV in efficiency and land use and even in cost per MWh produced, but the environment must pay a high price for having blades buried and the end of their life
At present, many laboratories around the world are working on organic photovoltaic cells, (OPV), that if successful will decrees drastically PV cost, contamination, structure, etc.
Coming back to your Qi values. The difference between wind and PV is 0.19 – 0.09 = 0.10
This means that there is a 111% de difference regarding the wind value. This is highly uncredible. since even when wind has some important advantages over wind, in cost, efficiency and land used than PV, these advantages in no case surpass the 100%.
If it were the case, how it can be justified, when according to ENERDATA, installation in 2023 in PV is more that 200% higher than wind? If you consider the percentage of difference between wind and PV in SIMUS, you can verify that this percentage is 44%
These are my comments, hoping that they can help
Nolberto Munier
Question
# 195
Dear Mustafa seçkin Şalvarlı
I read your paper
Determining social media marketing tools using AHP method in evaluating digital marketing initiatives
My comments”
1- “The primary objective of this research is to utilize the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to strategically evaluate and select optimal social media marketing tools tailored for businesses.”
It is really surprising for me that you want to optimize, something most normally impossible in MCDM, let alone using AHP, with assumed weights without any mathematical support
2- Page 2 “a robust multi-criteria decision-making framework, offers a systematic approach to navigate this complexity”
I ask you, how a method can be robust if it is based on intuitions?
3- Page 2 “Sensitivity analysis in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) plays a pivotal role in enhancing the robustness and credibility of decision-making frameworks, particularly in the strategic evaluation and selection of social media marketing tools
Sensitivity analysis (SA) in AHP is flawed because:
a- Considers only one criterion for variation ignoring the others, what is known as OAT (one at a time) as well as selecting the criterion according the one in the set with the highest weight, with no mathematical support, although intuitively may appear correct. Since a MCDM problem including alternatives and criteria is a system, the use of OAT is incorrect. It should consider ALL criteria at the same time,as well as the influence or relationship between criteria.
b- The process adds increasing values arbitrarily, because the DM does not know if the criterion accepts that variation. It has a mathematical explanation but common sense indicates that this is wrong. It is as pretending to store an increasing number of different objects in a box, but ignoring if the box has the appropriate capacity.
4- Page 2 “transparency of the AHP methodology by revealing the sensitivity of results to changes in input values “
Transparency? When the DM estimates may be forcefully ‘corrected’ by a formula?
5- Page 4 “The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured decision-making framework that facilitates rational and informed evaluationsacross various criteria”
Rational? Where is rationality in AHP, working with absurd quantitative estimates of one criterion on another
Is it rational not to consider the resources needed for a project?
Is it rational to think that what is in the mind of the DM applies to the real-world
Do you know what Saaty, the creator of AHP said?
He referred to that point and said that it is only an assumption, acknowledging that the transitive weights may not represent real-life
6- Page 4 “This methodology enhances transparency and objectivity in the selection process by employing
Curiously, you talk about objectivity when AHP is fundamentally a subjective method
7- Page 4 “AHPs iterative pairwise comparison method fosters a transparent decision-making”
The fact that you compare pairs of criteria does not mean that the method is iterative. This term means than a process is repeated in a series of continues steps, where each one is based on the former, and trying to converge to the best solution, and as far as I know, AHP does not do that.
8- Page 4 “AHP facilitates a comparative assessment of various tools based on strategic criteria such as effectiveness, cost-efficiency, and user engagement potential”
I do not think that these three criteria are independent, since effectiveness is linked with cost-efficiency. Consequently, AHP is not the most appropriate method for your scenario, since it demands independence of criteria, that you do not have here.
10- Page 4 “Additionally, the application of AHP can integrate qualitative factors that are often overlooked in traditional selection methods, thus aligning with strategic goals more effectively (Munier & Hontoria, 2021)”
I do not remember writing this paragraph in my book, as you claim, especially the underlined part of the paragraph
11- Page 4 “effectively encapsulating expert opinions while minimizing biased”
And how do you minimize these biases? If you detect one, just eliminate it
12- Page 4 “the AHP algorithm calculates the priority vectors, which rank the alternatives according to their overall importance”
This is incorrect for the so called weights are only trade-offs value, that cannot be used to evaluate alternatives. They do not have that capacity because they are not ranked per discrimination of values within each criterion. That is done by entropy with a theorem to support that
13- Page 4 “the key criteria against which the tools will be evaluated must be defined. These were determined in the study as follows”
Not really, it is the opposite, for you cannot define criteria if you do not know the alternatives they must evaluate. Yes, I know that it is the AHP procedure, but in my opinion that precedence of criteria before alternatives, does not have sense.
These are my comments. I am not reviewing, judging or criticizing your article, only expressing my opinions, but frankly, there are many misconceptions, and got the impression that I was reading a commercial advertisement for AHP, instead of a technical paper
I hope that my comments can be of help
Nolberto Munier
Question
# 194
Dear Jakub Więckowski, Paweł Białoń, Wojciech Sałabun
I read your paper:
Comparative sensitivity analysis of single and multiple modifications in multi-criteria decision analysis
My comments:
1- In page 3 you say: “However, existing studies primarily focus on different criteria-weight scenarios, leaving an unexplored gap in the simultaneous modification of multiple values within the decision matrix. This paper integrates sensitivity analysis within the MCDA methods, extending its role in the comprehensive assessment of decision problems.
Reference is made to the underlined paragraph. You are right on what you say, especially considering the simultaneous modification of multiple values, which is indeed a little explored area, if any
2- You also say “Sensitivity analysis becomes crucial in offering decision-makers a broader perspective, aiding them in navigating the complexities of decision-making in dynamic environments”.
However, in my opinion, your get short in assessing the importance of sensitivity analysis (SA), since it is a mandatory procedure, albeit you focus on matrix values, instead of the values of criteria, which is the more common.
As a proof of concept your idea is feasible, but I think it is not realistic, and I will explain this assertion
As I understand, the paper refers to one of the forms of SA, i.e., to investigate the strength of the best solution when performance values in the decision matrix are changed either by increasing or decreasing, different to the other SA that analyzes the strength of the best solution when you change the value of whole criteria. However, both have the same type of effect, that is, possibility to alter the ranking of alternatives, and both work with the same values, the first with those within a criterion, and the second with the total value of the criterion.
3- “problem evaluations were developed, considering different approaches for examining the robustness of the results [31]. Those frameworks proposed a methodology for evaluating Management Option Rank Equivalence (MORE) approach [21, 20], identifying the most critical criterion [28], examining the ranking robustness to the Rank Reversal (RR) paradox”
I do not know what frameworks you are referring to, but I am sure that RR is not linked to them, for frameworks have no links with robustness. The latter is related to the best alternative keeping its position in a ranking, when a criterion is increased of decreased, and depending on its allowable variation, that certainly may produce displacement of an established ranking.
RR is a geometric natural condition, and clearly not a paradox, related to adding or deleting alternatives, something not linked to SA.
4- “A more beneficial approach could be utilized by examining simultaneous changes in multiple values, which reflects the intricacies of real-world decision problems more accurately’
Exactly, but unfortunately, ignored by 99% of the SA procedures, that consider that OAT or ceteris paribus, is correct, without any mathematical support
5- “A more beneficial approach could be utilized by examining simultaneouschanges in multiple values, which reflects the intricacies of real-world decision problems more accurately”
Very true, and also not considered by most SA methods
6- “Moreover, existing approaches in this direction remain underdeveloped, limiting the extraction of potential insights from sensitivity analysis in the results from the MCDA methods. This highlights an apparent research gap that should be thoroughly investigated”
I am afraid that you are not aware that this has been investigated, and simultaneous changes in multiple values can be done easily using the SIMUS method (Munier, 2011)
7- At the beginning I said that your method, even considering that is a great advance over the conventional MCDM more that 200 methods, is not realistic, and I detail here are my reasons after examining your example.
a) It does not identify which are the criteria that are significant for the alternative selected. As I understand, you consider them all. In your example, C2 is irrelevant, according to your problem that I solved by Linear Programming (LP) that gives mathematically exact results, not approximations. Therefore, considering variations in C 2 does not modify the ranking, and this can even be visualized in a simple graph depicting the two alternatives as throe axes of a coordinates system, and the criteria by straight lines.
b) Your increasing is arbitrary, and most important, it does not take into account if they are allowable variation or gap for each criterion or in the performance values. It could be that one of them, say C3, cannot be increased in 0.3.
It does not consider that SA must be done for each alternative, and that the selected alternative may be affected by different criteria
Your example: “For three criteria in the problem, bounds B could be defined as B = [3, 2, 4], meaning that the value of the first criterion would be modeled in the range of 3% modification (b1 = 3%), the second criterion in range of 2% modification (b2 = 2%), and third criterion in the range of 4% modification (b3 = 4%)”
And where these values come from? I do not think that this realistic. They are only assumed values
c) You are using several MCDM methods, and all of them do not represent reality, because each criterion is considered independently, when they should relate as a whole and simultaneously
The result from LP indicates that A1 and A2 have the same score, and then, have the same importance, and that C3 is the most important criterion, with a value or weight of 1.79, while C2 = 0
Solved by SIMUS, which is heuristic, and cannot give optimal solutions like LP,gives the same scores for A1 and A 23 than PL
It also shows that C2 =0, same as LP, and that C1 and C3 may have an infinite increment and a decrement of only 0.5
I would be glad to share with you colleagues, my calculations.
These are my comments, hope they can help
Nolberto Munier
Question
# 175
Dear Samia Fekih
I apologize for my delay in Answering your response; I had not seen it before
1) I agree
2) I agree
3) I disagree. Weights are trade-offs and thus, they are useless to evaluate alternatives.
AHP is unable to be used here because stakeholders may generate criteria that are interrelated
Pair-wise comparison is not acceptable.You cannot put a preference value at your will.
4- I do not know what you mean with alternative generation. As a fact alternatives must precede the selection of weights. You cannot assign weights on something that yo don’t of know
5- Please tell ne how you evaluate impact assessment
Cost-benefit analysis is not a MCDMA technique. It is a simple ratio, ans was developed long befre MCDA
Question
# 192
Dear Jonathan Barzilai
I read your article:
Notes on the Analytic Hierarchy Process
My comments:
1- Abstract: “This progress report outlines the main reasons why Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP, see [17] and [18]) is not a valid methodology.
I agree since it has not been designed to address not even medium complex projects, however, it can be used to solve personal and trivial problems where intuition and personal involvement are important
2- Page 2 “Unfortunately, as we will see below, other aspects of the MHP are the basis of common decision methodologies errors.
Absolutely true. The MHP/AHP following a lineal hierarchy, inherited from the army, only considers one direction ‘top-bottom’ with no room to transversal relationships which are common in all projects.
3- Page 2 “In addition, the use of the eigenvector method to implement the procedure where is the preference reconciling inconsistent input is a mathematical error. As a result of this error, the output of this procedure depends on the description of the problem — an unacceptable property of any algorithm”
I do not know if it is a mathematical error, but I am convinced that forcing a matrix to be consistent is an aberration, just to justify the use of the Eigen Value method
4- Page 3 “As we will see below, the procedures provided by the MHP/AHP for computing the numbers xj flawed”
There is no doubt about it, when you consider assigning invented weights to a relationship
5- Page 5 “Furthermore, affine measurement of preference cannot be performed through pair wise comparisons”
Obvious. Pair-wise comparisons is a measure of intuitive estimates without any foundation.
6- Page 6 “This is akin to saying that rank reversal can be avoided by measuring in kilometers instead of miles
Agreed
7- Page 6 “This erroneous conclusion is based on his claim that the flaw is that rank reversal is a symptom of arbitrary rankings”
This claim is absurd. RR is not phenomenon in a system, it is a logical occurrence when alternatives are added or deleted, and this is due to geometrical properties
8- Page 6 “Of course, no methodology should be considered valid unless it is fully understood”
It is difficult to understand or rationalize AHP features. It is a system built on assumptions that after 70 years nobody could justify because they do not have the most elemental mathematical support and also violating common sense.
These are my comments
Nolberto Munier
Question
# 191
Dear Jonathan Barzilai
I read your article:
Notes on the Analytic Hierarchy Process
My comments:
1- Abstract: “This progress report outlines the main reasons why Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP, see [17] and [18]) is not a valid methodology.
I would say that I agree since it has not been designed to address not even medium complex projects, however, it can be used to solve personal and trivial problems where intuition and personal involvement are important
2- Page 2 “Unfortunately, as we will see below, other aspects of the MHP are the basis of common decision methodologies errors.
Absolutely true. The MHP/AHP following a lineal hierarchy, inherited from the army, only considers one direction ‘top-down’ with no room to transversal relationships which are common in all projects.
3- Page 2 “In addition, the use of the eigenvector method to implement the procedure where is the preference reconciling inconsistent input is a mathematical error. As a result of this error, the output of this procedure depends on the description of the problem — an unacceptable property of any algorithm”
I do not know if it is a mathematical error, but I am convinced that forcing a matrix to be consistent is an aberration, just to justify the use of the Eigen Value method
4- Page 3 “As we will see below, the procedures provided by the MHP/AHP for computing the numbers xj flawed”
There is no doubt about it, when you consider assigning invented weights to a relationship
5- Page 5 “Furthermore, affine measurement of preference cannot be performed through pair wise comparisons”
Obvious. Pair-wise comparisons is a measure of intuitive estimates without any foundation.
6- Page 6 “This is akin to saying that rank reversal can be avoided by measuring in kilometers instead of miles
Agreed
7- Page 6 “This erroneous conclusion is based on his claim that the flaw is that rank reversal is a symptom of arbitrary rankings”
This claim is absurd. RR is not phenomenon in a system, it is a logical occurrence when alternatives are added or deleted, and this is due to geometrical properties
8- Page 6 “Of course, no methodology should be considered valid unless it is fully understood”
It is difficult to understand or rationalised AHP features. It is a system built on assumptions that after 70 years nobody could justify because they do not have the most elemental mathematical support and also violating common sense.
These are my comments
Nolberto Munier

Network

Cited By