Aplicación del proceso de jerarquía analítica (AHP) para la toma de decisión con juicios de expertos

Abstract

RESUMENCuando se busca una mayor precisión en el análisis de decisiones complejas, se hace necesario recurrir a diferentes técnicas de la Investigación de Operaciones, particularmente en la Teoría de decisiones. Sin embargo, la mayoría de estas pueden ser inadecuadas para manejar desempates de elecciones o disparidad en decisiones grupales por determinadas razones. En este artículo ampliamos los casos de aplicación del esquema metodológico del Proceso de jerarquía analítica (AHP) para abordar problemas en consensos de expertos. Primero, se verifica que esta sea una técnica que garantice el conjunto de preferencias necesarias en un juicio de expertos, luego, aplicamos un procedimiento de priorización usando la media geométrica, para verificar, alcanzar y mejorar el nivel de consenso de grupo por medio de esta técnica de decisión. Finalmente, se ilustra el esquema desarrollado mediante un caso de aplicación en el sector de la logística industrial, llegando a resultados positivos que señalan su efectividad y aplicabilidad dentro del campo de la Teoría de decisiones.Palabras clave: Proceso de jerarquía analítica, teoría de decisiones, investigación de operaciones. ABSTRACTWhen finely analyzing complex decisions, it is necessary to use several methods of operational research, decision theory in particular. However, these normally cannot handle election tie-breakers or disagreement in group decisions for certain reasons. In this article, we extend the range of the methodological scheme of the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) to address problems in reaching consensus among experts. First, we verify that it is a technique that guarantees the necessary set of preferences in an expert judgment; then we apply a prioritization procedure with the geometric mean to verify, reach and improve the level of consensus of the group via this technique. Finally, through a case of application in the industrial logistics sector, the scheme developed is illustrated, reaching positive results that indicate its effectiveness and applicability within the field of the Decision Theory.

Is Coffee (Coffea arabica L.) Quality Related to a Combined Farmer–Farm Profile?

“…They were invited to prioritize each of the selected variables in order to define farmer profile and farm profile. For the comparison of the variables (criteria) in each profile, the frame of the analysis hierarchical process (AHP) tool up to the third level was used [27], following the methodology proposed by Mendoza [28] and supported by a computer tool that allowed real-time knowledge of the weights assigned to each variable by performing paired comparison between variables. The convergence among experts was analyzed using the relative interquartile range (RIR) index to assure an acceptability level (RIR < 10%).…”

Sustainable Development in the Colombian Post-Conflict—The Impact of Renewable Energies in Coffee-Growing Women

“…These criteria were evaluated by 14 experts in coffee-related matters (professionals in engineering, agricultural and social sciences) with knowledge and extensive certified experience (>5 years). To compare the criteria, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to the third level [19] was used to strengthen decision making, following the methodology proposed by Mendoza et al [20] and supported by a computer tool that allowed real-time knowledge of weights assigned to each criterion by performing pair-wise comparisons between variables. Convergence among experts was analyzed using the relative interquartile range (RIR) index to ensure a level of acceptability (RIR < 10%) [21].…”

Application of Standard Indicators for the Quantification of SDGS in the Environmental Assessment of Civil Engineering Projects

“…Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) [7]. It consists of a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions, based on human perception and the TOPSIS.…”