International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Home About Us Scope Editorial Board Blog/Latest News Contact Us
10th percentile
Powered by  Scopus
Scopus coverage:
Nov 2018 to May 2020


IJSTR >> Volume 3- Issue 5, May 2014 Edition

International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research  
International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research

Website: http://www.ijstr.org

ISSN 2277-8616

A Designed Paradigm for Contestant Quality Evaluation using Analytic Hierarchy Process

[Full Text]



Alade O. A., Ganiyu R. A., Oladipupo E. T.



Index Terms: Analytic hierarchy process, consistency ratio, priority vector, pair-wise comparison matrix, random index



Abstract: Election of contestants into positions in a civilized society is a product of choice among few or many alternatives. In order to make a good choice among the available alternatives, a number of criteria must be considered. Several methods had been adopted in the past at local, national and international scene but in most cases with prejudice and biasness. These had subsequently produced contentious results which eventually led to political violence and insecurity. This paper proposes a multi-criteria decision making algorithm which is based on Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for quality leadership selection, free of strive and violence. Alternative election contestants were considered; the required qualities for a post were defined. Their evaluations were translated into reciprocal matrix in order to determine the priority vector while the validity of the designed paradigm was assessed using secondary data. Out of the three alternative election contestants under consideration, the results of the designed paradigm show that the political aspirant Y is the best choice, followed by aspirant X and aspirant Z. That is, it can be inferred that aspirant Y is 3.87 times more preferable than choice Z, and choice Y is 1.3 times more preferable than choice X. Also, the obtained overall composite weight of 0.092 further proves that the result of the analysis is consistent. Thus, the practical application of the designed paradigm would eliminate an atmosphere of rancor, which may arise from unfair selection of contestants and decision making processes.



[1]. Y. Chena, H. Lienb,G. Tzengc and L.Yange, "Fuzzy MCDM approach for selecting the best environment-watershed plan", pp. 1-13, 2009.

[2]. H. K. Chiou, G. H. Tzeng and D. C. Cheng, "Evaluating sustainable fishing development strategies using fuzzy MCDM approach". Elsevier , 33 (3), pp. 223234, 2005.

[3]. S. A. Hajkowcz, G. T. McDonald and P. N. Smith, " An evaluation of multiple objective support weighting technique in natural resource management", Journal of Environmental Planning and Management , 43, pp.505-518.

[4]. J. Anada and G. Herath, " A critical review of multi-criteria decision making methods with special reference to forest management and planning", Ecological Economics , 68, pp. 2535-2548, 2009.

[5]. C. J. Hwang and P. Vincke, "Multi-attribute decision making methos and applications", Spingers , 86,1981.

[6]. J. P. Brans and P. Vinche, "A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method for MCDM", Management Sciences , 31 (6), pp. 647-656, 1985.

[7]. O. Roux and J. Elloy, "ELECTRE: a language using control structure expression to specify synchronization", Range of Computing Method: Mid 80s Perspectives, pp. 240-245, CO, USA: ACM, 1985.

[8]. T. L. Saaty, "Priorities in systems with feedback", International Journal of System Measurement and Decision, 1, pp. 24-38, 1981.

[9]. D.Von Winterfeldt and W. Edwaards, "Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research", Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

[10]. R. I. Keeney, "Creativity in MS/OR: Value focussed thinking - creativity diredted towards dedision making", Interfaces , 23 (3), pp. 62-67, 1993.

[11]. T. L. Saaty, "A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structure", Journal of mathematical psychology , 15, pp. 19-43, 1977.

[12]. F. E. Uzoka, O. Okure, K. Barker and J. Osuji, " An experimental comparison of fuzzy logic and analytic hierarchy process for medical decision support systems. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine , 103, pp. 10-27, 2011.

[13]. Kristof, "Planning improvement using analytical hierarchy process and design structure matrix, Montana: Montana State Univeristy, 2005.

[14]. R. Mosadeghi, R. Tomlinson, H. Mirfenderesk and J. Warnken, "Coastal management issues in Queensland and application of the Multi- Criteria Decision Making techniques", Journal of Coastal Research , Special Issue , (56), pp. 1252 - 1256, 2009.

[15]. V. A. Salmonon and J. A. Montevechi, " A compilation of comparisons on the analytic hierarchy process and othe multi-criteria decision making methods: Some cases developed in Brazil", 6th ISAHP Conference, pp. 413-420, 2001, Berne, Switzerland.