Dear Alexandre;

Can you please have a look at my studies on the researchgate profile?

Saracoglu B.O., "A PROMETHEE I, II and GAIA based approach by Saaty’s subjective criteria weighting for small hydropower plant investments in Turkey", International Journal of Renewable Energy Technology, 2016, Vol.7, No.2, 163-183, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJRET.2016.076094 (http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=76094)

Saracoglu B.O., "A Qualitative Multi-Attribute Model for the Selection of the Private Hydropower Plant Investments in Turkey: By Foundation of the Search Results Clustering Engine (Carrot2), Hydropower Plant Clustering, DEXi and DEXiTree", Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management, 2016, Vol.9, No.1, 152-178, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3926/jiem.1142 (http://www.jiem.org/index.php/jiem/article/view/1142)

Saracoglu B.O., "A Comparative Study Of AHP, ELECTRE III & ELECTRE IV By Equal Objective & Shannon’s Entropy Objective & Saaty’s Subjective Criteria Weighting On The Private Small Hydropower Plants Investment Selection Problem In Turkey", International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2015, Vol.7, No.3, 470-512, DOI: 10.13033/ijahp.v7i3.343 (http://ijahp.org/index.php/IJAHP/article/view/343)

Saracoglu B.O., "An Experimental Research of Small Hydropower Plant Investments Selection in Turkey by Carrot2, DEXi, DEXiTree", Journal of Investment and Management, 2015, Vol.4, No.1, 47-60, DOI: 10.11648/j.jim.20150401.17 (http://www.sciencepublishing group.com/j/jim)

Saracoglu B.O., "An AHP Application In The Investment Selection Problem Of Small Hydropower Plants In Turkey", International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, 2015, Vol.7, No.2, 211-239, DOI: 10.13033/ijahp.v7i2.198 (http://www.ijahp.org/index.php/IJAHP/article/view/198)

Saracoglu B.O., "An Experimental Research Study On The Solution Of A Private Small Hydropower Plant Investments Selection Problem By ELECTRE III/IV, Shannon’s Entropy & Saaty’s Subjective Criteria Weighting", Advances in Decision Sciences, 2015, Article ID 548460, DOI:10.1155/2015/548460. (http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ads/2015/5484 60/)

You will find the details there.

If you want we can prepare together. Please find my e-mail address on these documents.

If you would like to study only the selection problem (only that part), I recommend you to follow my study "AN AHP APPLICATION IN THE INVESTMENT SELECTION PROBLEM OF SMALL HYDROPOWER PLANTS IN TURKEY".

I can send its templates to you too.

There are also many parts that should be studied in due time according to your study. You will find some issues related with the research investigations in my other studies including an additional one Saracoglu B.O., "Location Selection Factors of Small Hydropower Plant Investments Powered By SAW, Grey WPM & Fuzzy DEMATEL Based On Human Natural Language Perception", International Journal of Renewable Energy Technology, 2017, Vol.8, No.1, 1-23, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJRET.2017.080867

(http://www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=80867).

Please have a look at these studies and contact to me.

Have a nice day

Wish you success

Burak

Thank you very much Burak

Dear Alexander

Could you please to elaborate a little more about your points 1) and 2). I am afraid I don't get what you are asking for

Dear Alexander,

I am not able to clearly understand your problem.

For point 2): You can use any Likert scale (maybe 1-5 or 1-7). It will not affect your results to some extent. 

Thank you very much 

Dr. Nolberto

In my point:  1) I can considering that each chemical product don't have equal importance (based in different chemical proprieties) and each product must to be a different value, this sounds correct?

I try to ignore values of equal importance in my pairwise comparison matrix and for this I thinking in force diferente importance values in Saaty scale for each insecticide (5 in my study) or don't considering value 1 (Equal importance) this is correct?

Alexander

In my point:  1) I can considering that each chemical product don't have equal importance (based in different chemical proprieties) and each product must to be a different value, this sounds correct?

I believe that there is a misunderstanding here. The importance of each chemical product is NOT based on their different chemical properties, but in how well each chemical satisfies a set of criteria. For instance, you can have chemicals A, B, C, and D, each one with different chemical properties (or even the same chemical with different proportions if its components), and subject to a set of criteria such as:

Cost

Efficiency

Risk

Contamination of soil, etc

The four chemicals may have different values for each criterion. For instance chemical A may have a cost of 0.23, an efficiency of 0.78, a risk of 0.10 and produced a contamination value in say 0.3. ppm, and a chemical B may have the same values for cost and contamination, while the four have the same value for risk, etc.

Their diverse chemical composition is what makes them different, and then they constitute the various options of the problem (in your case:5). Precisely, by using MCDM we want to determine their relative importance, which reflects how well each one complies with all criteria. Therefore, your statement does not appear to be correct.

I try to ignore values of equal importance in my pairwise comparison matrix and for this I thinking in force diferente importance values in Saaty scale for each insecticide (5 in my study) or don't considering value 1 (Equal importance) this is correct

I believe it is not correct, for what I said above.

In applying AHP you must first determine the relative importance of each criterion regarding to the main goal or objective. Using a pair-wise comparison between criteria, AHP will tell you the weight of each criterion

In a second step you pair -wise compare your 5 options or chemicals products regarding each criterion, and then applying the corresponding weight

If more clarification is needed don't hesitate in contacting me

Dear Alexander,

As Nolberto said, you cannot erase the equals values just because they are equal. (Equal is just another comparison option of the Saaty's scale). You have to compare the criteria among them, and then the 5 alternatives under each criterion.

By the way, You should not try a different scale to compare. If you do that, the transformation is not as simple as you think (5=9, 4=7, etc..).

And please, do not use the scale to evaluate the alternatives (as the ordinal Liker scale does). That is a gross mistake.

Regards,

Claudio

Dear Alexander

I agree with Claudio and very especially concerning his second paragraph.

As far as I understand you cannot mix AHP scale with Liker's

Dear Alexander,

Maybe you will find useful:

There is an approach that does not use the scale to "equal" during paired comparisons. This case corresponds to a missed pairwise comparison (here need processing incomplete pairwise comparison matrices). The idea is that the Decision Maker does not give any additional information on the ratio of objects / alternatives in both cases (when "equal alternatives" and ignoring of the pairwise comparison).

please, see, for example: [Tsyganok V.V., Kadenko S.V., Andriichuk O.V. Usage of Scales with Different Number of Grades for Pair Comparisons in Decision Support Systems.  International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. – 2016. – vol. 8, issue 1. – P.112-130.  (http://dx.doi.org/10.13033/ijahp.v8i1.259 )].