# 106

The uncertainty related to the inexactitude of prioritization based on c

onsistent pairwise comparisons Pawel Tadeusz Kazibudzki

Dear colleague

I have read your well documented and developed analysis on pair-wise comparisons, and I really cannot help writing you about a subject that I still do not understand, and looking for a clarification.

I am precisely not a fan of AHP which, starting with the Thurstone’s concept in 1927, popularized the pair-wise comparisons use, that Saaty used to create a MCDM method that, from my point of view, is deeply flawed on many counts.

The main drawback of AHP them is using pair-wise comparisons; my question:

On what purpose?

Why to compare two criteria when quantifying one by one is more effective, using say a 1 to 10 scale, a Liker scale or any other?

On what grounds we can say that criterion C4 is 3 times more important than say criterion C1? Just based on intuitions and feelings? Not very scientific, I would say!

Wouldn’t it be more logical, more reasonable and effective, to appraise a criterion quantitatively, based on reasoning, research, experience, know-how, and discussion with other DMs, about the importance of that criterion? Of course, it is subjective, but by far more accurate that the intuition of a DM.

The reason is that a criterion weighted is this way, can be argued, discussed, reassessed, and thus, have it evaluated on solid grounds?

In addition, why there must be consistency when it normally does not exist in most real-life decisions?

Why, do people waste their time in analyzing something that is completerly biased, and still worse, applying fuzzy on invented estimates?

I would be very grateful, if you, obviously an expert in this subject could explain it to me, and it could happen that I am mistaken. I have formulated this and other similar questions in RG along 8 or 9 years, and received not a single answer.

Thank you for you time

Regards

Nolberto Munier