European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393

www.elsevier.com/locate/dsw

Consistency stability intervals for a judgement in AHP

decision support systems

n, Mar
ıa Teresa Escobar, Jos
e Mar
ıa Moreno-Jim
enez
Juan Aguaro *

Facultad de Economicas, Dpto. Metodos Estadisticos, Universidad de Zaragoza, Gran Via 2, 50005 Zaragoza, Spain

Abstract

This paper focuses on the need to evaluate the consistency of human judgements in decision support systems (DSS).
In this sense, and in the context of one of the most applied multicriteria methodologies, the analytic hierarchy process
(AHP), we obtain the consistency stability interval (CSI) associated with each judgement, that is to say, the interval in
which this can oscillate without exceeding a value of the consistency measure fixed in advance. To calculate these CSIs,
we consider the row geometric mean method as the priorisation procedure, the geometric consistency index as the
consistency measure and a local situation with one criterion. The proposed procedure has been implemented in a
module that is easily adaptable to any Decision Support System based on AHP.
Ó 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Consistency; Stability intervals; Multicriteria; Analytic hierarchy process; Decision support systems

1. Introduction

The increasing complexity of decisional problems, especially those arising in the social field, is requiring the
use of more flexible and open approaches which, employing software tools (decision support systems, DSS) as
technological support, provide us with a more realistic and effective resolution of these problems than that
offered by the traditional approach in decision making (Moreno-Jim
enez et al., 1999, 2001; DeTombe, 2001).
This traditional approach, based on utility theory (Fishburn, 1970), assumes the existence of a unique
truth, independent of personal values. This neutrality of values, as well as many other restrictive hypotheses
required by the substantive rationality paradigm (traditional approach), have become increasingly ques-
tioned, and even invalidated, from a practical point of view, especially in the field of cognitive psychology
(Tversky and Kahneman, 1981; Prelec, 1998) and participatory policy analysis (DeTombe, 2001).
By contrast, current tendencies in complex decision making propose the integration of the objective with
the subjective, the tangible with the intangible and the rational with the emotional (Moreno-Jim
enez, 1998;
Brans, 2000).

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +34-976-76-1814; fax: +34-976-76-1770.
E-mail address: moreno@posta.unizar.es (J.M. Moreno-Jim
enez).

0377-2217/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 7 - 2 2 1 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 5 4 4 - 1
 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393 383

The contribution of the actors involved in the decision making process (Moreno-Jim
enez, 1989; Roy,
1993) and, consequently, the importance given to the human factor in the new methodological approaches,
suggests, independent of the school followed in the resolution process, that the consistency of the actors be
evaluated when eliciting their judgements.
In this paper, and for the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980) – one of the most useful
methods for multicriteria decision making and the operational support of the cognitive constructivism
considered in the multicriteria procedural rationality (MCPR) paradigm (Moreno-Jim
enez et al., 1999;
Moreno-Jim
enez et al., 2001)––we derive the consistency stability interval (CSI) associated with each
judgement. That is to say, we obtain the range of values in which this judgement can oscillate without the
consistency measure exceeding a threshold fixed in advance.
In order to obtain the CSI for a judgement, we carry out an inverse sensitivity analysis of the consistence,
taking into account a unique criterion, using the row geometric mean method (RGMM) as the priorisation
procedure, and the geometric consistency index (GCI) as its associated consistency measure. The extension
of these ideas to the case of an alternative, or to the whole matrix in AHP, in a manner analogous to the
procedure presented in Aguar
on and Moreno-Jim
enez (2000a), will be the subject of a separate paper.
Obviously, and despite the fact that we have obtained these intervals for a particular multicriteria technique
(AHP), the underlying ideas could and should be extended to any other multicriteria technique employed in
the resolution of complex problems.
Under the cognitive approach considered in the MCPR paradigm, these CSI increase our knowledge of
the decision making process, complement the information provided by the priority stability intervals
(Aguar
on and Moreno-Jim
enez, 2000a), and allow for the determination of the range of values in which a
judgement can oscillate, with an acceptable consistency, without affecting a ‘‘property’’ previously con-
sidered for the alternatives (the best, the ranking,. . .).
The knowledge discovery provided by the CSI is especially relevant for group decision making (Aczel
and Alsina, 1986; Saaty, 1989). In this case, the design of consensus paths between the actors and, more
generally, the search for consensus among the participants involved in the negotiation process, requires that
the acceptable consistency of the group (judgements) in the final decision be guaranteed.
The contribution of the actors in the decision making process, the development of a methodological
approach which allows for this contribution to be considered, and, logically, the development of a tech-
nology which permits the incorporation of the actorsÕ knowledge into the DSS (Aguar
on et al., 1996a),
represents the framework in which this paper is based. In this sense, we have also implemented the algo-
rithmic procedure to obtain the CSI in a module which has been integrated in PRIOR (Aguar
on et al.,
1996b), one of the available AHP-DSS. This program, just like other AHP-software, for example Expert
Choice (Expert Choice, 1988) and HIPRE (H€ am€al€ainen and Lauri, 1993), provides the multicriteria pri-
orisation and selection of a discrete set of alternatives and, moreover, also offers the possibility of obtaining
some kind of knowledge discovery.
The rest of the paper is organised as follows. Section 2 is dedicated to presenting the background of the
proposed approach, specifically the aspects relative to MCPR, the Analytic Hierarchy Process, the con-
sistency and the stability intervals. Section 3 presents the procedure and the theoretical results that allow us
to obtain the CSIs for a judgement in AHP. Section 4 includes the description of the software module
developed to implement the previous procedure, and its application to a particular case (3
3 matrix).
Finally, Section 5 highlights the most important conclusions of the paper.

2. Background

The approach followed in this paper for the resolution of complex problems, namely the MCPR, fulfills
the requirements of rigour, accessibility and publicity demanded by Roy (1993) in order to be considered as
384 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393

scientific. It also verifies those proposed by Saaty (1996) which are: (a) simplicity of construction; (b)
adaptability to individual and group decisions; (c) in agreement with our intuition, values and thoughts; (d)
consensus building oriented; and (e) not demanding a high degree of specialisation in order to be under-
stood. Furthermore, it explicitly recognises the importance of the human factor, as well as of the tech-
nological tools in the problem resolution process.
The MCPR combines the methodological support of procedural rationality with the calculus and op-
erative potential of the multicriteria decision techniques. This new approach, which has a descriptive,
adaptive, cognitive, negotiating, systemic and general character, tries to assist decision making through a
better knowledge of the decision process. In order to achieve this, it attempts to endow each one of the
stages and phases followed in the resolution process with scientific rigour, seeking to improve its effec-
tiveness, efficacy and efficiency. In summary, the analysis will be directed towards: (1) understanding the
decision process being followed; (2) increasing the added value of the knowledge obtained in the resolution
of the problem, enriching its learning and justification; (3) detecting the decision opportunities which enable
the formulation of new alternatives; (4) discovering the preferences and beliefs of the actors involved, which
represents a necessary aspect in the feedback phase; and (5) promoting the negotiation and dialogue
process.
As can be appreciated, the proposed approach in decision making, which has been developed during the
last three decades as a result of the convergence of many different disciplines, corresponds to pragmatic and
constructivist schools of thought (Bell et al., 1988; Rosenhead, 1989; Checkland and Scholes, 1990; Fun-
towicz and Ravetz, 1991; Maturana and Varela, 1992; Hannigan, 1995; Gandy, 1996; Tacconi, 1998).
In order to favour the detection of the decision opportunities, the critical points of the process
(knowledge discovery) and the construction of the consensus paths, it is usual to employ some decisional
tools, such as preference structures and stability intervals (Moreno-Jim
enez et al., 1999). The Stability
Intervals offer an inverse sensitivity analysis (Aguar
on and Moreno-Jim
enez, 2000a) of a given character-
istic of the problem (i.e. priority, consistency,. . .) in terms of the judgements. These intervals provide the
range of values in which the element under study (judgement, alternative, criterion,. . .) can oscillate without
exceeding a value previously fixed for the considered characteristic.
With respect to the AHP (Saaty, 1980), the multicriteria technique which supports the MCPR, mention
should be made of the fact that this is one of the approaches belonging to the American School. It is based
on the use of a multilinear value function and a hierarchical aggregation procedure, in contrast to the direct
aggregation procedure employed by the Multiattribute Utility Theory (Keeney and Raiffa, 1976), the other
well known technique of the American School, also based on value functions.
One of the most outstanding characteristics of the AHP, which, to the best of our knowledge, the other
multicriteria techniques do not yet have, is that it allows us to measure the consistency of the actors when
eliciting their judgements, in a formal, elegant and systematic way. The procedure proposed by Saaty (1980)
to measure the consistency is related to the mathematical part of the methodology, and not solely to the
judgements elicited in the valuation phase.
Defining the consistency of a positive reciprocal pairwise comparison matrix of order n, A ¼ ðaij Þ, as
the cardinal transitivity between the judgements (aij ajk ¼ aik ; 8i; j; k), Saaty (1980), for the case of the
eigenvector priorisation method, suggested the consistency measure, called the consistency ratio, given
by

CI
CR ¼
RIðnÞ

where CI is the consistency index given by CI ¼ ðkmax  nÞ=ðn  1Þ, RIðnÞ is the random consistency Index
for matrices of order n and kmax is the principal eigenvalue of the judgement matrix. For this measure (CR),
Saaty proposed the 0.10 threshold (0.05 for n ¼ 3 and 0.08 for n ¼ 4) to accept the estimation of the
 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393 385

priorities. When the CR is greater than 0.10 (10%), inconsistent judgements must be modified in order to
improve the consistency.
In recent years, and given its psychological and mathematical properties, the use of the row geometric
mean priorisation procedure has significantly increased (Barzilai, 1997; Brugha, 2000; Aguar
on and Mo-
reno-Jim
enez, 2000a). Aguar
on and Moreno-Jim
enez (2000b) justify this method (RGMM) on the basis of
geometric dominance in graph theory, and, as the associated measure of the consistency, propose the use of
the GCI, given by
2 X
GCI ¼ log2 eij ð1Þ
ðn  1Þðn  2Þ i<j

where eij ¼ aij wj =wi is the error obtained when the ratio xi =xj is approximated by aij . For this measure,
GCI ¼ 0:37 has been suggested as the threshold value associated with an RC of 10% ðGCl ¼ 0:31 for n ¼ 3
and GCl ¼ 0:35 for n ¼ 4).
A number of recent papers have dealt with sensitivity in decision analysis (Kouvelis and Yu, 1997;
Ringuest, 1997; Roy, 1998; Vincke, 1999). However, in our paper, and considering consistency, one of the
most outstanding characteristics of the AHP, as the property under study, together with the RGMM as the
priorisation procedure and the GCI as its associated consistency measure, we obtain for the first time in
the literature the stability intervals of the judgements corresponding to this property.

3. Consistency stability intervals for the GCI

Let A ¼ ðaij Þ be the positive reciprocal pairwise comparisons matrix corresponding to a problem with
one criterion and n alternatives that is being solved with AHP. Further, let GCI be the measure of con-
sistency given by the expression (1), and let D be a value fixed in advance. The procedure followed to
calculate the CSIs for the judgement ars is

Step 1: Obtain the new errors after the modification of the judgement ars .
Step 2: Obtain the new GCI (GCI0 ) after the modification of the judgement ars .
Step 3: Obtain the CSI for the judgement ars when the variation of the GCI (DGCI ¼ GCI0  GCI) does
not exceed a value previously fixed (D).

For this purpose, the consistency relative stability interval (CRSI) is calculated previously.

Definition 1. The CRSI for the judgement ars given D, is the interval ½drs ðDÞ; drs ðDÞ , in which its relative
variations can oscillate without the value of the GCI exceeding D.

These three steps are based on the following Lemma 1, Theorem 1 and Theorem 2 respectively, from
which we can obtain the consistency stability interval.

Definition 2. The consistency (absolute) stability interval (CSI) for the judgement ars given D, is the interval
½d rs ðDÞ; d rs ðDÞ , in which it can oscillate without the value of the GCI exceeding D, This interval is given by
 
ars Drs ðDÞ; ars drs ðDÞ :

Lemma 1. If, in a pairwise comparison matrix, A ¼ ðaij Þ, the judgement ars converts to a0rs ðr 6¼ sÞ, the new
errors obtained when using the RGMM as the priorisation procedure are:
386 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393

e0ij ¼ eij 8i; j 6¼ r; s;

1
e0rj ¼ erj 8j 6¼ r; s; e0jr ¼ ejr q 8j 6¼ r; s;
q
1
e0sj ¼ esj q 8j 6¼ r; s; e0js ¼ ejs 8j 6¼ r; s;
q
1
e0rs ¼ ers qn2 ; e0sr ¼ ers n2 ;
 0 1=n q
ars
where q ¼ .
ars
Proof. See Appendix A.

Theorem 1. If, in a pairwise comparison matrix, A ¼ ðaij Þ, the judgement ars converts to a0rs ðr 6¼ sÞ, the
modification of the GCI is given by

2n
DGCI ¼ GCI0  GCI ¼ log q logðe2rs qn2 Þ ð2Þ
 0 1=n ðn  1Þðn  2Þ
ars
where q ¼ .
ars

Proof. See Appendix A.

Theorem 2. Given a pairwise comparison matrix, A ¼ ðaij Þ i; j ¼ 1; . . . ; n, the consistency relative stability
interval for the judgement ars given the level D for the GCI, ½drs ðDÞ; drs ðDÞ , is given by
drs ðDÞ ¼ en log qmin ;
drs ðDÞ ¼ en log qmax ;
1=n
where [log qmin , log qmax ] is the interval for log qrs , with q ¼ ða0rs =ars Þ , which holds that
2n  
ðn  2Þ log2 qrs þ 2 log ers log qrs 6 D: ð3Þ
ðn  1Þðn  2Þ

Proof. See Appendix A.

The values of log qmin and log qmax are obtained by solving the second order inequality (3) in their
variable log qrs .
Note that because of the form taken by this second order equation (the independent term is negative), we
can guarantee the solutions log qmin and log qmax we are looking for, and, therefore, the values which define
the CRSI ½drs ðDÞ; drs ðDÞ (Fig. 1).
From the CRSI, we can obtain the consistency stability index which can be used to establish the most
critical judgements with respect to the consistency.

Definition 3. The consistency stability index for the judgement ars given D, is the value corresponding
 to the 
maximum reciprocal relative stability interval for this level D. This index is given by drs ¼ max d1rs ; drs .

The following result provides the consistency stability indexes for matrices of order n ¼ 3, where all the
judgements have the same degree of criticity.
 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393 387

Fig. 1. Solutions for log qrs .

Corollary 1. For n ¼ 3, given the conditions of Theorem 2, the consistency stability indexes for the three
judgements of the matrix (a12 , a23 and a13 ) coincide.

Proof. See Appendix A.

4. Software implementation and application

We have developed a module which provides the priority and consistency stability intervals when
modifying either one judgement, or all the judgements of a row, or all the judgements of the matrix. Its
implementation, by way of a dynamic link library (DLL), allows it to be used in any DSS. In fact, we have
incorporated this module into the DSS PRIOR (Aguar
on et al., 1996b), providing this software with these
two decisional tools.
To illustrate the procedure described in the previous Section and the way it has been implemented in the
software, let us consider a numerical example which consists of three alternatives whose pairwise com-
parison matrix is the following:
0 1
1 2 5
A ¼ @ 1=2 1 3 A:
1=5 1=3 1
From this matrix, we can calculate the priority vector obtained using the RGMM without normalisation,
the corresponding error matrix and the associated consistency measure, the GCI, as follows:
rffiffiffi rffiffiffiffiffi!
p
3
ffiffiffiffiffi 3 3 3 1
x¼ 10; ; ;
2 15
0 qffiffi qffiffi 1
3 6 3 5
1
B qffiffi 5
q ffiffi6 C
B 3 5 C
B 1 3 6
C
E ¼ B q6ffiffi q ffiffi 5 C;
B 3 C
@ 6 3 5 1 A
5 6
388 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393

2 X 2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 1 6
GCIðAÞ ¼ log2 eij ¼ 3 log2 3 6=5 ¼ log2 ¼ 0:01108:
ðn  1Þðn  2Þ i<j 2
1 3 5

With n ¼ 3, the threshold for an acceptable consistency with the GCI is GCI ¼ 0:31 (Aguar
on and
Moreno-Jim
enez, 2000b). In our example, GCIðAÞ  0:01, thus allowing for an increment of D ¼
GCI  GCIðAÞ ¼ 0:31  0:01  0:30. Applying the expression obtained in Theorem 2 with D ¼ 0:30, we
have
6  2 
log q12 þ 2 log e12 log q12 6 0:30:
21
Solving this inequality, we obtain the CRSI for the judgement a12 :
½log qmin ; log qmax ¼ ½0:383; 0:261 ;

½d12 ðDÞ; d12 ðDÞ ¼ ½0:317; 2:190 :

From here, we derive the range of variation for a12 , and the consistency stability index for this judge-
ment:
a012 2 ½0:634; 4:380 d12 ¼ minf1=0:317; 2:190g ¼ 2:190:
In an analogous way, we can calculate the consistency stability intervals (relative and absolute) and
indexes for the rest of judgements of the initial matrix, as follows:

Judgement ars ½drs ðDÞ; drs ðDÞ drs ðDÞ ½d rs ; d rs

a12 2 [0.317, 2.190] 2.190 [0.634, 4.380]
a13 5 [0.457, 3.153] 2.190 [2.285, 15.765]
a23 3 [0.317, 2.190] 2.190 [0.951, 6.570]

Note that, as mentioned in Corollary 1, the consistency stability indexes coincide for all the judgements.
With respect to the interpretation of these values, we should mention that the CRSI and the consistency
stability index represent the percentage of variation from the initial judgement that is allowed with an
acceptable level of inconsistency.
Obviously, the situation can arise were the consistency (absolute) stability interval for one judgement
falls outside the range of values of the fundamental scale f1=9; . . . ; 9g considered by Saaty (1980). In this
case, the interpretation of the result is that any increase of the judgement is allowed without losing the
acceptable consistency, as happens with judgement a13 in the example provided.

Fig. 2. Model definition in PRIOR.

 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393 389

Fig. 3. Judgement eliciting in PRIOR.

Fig. 4. Dialogue to enter the parameters in the new module.

Fig. 5. CSIs and Indexes results.

Let us now consider some of the outcomes of the software when we want to obtain the CSI for the
judgements using the earlier example (Figs. 2–5).
390 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393

5. Conclusions

In this paper, and in the context of the need to evaluate the consistency of human judgements in AHP-
DSS, we have derived a new decisional tool, the CSIs, which inform us about the range of values in which
the judgements can oscillate without exceeding a previously fixed value for the GCI. This tool, which we
have implemented in the PRIOR DSS, provides the consistency stability indexes that indicate the criticity of
the judgements, and therefore allows us to increase our knowledge about the Decision Making Process and
its exploitation in the resolution process.
The use of this decisional tool favours the detection of the decision opportunities and the critical points
of the process (knowledge discovery), as well as the construction of the consensus paths, following the
cognitive constructivism proposed in the multiciteria procedural rationality paradigm.

Acknowledgements

This research has been partially supported by the ‘‘SISDECAP: Un Sistema Decisional para la Ad-
ministraci

on P
ublica’’ Research Project (ref: P072/99-E CONSI+D––Diputaci
on General de Ara-
g

on––Spain). We also wish to thank Stephen Wilkins for helping with the English translation of the text,
and we further acknowledge the helpful comments and suggestions of three anonymous referees.

Appendix A

Proof of Lemma 1. We know that if the judgement ars is modified, with a0rs being its new value, the only
priorities which are modified are xr and xs , and thus the new values of the only errors which will be
modified are those corresponding to any index r or s.
Let us consider the error erj with j 6¼ r; s:
arj xj arj xj arj xj 1 1
e0rj ¼ ¼  0 1=n ¼ ¼ erj :
x0r ars xr q q
xr ars

The errors are reciprocal, that is to say, eji ¼ 1=eij , and so e0jr ¼ 1=e0rj ¼ q=erj ¼ ejr q for all j 6¼ r; s.
Analogously, the relationships for esj and ejs are proved. For ers , we have:
 1=n
ars
0 0 0 0 0 ars xs
a x a ars xs ars a0rs n ars xs 1
e0rs ¼ rs 0 s ¼ rs 0
¼  0 1=n ¼ q ¼ ers qn2 :
xr ars xr ars ars xr q2
xr a0
rs

On the basis of this expression, we automatically obtain that of esr . 

Proof of Theorem 1. The expression of the Consistency Index uses the aggregation of terms which depends
on the errors. Thus, its variation depends exclusively on the modification of the elements situated in rows or
columns r and s. Therefore, we can write:
DGCI ¼ Dr GCI þ Ds GCI þ Drs GCI
where Dr GCI indicates the variation due to the elements with any index equal to r except for ers , Ds GCI
indicates the variation due to the elements with any index equal to s except for ers , and Drs GCI indicates the
variation due to the term ers .
 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393 391

The addends which appear in the GCI formula are log2 eij , so the term eij and its reciprocal eji contribute
the same amount. Therefore, it suffices to operate with half of the terms and afterwards multiply the result
by two.
Let us consider the term Dr GCI. This represents the variation due to the elements (different from ers )
which are in row r or in column r. Taking into account that the elements of the row and the column are
reciprocal, it is sufficient to operate with one of them, i.e., the row:
X
Dr GCI ¼ 2 ðlog2 e0rj  log2 erj Þ:
j6¼r;s

We will now operate only with the numerator of the CGI expression, leaving the denominator to be in-
cluded at the end of the proof. Developing the value of e0rj we have
X erj
Dr GCI ¼ 2 ðlog2  log2 erj Þ
j6¼r;s
q

and operating
!
X erj

erj
 X e2rj 1

Dr GCI ¼ 2 log þ log erj log  log erj ¼2 log log 
j6¼r;s
q q j6¼r;s
q q
!
1X e2rj 1 Y e2rj 1 1 Y 2
¼ 2 log log ¼ 2 log log ¼ 2 log log n2
erj
q j6¼r;s q q j6¼r;s
q q q j6¼r;s
! 0 !2 1
1 1 1 Y 2 1 1 1 Y
¼ 2 log log e ¼ 2 log log @ n2 2 erj A:
q qn2 e2rs j rj q q ers j

Q
Let us now prove that j erj ¼ 1:
Q Q Q Q !1=n !1=n
Y Y arj xj j arj xj j arj j xj xnr j xj Y Y Y Y
erj ¼ ¼ n
¼ n
¼ n
¼ xj ¼ aji ¼ aji
j j
xr xr xr xr j j i i;j
!1=n !1=n
Y Y
¼ aji aij ¼ 1 ¼ 1:
i<j i<j

As a result, we have that

 
1 1 1  
Dr GCI ¼ 2 log log ¼ 2 log q log qn2 e2rs :
q qn2 e2rs
Following an analogous process in order to calculate Ds GCI, we obtain the same expression of Dr :
 
Ds GCI ¼ 2 log q log qn2 e2rs :
Finally, it is necessary to calculate Drs GCI:
   
Drs GCI ¼ 2 log2 e0rs  log2 ers ¼ 2 log2 ers qn2  log2 ers
    
¼ 2 log ers qn2 þ log ers log ers qn2  log ers ¼ 2 log e2rs qn2 log qn2
 
¼ 2ðn  2Þ log q log e2rs qn2 :
392 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393

The total variation of the GCI is

DGCI ¼ Dr GCI þ Ds GCI þ Drs GCI
     
2 log q log qn2 e2rs þ 2 log q log qn2 e2rs þ 2ðn  2Þ log q log e2rs qn2
¼
ðn  1Þðn  2Þ
2n
¼ log qðlog e2rs qn2 Þ: 
ðn  1Þðn  2Þ

Proof of Theorem 2. Let us assume that the judgement to be modified is ars , with the increase of the GCI
being less than a quantity D > 0. Taking into account expression (2), we have

2n  
log qrs log e2rs qn2
rs 6D
ðn  1Þðn  2Þ

and thus
 
log qrs log e2rs qn2
rs 6D
where D ¼ ðððn  1Þðn  2ÞÞ=2nÞD. Developing the expression:
log qrs ½2 log ers þ ðn  2Þ log qrs 6 D;
ðn  2Þ log2 qrs þ 2 log ers log qrs 6 D;
and solving this equation in log qrs , two values of qrs , which correspond to the maximum and minimum of
the judgement ars , can be obtained for a given consistency index.
The previous inequality is satisfied in those points in which the parabola ðn  2Þ log2 qrs þ
2 log ers log qrs  D takes negative values. As the independent term (D) is negative, this assures the exis-
tence of two solutions of log qrs , one positive and the other negative, which, in turn, lead to two values qmin ,
qmax , which will be less and more than one, respectively. For their part, those values allow us to obtain
drs ðDÞ and drs ðDÞ. 

Proof of Corollary 1. For n ¼ 3, the errors matrix takes the form

0 1
1 a 1=a
@ 1=a 1 a A:
a 1=a 1

The CRSI are calculated from the inequality (3), which coincides for the judgements a12 and a23 :
3½log2 q13 þ 2 log a log q13 6 D: ð4Þ
As the CRSI are the same, the corresponding indexes are also equal.
For the judgement a13 , this inequality is
3½log2 qrs  2 log a log qrs 6 D: ð5Þ
The solutions of this inequality are, in log q, the opposite of those of inequality (4) and, therefore, the
values d13 ðDÞ and d13 ðDÞ are the inverses of d12 ðDÞ and d12 ðDÞ, respectively.
Using the definition of the Consistency Stability Index, we obtain
n o n o
d13 ðDÞ ¼ min d13 ðDÞ1 ; d13 ðDÞ ¼ min d12 ðDÞ; d12 ðDÞ1 ¼ d12 ðDÞ: 
 J. Aguar
on et al. / European Journal of Operational Research 145 (2003) 382–393 393

References

Aczel, J., Alsina, C., 1986. On synthesis of judgments. Socio-Economics Planning Sciences 20 (6), 333–339.
Aguar
on, J., Escobar, M.T., Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., Tur
on, A. 1996a. A module for discrete multicriteria selection in environmental
decisional systems. In: Mendes Giev, I. (Ed.), Decision Support Systems: Viewpoints and Applications, European Commission.
Joint Research Centre. Ispra. Italia. EUR 17295 EN. pp. 9–20.
Aguar
on, J., Escobar, M.T., Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., Tur
on, A., 1996b. PRIOR: Priorizaci
on Multicriterio Discreta con el Proceso
Anal
ıtico Jer
arquico (private property).
Aguar
on, J., Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., 2000a. Local stability intervals in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational
Research 125 (1), 114–133.
Aguar
on, J., Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., 2000b. The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of
Operational Research, forthcoming.
Barzilai, J., 1997. Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48, 1226–1232.
Bell, D.E., Raiffa, H., Tversky, A., 1988. Descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions in decision making. In: Bell, D.E., Raiffa,
H., Tversky, A. (Eds.), Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Brans, J.P., 2000. OR, Ethics and Decision, Plenary Session of the EURO XVII, Budapest, July 2000.
Brugha, C.M., 2000. Relative measurement and the power function. European Journal of Operational Research 121, 627–640.
Checkland, P., Scholes, J., 1990. Soft System Methodology in Action. Wiley, Chichester.
DeTombe, D.J., 2001. Editorial. Methodology for handling complex socieal problems. European Journal of Operational Research 128,
227–230.
Expert Choice, 1988. Expert Choice Software. Expert Choice Inc., Pittsburgh, PA.
Fishburn, P.C., 1970. Utility Theory for Decision Making. Wiley, New York.
Funtowicz, S.O., Ravetz, J.R., 1991. A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues. In: Constanza, R. (Ed.), Ecological
Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Columbia University Press, New York, pp. 137–152.
Gandy, M., 1996. Crumbling land: The postmodernity debate and the analysis of environmental problems. Progress in Human
Geography 20 (1), 23–40.
H€am€ al€
ainen, R.P., Lauri, H., 1993. HIPRE 3þ Decision Support Software. Systems Analysis Laboratory of the Helsinki University of
Technology.
Hannigan, J.A., 1995. Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective. Routledge, London.
Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York.
Kouvelis, P., Yu, G., 1997. Robust Discrete Optimisation and its Applications. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
Maturana, H.R, Varela, F.J., 1992. The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Shambhala, Boston.
Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., 1989. EI Proceso de Toma de Decisiones en el Contexto Econ
omico-Empresarial. Modelo AEIOU. Cuadernos
de Bioestadistica y sus aplicaciones inform
aticas. Universidad de Zaragoza. 7 (13), 31–41.
Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., 1998. Una aproximaci
on multicriterio en la selecci
on entre alternativas ambientales. EI proceso anal
ıtico
jer
arquico. In: Eduardo Mart
ınez y Mauricio Escudey (Eds.), Evaluaci
on Multicriterio: Reflexiones b
asicas y experiencias en
America Latina, cap
ıtulo 8, 137–163.
Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., Aguar
on, J., Escobar, M.T., 2001. Metodolog
ıa Cient
ıfica en Valoraci
on y Selecci

on Ambiental. Pesquisa
Operational (Journal of the Brasilian Operations Research Society) 21 (1), 1–16.
Moreno-Jim
enez, J.M., Aguaron, J., Escobar, M.T., Turon, A., 1999. Multicriteria procedural rationality on SISDEMA. European
Journal of Operational Research 119 (2), 388–403.
Prelec, D., 1998. The probability weighting function. Econometrica 60, 497–528.
Ringuest, J.L., 1997. Lp -metric sensitivity analysis for single and multiattribute decision analysis. European Journal of Operational
Research 98, 563–570.
Rosenhead, J., 1989. Rational Analysis of a Problematic World. Wiley, Chichester.
Roy, B., 1993. Decision science or decision-aid science? European Journal of Operational Research 66, 184–203.
Roy, B., 1998. A missing link in operational research-decision aiding: Robustness analysis. Foundation of Computing and Decision
Science 23, 141–160.
Saaty, T.L., 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saaty, T.L., 1989. Group decision making and the AHP. In: Golden, B.L., Harker, P.T., Wasil, E.A. (Eds.), Applications of the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer Verlag, Berlin.
Saaty, T.L., 1996. The Analytic Network Process. RSW Publications, Pittsburgh, PA.
Tacconi, L., 1998. Scientific methodology for ecological economics. Ecological Economics 27, 91–105.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., 1981. The framing of decisions and psychology of choice. Science 211, 453–458.
Vincke, P.H., 1999. Robust solutions and methods in decision-aid. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 8, 181–187.