Automatic Substitution of Prioritization Methods Preserving Information Integrity

Joao Batista Mendes, Renato Dourado Maia, Marcos Flávio Silveira Vasconcelos D’Angelo (), Iara Sibele Silva, Petr Y. Ekel and Matheus Pereira Libório ()
Additional contact information
Joao Batista Mendes: Department of Computer Science, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros 39400-014, Brazil
Renato Dourado Maia: Department of Computer Science, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros 39400-014, Brazil
Marcos Flávio Silveira Vasconcelos D’Angelo: Department of Computer Science, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros 39400-014, Brazil
Iara Sibele Silva: Center of Excellence in the Semi-Arid Region, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros 39400-014, Brazil
Petr Y. Ekel: Department of Computer Science, Pontifical Catholic University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte 30535-901, Brazil
Matheus Pereira Libório: Postgraduate Program in Computational Modeling Systems, State University of Montes Claros, Montes Claros 39400-014, Brazil

Administrative Sciences, 2025, vol. 15, issue 11, 1-14

Abstract: Companies face multi-criteria problems every day, such as prioritizing projects, investments, and suppliers. In this respect, the literature offers countless methods, some of which provide partial and flawed solutions. Therefore, identifying and replacing a flawed method with a more efficient one is fundamental. However, this replacement is not straightforward because each method has a different evaluation structure. More specifically, in this study, the Mapping method uses scoring evaluations, whereas the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) uses pairwise comparisons. In other words, scoring evaluations are incompatible with pairwise comparison evaluations. This incompatibility prevents one method from being replaced by another without loss of information. This is a significant gap because the re-evaluation process is expensive, time-consuming, and may even be impossible if the experts are no longer available. This study presents a novel approach to automatically substitute prioritization methods without loss of information. The approach was applied to a real-world case involving forty-four Brazilian companies. The specific case shows the prioritization of four projects evaluated by scores, combined with three new projects evaluated by pairwise comparisons. The application of the approach offers specific and general contributions. For example, substituting prioritization methods without loss of information, such as the Mapping method with AHP. Flexibility in choosing the evaluation method that offers greater psychological comfort to the experts. Obtaining transitive pairwise comparison matrices independently of the number of new projects evaluated.

Keywords: multiple criteria analysis; research; development & innovation projects; preference formats; transformation functions; prioritization of projects (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: L M M0 M1 M10 M11 M12 M14 M15 M16 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2025
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/11/442/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/15/11/442/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:15:y:2025:i:11:p:442-:d:1793464

Access Statistics for this article

Administrative Sciences is currently edited by Ms. Nancy Ma

More articles in Administrative Sciences from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().