Research Article
An Approach for Generating Weights Using the Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Table 13
Pairwise comparison matrices for three suppliers relative to subcriteria of C3 and their local weights.
| | Supplier | Supplier 1 | Supplier 2 | Supplier 3 | EM weights | Model (8) |
| | A. Comparison of suppliers with respect to management commitment (C31) (consistency ratio 0.0739) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 0.674 | 6.635 | | Supplier 2 | 1/4 | 1 | 3 | 0.226 | 2.226 | | Supplier 3 | 1/5 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.100 | 1.000 |
| | B. Comparison of suppliers with respect to inspection and control (C32) (consistency ratio 0.0559) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 0.731 | 8.972 | | Supplier 2 | 1/5 | 1 | 3 | 0.188 | 2.316 | | Supplier 3 | 1/7 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.081 | 1.000 |
| | C. Comparison of suppliers with respect to quality planning (C33) (consistency ratio 0.0187) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 7 | 9 | 0.793 | 10.416 | | Supplier 2 | 1/7 | 1 | 2 | 0.131 | 1.724 | | Supplier 3 | 1/9 | 1/2 | 1 | 0.076 | 1.000 |
| | D. Comparison of suppliers with respect to quality assurance (C34) (consistency ratio 0.0559) | | Supplier 1 | 1 | 5 | 7 | 0.731 | 8.972 | | Supplier 2 | 1/5 | 1 | 3 | 0.188 | 2.316 | | Supplier 3 | 1/7 | 1/3 | 1 | 0.081 | 1.000 |
|
|
