Ordering vs. AHP. Does the intensity used in the decision support techniques compensate?

The manifestation of the intensity in the judgment of one alternative versus another in the peer comparison processes is a central element in some decision support techniques, such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). However, his contribution in terms of quality (expected performance) with respect to the priority vector has not been evaluated so far. In this work, through the Intentional Bounded Rationality Methodology (IBRM) of Sáenz-Royo, Chiclana, and Herrera-Viedma (2023), the gains obtained from requiring the decision-maker to report an intensity judgment in pairs (AHP) are analyzed with respect to a technique that only requires expressing a preference (Ordering). The results show that when decision-makers have low levels of expertise, it is possible that a less informative and expensive technique (Ordering) performs better than a more informative and expensive one (AHP). When decision-makers have medium and high levels of expertise, AHP obtains meager gains about Ordering. This study proposes a cost-benefit analysis of decision support techniques contrasting the gains of a technique that requires more (AHP) resources with other less expensive (Ordering). Our results can change the way of managing the information obtained from experts’ judgments.