![]() ![]() & 2009 Operational Reasearch Society Ltd 0953-5543 OR Insight Vol. Their RIs are different but close to Saaty’s. The judgement is a relative value or a quotient a/b of two quantities a and b having the same units (intensity, meters, utility and so on). AHP uses a ratio scale, which, contrary to methods using interval scales (Kainulainen et al, 2009), requires no units in the comparison. ![]() It also allows consistency and cross checking between the different pairwise comparisons (see Consistency part under the section The original AHP method). Psychologists argue that it is easier and more accurate to express one’s opinion on only two alternatives than simultaneously on all the alternatives. Pairwise comparisons At each node of the hierarchy, a matrix will collect the pairwise comparisons of the decision-maker (for example Figure 2). AHP has the advantage of permitting a hierarchical structure of the criteria, which provides users with a better focus on specific criteria and sub-criteria when allocating the weights. Problem modelling As with all decision-making processes, the facilitator will sit a long time with the decision-maker(s) to structure the problem, which can be divided into three parts: goal (buy a car), criteria (initial cost, maintenance cost, prestige, quality and its sub-criteria) and alternatives (Fiat Uno, Nissan Maxima 4 Doors, Mercedes Benz 290, Volvo 840, Ford Fiesta) (Figure 1). The oldest reference we have found dates from 1972 (Saaty, 1972). Several papers have compiled the AHP success stories in very different fields (Zahedi, 1986 Golden et al, 1989 Shim, 1989 Vargas, 1990 Saaty and Forman, 1992 Forman and Gass, 2001 Kumar and Vaidya, 2006 Omkarprasad and Sushil, 2006 Ho, 2008 Liberatore and Nydick, 2008). ![]() Doi:10.1057/ori.2009.10 Keywords: AHP decision making review Introduction The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) method that helps the decision-maker facing a complex problem with multiple conflicting and subjective criteria (for example location or investment selection, projects ranking and so forth). Finally, the limitations of the original AHP along with the new proposed development are explained. In particular, we discuss problem modelling, pairwise comparisons, judgement scales, derivation methods, consistency indices, synthesis of the weights and sensitivity analysis. ![]() We demonstrate its application through a practical example. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2022
Categories |