Input cells

Auto-filled
Weighing Score
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Weight Scoring Tool
This calculation tool is designed to automate the Fuzzy AHP process to weighting evaluation criteria by considering conflicting interests from multiple stakeholders. This is one of the four modules in the entire decision
making model. In the weight stage, performance attributes for a transportation project are defined as well as the stakeholders' preference. This tool will provide a weight vector applied to each project evaluation criteria.
This tool uses the FAHP technique was utilized to establish the consensus weights among stakeholders of the concerning performance attributes in a project by considering both objective and subjective factors. Fuzzy
number is utilized to analyze discrepancies arising due to stakeholders preferences on performance attributes. The triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is used in this model In Fuzzy AHP, complex structure representing
performance attributes are organized in hierarchical cluster to facilitate pair wise comparisons and to estimate their relative weights The importance levels of these attributes among different interests groups can be
determined by conducting a survey in the group of stakeholders. If local survey is not feasible, the importance levels can also be estimated based on the specific interests in each interest group. This demo version only
allows to define three (3) stakeholders and four (4) criteria.
Disclaimer: This analysis tool implements the Fuzzy AHP procedures for analyzing the normalized weight vectors of the performance attributes. All values reported in this analysis are estimates. Actual performance may
vary and practical results may differ from planning estimates. NOT AUTHORIZED FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION.
Start Analysis
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Weight Scoring Tool
This calculation tool is designed to automate the Fuzzy AHP process to weighting evaluation criteria by considering conflicting interests from multiple stakeholders. This is one of the four modules in the entire decision
making model. In the weight stage, performance attributes for a transportation project are defined as well as the stakeholders' preference. This tool will provide a weight vector applied to each project evaluation criteria.
This tool uses the FAHP technique was utilized to establish the consensus weights among stakeholders of the concerning performance attributes in a project by considering both objective and subjective factors. Fuzzy
number is utilized to analyze discrepancies arising due to stakeholders preferences on performance attributes. The triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is used in this model In Fuzzy AHP, complex structure representing
performance attributes are organized in hierarchical cluster to facilitate pair wise comparisons and to estimate their relative weights The importance levels of these attributes among different interests groups can be
determined by conducting a survey in the group of stakeholders. If local survey is not feasible, the importance levels can also be estimated based on the specific interests in each interest group. This demo version only
allows to define three (3) stakeholders and four (4) criteria.
Disclaimer: This analysis tool implements the Fuzzy AHP procedures for analyzing the normalized weight vectors of the performance attributes. All values reported in this analysis are estimates. Actual performance may
vary and practical results may differ from planning estimates. NOT AUTHORIZED FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION.
Traffic and Transportation Laboratory 2012,
Developed by Xin (Alyx) Yu,
All Rights Reserved
Start Analysis
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Weight Scoring Tool
This calculation tool is designed to automate the Fuzzy AHP process to weighting evaluation criteria by considering conflicting interests from multiple stakeholders. This is one of the four modules in the entire decision
making model. In the weight stage, performance attributes for a transportation project are defined as well as the stakeholders' preference. This tool will provide a weight vector applied to each project evaluation criteria.
This tool uses the FAHP technique was utilized to establish the consensus weights among stakeholders of the concerning performance attributes in a project by considering both objective and subjective factors. Fuzzy
number is utilized to analyze discrepancies arising due to stakeholders preferences on performance attributes. The triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is used in this model In Fuzzy AHP, complex structure representing
performance attributes are organized in hierarchical cluster to facilitate pair wise comparisons and to estimate their relative weights The importance levels of these attributes among different interests groups can be
determined by conducting a survey in the group of stakeholders. If local survey is not feasible, the importance levels can also be estimated based on the specific interests in each interest group. This demo version only
allows to define three (3) stakeholders and four (4) criteria.
Disclaimer: This analysis tool implements the Fuzzy AHP procedures for analyzing the normalized weight vectors of the performance attributes. All values reported in this analysis are estimates. Actual performance may
vary and practical results may differ from planning estimates. NOT AUTHORIZED FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION.
Traffic and Transportation Laboratory 2012,
Developed by Xin (Alyx) Yu,
All Rights Reserved
Evaluation Citeria
Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Stakeholders
Stakeholder 1
Stakeholder 2
Stakeholder 3
The Private Sector
The Public Section
The Public
Project Revenue
System Performance
Risk Allocation
Social and Environmental Impacts
Next
Stakeholders
The Private Sector weight (1~10)
Importance Matrix - Linguistic
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue Equally
System Performance Slightly-
Risk Allocation Slightly-
Social and Environmental Impacts Slightly-
The Public Section weight (1~10)
Importance Matrix - Linguistic
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue Equally
System Performance Equally
Risk Allocation Equally
Social and Environmental Impacts Slightly+
The Public weight (1~10)
Importance Matrix - Linguistic
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue Equally
System Performance Slightly+
Risk Allocation Slightly+
Social and Environmental Impacts Moderately+
NOTES:
Linguistic Statement Indictors
Attribute i Equally Important to
Attribute j
Equally
Attribute i Slightly Important to
Attribute j
Slight+
Attribute i Moderately Important to
Attribute j
Moderately+
Attribute i Strongly Important to
Attribute j
Strongly+
Attribute i Extremely Important to
Attribute j
Extermely+
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1
System Performance 6
Risk Allocation 6
Social and Environmental Impacts 6
Importance Matrix - TFN
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1,1,1
System Performance 1/3,1/2,1/1
Risk Allocation 1/3,1/2,1/1
Social and Environmental Impacts 1/3,1/2,1/1
1 1
1/3 1/2
1/3 1/2
1/3 1/2
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1
System Performance 1
Risk Allocation 1
Social and Environmental Impacts 2
Importance Matrix - TFN
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1,1,1
System Performance 1,1,1
Risk Allocation 1,1,1
Social and Environmental Impacts 1,2,3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 2
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1
System Performance 2
Risk Allocation 2
Social and Environmental Impacts 3
Importance Matrix - TFN
Attributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1,1,1
System Performance 1,2,3
Risk Allocation 1,2,3
Social and Environmental Impacts 3,4,5
1 1
1 2
1 2
3 4
1
System Performance Risk Allocation
2 2
Equally 6
Slightly+ Equally
Moderately+ Moderately-
1
System Performance Risk Allocation
1 1
Equally 3
Moderately- Equally
Equally Slightly-
1
System Performance Risk Allocation
6 6
Equally 3
Moderately- Equally
Slightly- Moderately+
Linguistic Statement Indictors
Attribute i Equally Important to
Attribute j
Equally
Attribute i Slightly Less Important
to Attribute j
Slight-
Attribute i Moderately Less
Important to Attribute j
Moderately-
Attribute i Strongly Less Important
to Attribute j
Strongly-
Attribute i Extremely Less
Important to Attribute j
Extermely-
System Performance Risk Allocation
2 2
1 6
2 1
3 7
System Performance Risk Allocation
1,2,3 1,2,3
1,1,1 1/3,1/2,1/1
1,2,3 1,1,1
3,4,5 1/5,1/4,1/3
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 3
System Performance Risk Allocation
1 1
1 3
7 1
1 6
System Performance Risk Allocation
1,1,1 1,1,1
1,1,1 3,4,5
1/5,1/4,1/3 1,1,1
1,1,1 1/3,1/2,1/1
1 1
1 1
1 1/5
3 1
System Performance Risk Allocation
6 6
1 3
7 1
6 3
System Performance Risk Allocation
1/3,1/2,1/1 1/3,1/2,1/1
1,1,1 3,4,5
1/5,1/4,1/3 1,1,1
1/3,1/2,1/1 3,4,5
1 1/3
3 1
3 1/5
5 1/3
Social and Environmental Impacts
2
7
3
Equally
Social and Environmental Impacts
6
1
2
Equally
Social and Environmental Impacts
7
2
7
Equally
Next
Social and Environmental Impacts
2
7
3
1
TFN
1 Equally 1 1,1,1
2 Slightly+ 2 1,2,3
Social and Environmental Impacts 3 Moderately+ 3 3,4,5
1,2,3 4 Strongly+ 4 5,6,7
1/5,1/4,1/3 5 Extermely+ 5 7,8,9
3,4,5 6 Slightly- 6 1/3,1/2,1/1
1,1,1 7 Moderately- 7 1/5,1/4,1/3
8 Strongly- 8 1/7,1/6,1/5
9 Extermely- 9 1/9,1/8,1/7
2 3 1 2 3
1 1 1/3 1/2 1
2 3 1 1 1
4 5 1/5 1/4 1/3
Social and Environmental Impacts
6
1
2
1
TFN
1 Equally 1 1,1,1
2 Slightly+ 2 1,2,3
Social and Environmental Impacts 3 Moderately+ 3 3,4,5
1/3,1/2,1/1 4 Strongly+ 4 5,6,7
1,1,1 5 Extermely+ 5 7,8,9
1,2,3 6 Slightly- 6 1/3,1/2,1/1
1,1,1 7 Moderately- 7 1/5,1/4,1/3
8 Strongly- 8 1/7,1/6,1/5
9 Extermely- 9 1/9,1/8,1/7
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 3 4 5
1/4 1/3 1 1 1
1 1 1/3 1/2 1
Social and Environmental Impacts
7
2
7
1
TFN
1 Equally 1 1,1,1
2 Slightly+ 2 1,2,3
Social and Environmental Impacts 3 Moderately+ 3 3,4,5
1/5,1/4,1/3 4 Strongly+ 4 5,6,7
1,2,3 5 Extermely+ 5 7,8,9
1/5,1/4,1/3 6 Slightly- 6 1/3,1/2,1/1
1,1,1 7 Moderately- 7 1/5,1/4,1/3
8 Strongly- 8 1/7,1/6,1/5
9 Extermely- 9 1/9,1/8,1/7
1/2 1 1/3 1/2 1
1 1 3 4 5
1/4 1/3 1 1 1
1/2 1 3 4 5
1 1 1
1 2 3
3 4 5
5 6 7
7 8 9
1/3 1/2 1
1/5 1/4 1/3
1/7 1/6 1/5
1/9 1/8 1/7
1 2 3
1/5 1/4 1/3
3 4 5
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 2 3
3 4 5
5 6 7
7 8 9
1/3 1/2 1
1/5 1/4 1/3
1/7 1/6 1/5
1/9 1/8 1/7
1/3 1/2 1
1 1 1
1 2 3
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 2 3
3 4 5
5 6 7
7 8 9
1/3 1/2 1
1/5 1/4 1/3
1/7 1/6 1/5
1/9 1/8 1/7
1/5 1/4 1/3
1 2 3
1/5 1/4 1/3
1 1 1
Weight Scores
Criteria
Project Revenue
System Performance
Risk Allocation
Social and Environmental Impacts
Total
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
Project Revenue
Risk Allocation
Social and Environmental
Impacts
Back
1 1
1 1.00 1.00
2 0.78 1.17
3 0.78 1.17
4 1.44 2.17
1 3.07 4.25
2 4.62 6.08
3 3.64 5.08
4 5.07 6.58
16.40 22.00
0.061 0.045
0.035 0.045
Weighting Score
0.188
0.280
0.232
0.301
1.00
0.000
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
Project Revenue
System Performance
Risk Allocation
1 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4
1.00 0.78 1.17 1.67 0.78 1.17 1.67 0.51 0.92
1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.11 2.83 3.67 0.73 1.08
1.67 0.47 0.83 1.22 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.40 2.08
3.00 1.44 1.83 2.33 1.18 1.58 2.11 1.00 1.00
l m u >=S1 >=S2 >=S3
5.78 1 0.11 0.19 0.35 S1 0.70 0.86
7.78 2 0.16 0.28 0.47 S2 1.00 1.00
6.67 3 0.13 0.23 0.41 S3 1.00 0.84
8.44 4 0.18 0.30 0.51 S4 1.00 1.00 1.00
28.67
0.035
0.061
4
1.44
1.44
2.78
1.00
>=S4
0.62 0.62
0.93 0.93
0.77 0.77
1.00