Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Analytic Hierarchy Process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Analytic_hierarchy_process
Analytic Hierarchy Process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Analytic hierarchy process)
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a

structured technique for dealing with complex
decisions. Rather than prescribing a "correct"
decision, the AHP helps the decision makers find
the one that best suits their needs and their
understanding of the problem.
Based on mathematics and psychology, it was

developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and
has been extensively studied and refined since
then. The AHP provides a comprehensive and
rational framework for structuring a decision
problem, for representing and quantifying its
elements, for relating those elements to overall
goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. It
is used around the world in a wide variety of
decision situations, in fields such as government,
business, industry, healthcare, and education.
Several firms supply computer software to assist

in using the process.
A simple AHP hierarchy, with final priorities. The decision
goal is to select the most suitable leader from a field of three
Users of the AHP first decompose their decision candidates. Factors to be considered are age, experience,
problem into a hierarchy of more easily education, and charisma. According to the judgments of the
comprehended sub-problems, each of which can decision makers, Dick is the most suitable candidate, followed
be analyzed independently. The elements of the by Tom and Harry.
hierarchy can relate to any aspect of the decision
problem—tangible or intangible, carefully measured or roughly estimated, well- or poorly-understood
—anything at all that applies to the decision at hand.
Once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers systematically evaluate its various elements by comparing
them to one another two at a time. In making the comparisons, the decision makers can use concrete data
about the elements, or they can use their judgments about the elements' relative meaning and importance. It
is the essence of the AHP that human judgments, and not just the underlying information, can be used in
performing the evaluations.[1]
The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire
range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing
diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent
way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques.
In the final step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated for each of the decision alternatives. These
numbers represent the alternatives' relative ability to achieve the decision goal, so they allow a
straightforward consideration of the various courses of action.
The diagram above shows a simple AHP hierarchy at the end of the decision making process. Numerical
priorities, derived from the decision makers' input, are shown for each item in the hierarchy. In this decision,
1 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Analytic Hierarchy Process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_hierarchy_process
the goal was to choose a leader based on four specific criteria. Dick was the preferred alternative, with a
priority of 0.450. He was preferred twice as strongly as Harry, whose priority was 0.225. Tom fell
somewhere in between. Experience was the most important criterion in making the decision, followed by
Age, Charisma and Education. These factors were weighted .400, .300, .200 and .100, respectively.
Contents
1 Uses and applications
2 Education and scholarly research
3 Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
3.1 Model the problem as a hierarchy
3.1.1 Hierarchies defined
3.1.2 AHP hierarchies explained
3.2 Establish priorities
3.2.1 Priorities defined and explained
4 A simple example
4.1 Pairwise comparisons
4.2 Comparing alternatives
4.2.1 Purchase price
4.2.2 Safety
4.2.3 Passenger capacity
4.2.4 Fuel costs
4.2.5 Resale value
4.2.6 Maintenance costs
4.2.7 Style
4.2.8 Cargo capacity
4.3 Make the decision
5 Criticisms
5.1 Rank reversal
6 See also
7 References
8 External links
Uses and applications

While it can be used by individuals working on straightforward decisions, the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP) is most useful where teams of people are working on complex problems, especially those with high
stakes, involving human perceptions and judgments, whose resolutions have long-term repercussions.[2] It
has unique advantages when important elements of the decision are difficult to quantify or compare, or
where communication among team members is impeded by their different specializations, terminologies, or
perspectives.
Decision situations to which the AHP can be applied include:[3]
Choice - The selection of one alternative from a given set of alternatives, usually where there
are multiple decision criteria involved.
Ranking - Putting a set of alternatives in order from most to least desirable
Prioritization - Determining the relative merit of members of a set of alternatives, as opposed to
2 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
selecting a single one or merely ranking them

Resource allocation - Apportioning resources among a set of alternatives
Benchmarking - Comparing the processes in one's own organization with those of other
best-of-breed organizations
Quality management - Dealing with the multidimensional aspects of quality and quality
improvement
The applications of AHP to complex decision situations have numbered in the thousands,[4] and have
produced extensive results in problems involving planning, resource allocation, priority setting, and selection
among alternatives.[2] Other areas have included forecasting, total quality management, business process
re-engineering, quality function deployment, and the Balanced Scorecard.[3] Many AHP applications are
never reported to the world at large, because they take place at high levels of large organizations where
security and privacy considerations prohibit their disclosure. But some uses of AHP are discussed in the
literature. Recently these have included:
Deciding how best to reduce the impact of global climate change (Fondazione Eni Enrico
Mattei)[5]
Quantifying the overall quality of software systems (Microsoft Corporation)[6]
Selecting university faculty (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania)[7]
Deciding where to locate offshore manufacturing plants (University of Cambridge)[8]
Assessing risk in operating cross-country petroleum pipelines (American Society of Civil
Engineers)[9]
Deciding how best to manage U.S. watersheds (U.S. Department of Agriculture)[4]
AHP is sometimes used in designing highly specific procedures for particular situations, such as the rating of
buildings by historic significance.[10] It was recently applied to a project that uses video footage to assess the
condition of highways in Virginia. Highway engineers first used it to determine the optimum scope of the
project, then to justify its budget to lawmakers.[11]
Education and scholarly research

Though using the Analytic Hierarchy Process requires no specialized academic training, it is considered an
important subject in many institutions of higher learning, including schools of engineering[12] and graduate
schools of business.[13] It is a particularly important subject in the quality field, and is taught in many
specialized courses including Six Sigma, Lean Six Sigma, and QFD.[14][15][16]
Nearly a hundred Chinese universities offer courses in AHP, and many doctoral students choose AHP as the
subject of their research and dissertations. Over 900 papers have been published on the subject in China, and
there is at least one Chinese scholarly journal devoted exclusively to AHP.[17]
The International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (ISAHP) holds biennial meetings of
academics and practitioners interested in the field. At its 2007 meeting in Valparaiso, Chile, over 90 papers
were presented from 19 countries, including the U.S., Germany, Japan, Chile, Malaysia, and Nepal. Topics
covered ranged from Establishing Payment Standards for Surgical Specialists, to Strategic Technology
Roadmapping, to Infrastructure Reconstruction in Devastated Countries.[18]
Full text copies of all ISAHP papers from 2001-2007 can be found here (http://www.isahp.org
/proceedings.php) .
Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process
3 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
As can be seen in the material that follows, using the AHP involves the
mathematical synthesis of numerous judgments about the decision problem at
hand. It is not uncommon for these judgments to number in the dozens or even
the hundreds. While the math can be done by hand or with a calculator, it is far
more common to use one of several computerized methods for entering and
synthesizing the judgments. The simplest of these involve standard spreadsheet
software, while the most complex use custom software, often augmented by
special devices for acquiring the judgments of decision makers gathered in a
meeting room.
The procedure for using the AHP can be summarized as:

A typical device for
1. Model the problem as a hierarchy containing the decision goal, the entering judgments in an
alternatives for reaching it, and the criteria for evaluating the alternatives. AHP group decision
2. Establish priorities among the elements of the hierarchy by making a making session
series of judgments based on pairwise comparisons of the elements. For
example, when comparing potential real-estate purchases, the investors might say they prefer location
over price and price over timing.
3. Synthesize these judgments to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy. This would combine
the investors' judgments about location, price and timing for properties A, B, C, and D into overall
priorities for each property.
4. Check the consistency of the judgments.
5. Come to a final decision based on the results of this process.[19]
These steps are more fully described below.
Model the problem as a hierarchy
The first step in the Analytic Hierarchy Process is to model the problem as a hierarchy. In doing this,
participants explore the aspects of the problem at levels from general to detailed, then express it in the
multileveled way that the AHP requires. As they work to build the hierarchy, they increase their
understanding of the problem, of its context, and of each other's thoughts and feelings about both.[19]
Hierarchies defined
A hierarchy is a system of ranking and organizing people, things, ideas, etc., where each element of the
system, except for the top one, is subordinate to one or more other elements. Diagrams of hierarchies are
often shaped roughly like pyramids, but other than having a single element at the top, there is nothing
necessarily pyramid-shaped about a hierarchy.
Human organizations are often structured as hierarchies, where the hierarchical system is used for assigning
responsibilities, exercising leadership, and facilitating communication. Familiar hierarchies of "things"
include a desktop computer's tower unit at the "top," with its subordinate monitor, keyboard, and mouse
"below."
In the world of ideas, we use hierarchies to help us acquire detailed knowledge of complex reality: we
structure the reality into its constituent parts, and these in turn into their own constituent parts, proceeding
down the hierarchy as many levels as we care to. At each step, we focus on understanding a single
component of the whole, temporarily disregarding the other components at this and all other levels. As we go
through this process, we increase our global understanding of whatever complex reality we are studying.
Think of the hierarchy that medical students use while learning anatomy—they separately consider the
musculoskeletal system (including parts and subparts like the hand and its constituent muscles and bones),
the circulatory system (and its many levels and branches), the nervous system (and its numerous components
4 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
and subsystems), etc., until they've covered all the systems and the important subdivisions of each.
Advanced students continue the subdivision all the way to the level of the cell or molecule. In the end, the
students understand the "big picture" and a considerable number of its details. Not only that, but they
understand the relation of the individual parts to the whole. By working hierarchically, they've gained a
comprehensive understanding of anatomy.
Similarly, when we approach a complex decision problem, we can use a hierarchy to integrate large amounts
of information into our understanding of the situation. As we build this information structure, we form a
better and better picture of the problem as a whole.[19]
AHP hierarchies explained
An AHP hierarchy is a structured means of modeling the problem at hand. It consists of an overall goal, a
group of options or alternatives for reaching the goal, and a group of factors or criteria that relate the
alternatives to the goal. The criteria can be further broken down into subcriteria, sub-subcriteria, and so on,
in as many levels as the problem requires.
The hierarchy can be visualized as a diagram like the one below, with the goal at the top, the alternatives at
the bottom, and the criteria in the middle. There are useful terms for describing the parts of such diagrams:
Each box is called a node. The boxes descending from any node are called its children. The node from
which a child node descends is called its parent. Groups of related children are called comparison groups.
The parents of an Alternative, which are often from different comparison groups, are called its covering
criteria.
Applying these definitions to the diagram, the four Criteria are children of the Goal, and the Goal is the
parent of each of the four Criteria. Each Alternative is a child of its four covering criteria. There are two
comparison groups: a group of four Criteria and a group of three Alternatives.
A simple AHP hierarchy. To avoid clutter in AHP diagrams, the lines

connecting alternatives and their covering criteria are often omitted or
reduced in number. Regardless of any such simplifications in the
diagram, in the actual hierarchy each alternative is connected to every
one of its covering criteria.
The design of any AHP hierarchy will depend not only on the nature of the problem at hand, but also on the
knowledge, judgments, values, opinions, needs, wants, etc. of the participants in the process. Published
descriptions of AHP applications often include diagrams and descriptions of their hierarchies. These have
been collected and reprinted in at least one book.[20] You can see some more complex AHP hierarchies
HERE.
5 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
As the AHP proceeds through its other steps, the hierarchy can be changed to accommodate newly-
thought-of criteria or criteria not originally considered to be important; alternatives can also be added,
deleted, or changed.[19]
Establish priorities
Once the hierarchy has been constructed, the participants use AHP to establish priorities for all its nodes. In
doing so, information is elicited from the participants and processed mathematically. This section explains
priorities, shows how they are established, and provides a simple example.
Priorities defined and explained
Priorities are numbers associated with the nodes of an AHP hierarchy. They represent the relative weights
of the nodes in any group.
Like probabilities, priorities are absolute numbers between zero and one, without units or dimensions. A
node with priority .200 has twice the weight in reaching the goal as one with priority .100, ten times the
weight of one with priority .020, and so forth. Depending on the problem at hand, "weight" can refer to
importance, or preference, or likelihood, or whatever factor is being considered by the decision makers.
Priorities are distributed over a hierarchy according to its architecture, and their values depend on the
information entered by users of the process. Priorities of the Goal, the Criteria, and the Alternatives are
intimately related, but need to be considered separately.
By definition, the priority of the Goal is 1.000. The priorities of the Alternatives always add up to 1.000.
Things can become complicated with multiple levels of Criteria, but if there is only one level, their priorities
also add to 1.000. All this is illustrated by the priorities in the example below.
Simple AHP hierarchy with associated default priorities.
Observe that the priorities on each level of the example—the Goal, the Criteria, and the Alternatives—all
add up to 1.000.
The priorities shown are those that exist before any information has been entered about weights of the
criteria or alternatives, so the priorities within each level are all equal. They are called the hierarchy’s
default priorities. If you understand what has been said so far, you will see that if a fifth Criterion were
added to this hierarchy, the default priority for each Criterion would be .200. If there were only two
Alternatives, each would have a default priority of .500.
6 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Two additional concepts apply when a hierarchy has more than one level of criteria: local priorities and
global priorities. Consider the hierarchy shown below, which has several Subcriteria under each Criterion.
A more complex AHP hierarchy, with local and global default priorities. In the interest of
clarity, the decision alternatives do not appear in the diagram.
The local priorities, shown in gray, represent the relative weights of the nodes within a group of siblings
with respect to their parent. You can easily see that the local priorities of each group of Criteria and their
sibling Subcriteria add up to 1.000. The global priorities, shown in black, are obtained by multiplying the
local priorities of the siblings by their parent’s global priority. The global priorities for all the subcriteria in
the level add up to 1.000.
The rule is this: Within a hierarchy, the global priorities of child nodes always add up to the global priority of
their parent. Within a group of children, the local priorities add up to 1.000.
So far, we have looked only at default priorities. As the Analytical Hierarchy Process moves forward, the
priorities will change from their default values as the decision makers input information about the
importance of the various nodes. They do this by making a series of pairwise comparisons.
A simple example
In an AHP hierarchy for the simple case of buying a vehicle, the goal might be to choose the best car for the
Jones family. The family might decide to consider cost, safety, style, and capacity as the criteria for making
their decision. They might subdivide the cost criterion into purchase price, fuel costs, maintenance costs, and
resale value. They might separate Capacity into cargo capacity and passenger capacity. The family, which
for personal reasons always buys Hondas, might decide to consider as alternatives the Accord Sedan, Accord
Hybrid Sedan, Pilot SUV, CR-V SUV, Element SUV, and Odyssey Minivan.
The Jones' hierarchy could be diagrammed as shown below:
7 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
AHP hierarchy for the Jones family car buying decision. The Goal is green, the Criteria and Subcriteria are
yellow, and the Alternatives are pink. All the alternatives (six different models of Hondas) are shown below the
lowest level of each criterion. Later in the process, each alternative (each model) will be rated with respect to the
criterion or subcriterion directly above it.
Alternatives for the Jones family car buying decision. To save space in the diagrams, we have represented them as
stacks of papers.
As they build their hierarchy, the Joneses should investigate the values or measurements of the different
elements that make it up. If there are published safety ratings, for example, or manufacturer's specs for cargo
capacity, they should be gathered as part of the process. This information will be needed later, when the
criteria and alternatives are evaluated.
Note that the measurements for some criteria, such as purchase price, can be stated with absolute certainty.
Others, such as resale value, must be estimated, so must be stated with somewhat less confidence. Still
others, such as style, are really in the eye of the beholder and are hard to state quantitatively at all. The AHP
can accommodate all these types of criteria, even when they are present in a single problem.
Also note that the structure of the vehicle-buying hierarchy might be different for other families (ones who
don't limit themselves to Hondas, or who care nothing about style, or who drive less than 5,000 miles
(8,000 km) a year, etc.). It would definitely be different for a 25-year-old playboy who doesn't care how
much his cars cost, knows he will never wreck one, and is intensely interested in speed, handling, and the
numerous aspects of style.[19]
Pairwise comparisons
To incorporate their judgments about the various elements in the hierarchy, decision makers compare the
elements two by two. How they are compared will be shown later on. Right now, let's see which items are
compared. Our example will begin with the four Criteria in the second row of the hierarchy, though we could
begin elsewhere if we wanted to. The Criteria will be compared as to how important they are to the decision
makers, with respect to the Goal.
Each pair of items in this row will be compared; there are a total of six pairs (Cost/Safety, Cost/Style,
8 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Cost/Capacity, Safety/Style, Safety/Capacity, and Style/Capacity). You can use the diagram below to see
these pairs more clearly.
AHP hierarchy for the Jones family car buying decision. Can you see the six possible comparisons in the Criteria
row?
Alternatives for the Jones family car buying decision. These six models are pairwise compared with each of the
covering criteria. First do them with respect to Purchase Price, then with respect to Fuel Costs, and so on until the
end, with Passenger Capacity.
In the next row, there is a group of four subcriteria under the Cost criterion, and a group of two subcriteria
under the Capacity criterion.
In the Cost subgroup, each pair of subcriteria will be compared regarding their importance with respect to
the Cost criterion. (As always, their importance is judged by the decision makers.) Once again, there are six
pairs to compare (Purchase Price/Fuel Costs, Purchase Price/Maintenance Costs, Purchase Price/Resale
Value, Fuel Costs/Maintenance Costs, Fuel Costs/Resale Value, and Maintenance Costs/Resale Value).
In the Capacity subgroup, there is only one pair of subcriteria. They are compared as to how important they
are with respect to the Capacity criterion.
Things change a bit when we get to the Alternatives row. Here, the cars in each group of alternatives are
compared pair-by-pair with respect to the covering criterion of the group, which is the node directly above
them in the hierarchy. What we are doing here is evaluating the models under consideration with respect to
Purchase Price, then with respect to Fuel Costs, then Maintenance Costs, Resale Value, Safety, Style, Cargo
Capacity, and Passenger Capacity. Because there are six cars in the group of alternatives, there will be
fifteen comparisons for each of the eight covering criteria.
When the pairwise comparisons are as numerous as those in our example, specialized AHP software can
help in making them quickly and efficiently. We will assume that the Jones family has access to such
software, and that it allows the opinions of various family members to be combined into an overall opinion
for the group.
9 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
The family's first pairwise comparison is Cost vs. Safety. They need to decide which of these is more
important in choosing the best car for them all. This can be a difficult decision. On the one hand, "You can't
put a price on safety. Nothing is more important than the life of a family member." But on the other hand,
the family has a limited amount of money to spend, no member has ever had a major accident, and Hondas
are known as very safe cars. In spite of the difficulty in comparing money to potential injury or death, the
Jones family needs to determine its judgment about Cost vs. Safety in the car they are about to buy. They
have to say which criterion is more important to them in reaching their goal, and how much more important
it is (to them) than the other one. In making this judgment, they should remember that since the AHP is a
flexible process, they can change their judgment later on.
You can imagine that there might be heated family discussion about Cost vs. Safety. It is the nature of the
AHP to promote focused discussions about difficult aspects of the decisions to which it is applied. Such
discussions encourage the communication of differences, which in turn encourages cooperation,
compromise, and agreement among the members of the group.
Let's say that the family decides that in this case, Cost is moderately more important to them than Safety.
The software requires them to express this judgment by entering a number. They can use this table to
determine it; in this case they would enter a 3 in favor of Cost:
Continuing our example, let's say they make the following judgments about all the comparisons of criteria,
entering them into the software as numbers gotten from the table: as stated, Cost is moderately important (3)
over Safety; also, Cost is very strongly important (7) over Style, and is moderately important (3) over
Capacity. Safety is extremely more important (9) than Style, and of equal importance (1) to Capacity.
Capacity is very strongly important (7) over Style.
We could show those judgments in a table like this:
10 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Judgments made by the Jones family and

entered into the AHP software. Throughout
this article, the family's judgments are shown with
a green background. The orange and yellow
colors show which alternative predominates.
The AHP software uses mathematical calculations to convert these judgments to priorities for each of the
four criteria. The details of the calculations are beyond the scope of this article, but are readily available
elsewhere.[2][21][22][23] The software also calculates a consistency ratio that expresses the internal
consistency of the judgments that have been entered.
In this case the judgments showed acceptable consistency, and the software used the family's inputs to assign
these new priorities to the criteria:
AHP hierarchy for the Jones family car buying decision. The Criteria have been pairwise compared, and their new
priorities are shown. (Before the comparisons, each Criterion had a default priority of 0.250.) Note that the priorities
still total 1.000, and the priorities for the subcriteria have not changed. The family has said that Cost is quite
important to them, Style is relatively unimportant, and Safety and Capacity are each roughly half as important as
Cost, with Safety having a slight edge over Capacity. Family members can look at these priorities and see how they
feel about them. If they are uncomfortable about something, they can redo their pairwise comparisons.
You can duplicate this analysis at this online demonstration site (http://www.cci-icc.gc.ca/tools
/ahp/index_e.asp) ; use the Line by Line Method by clicking its button, and don't forget to enter a negative
number if the Criterion on the left is less important than the one on the right. If you are having trouble, click
here (http://www.louis.sander.com/pairwiseexample.htm) for help. IMPORTANT: The demo site is
designed for convenience, not accuracy. The priorities it returns may differ significantly from those
returned by rigorous AHP calculations. Nevertheless, it is useful in showing the mechanics of the pairwise
comparison process. Once you are comfortable with the demo, you can experiment by entering your own
judgments for the criteria in question. If your judgments are different from those of the Jones family, your
11 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
priorities will possibly be quite different from theirs.[24]
Look again at the above diagram and note that the Subcriteria still show their default priorities. This is
because the decision makers haven't entered any judgments about them. So next on the family's agenda is to
pairwise compare the four Subcriteria under Cost, then the two Subcriteria under Capacity. They will
compare them following the same pattern as they did for the Criteria.
We could imagine the result of their comparisons yielding the priorities shown here:[25]
AHP hierarchy for the Jones family car buying decision, showing LOCAL priorities. The items in each group of
Subcriteria have been pairwise compared, and their resulting priorities are shown. The priorities in each group total
1.000. These are called local priorities.
At this point, all the comparisons for Criteria and Subcriteria have been made, and the AHP software has
derived the local priorities for each group at each level. One more step can be made here. We know how
much the priority of each Criterion contributes to the priority of the Goal. Since we also know how much the
priority of each Subcriterion contributes to the priority of its parent, we (and the AHP software) can
calculate the global priority of each Subcriterion. That will show us the priority of each Subcriterion with
respect to the Goal. The global priorities throughout the hierarchy will add up to 1.000, like this:
12 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
AHP hierarchy for the Jones family car buying decision, showing GLOBAL priorities. The priority of the Goal
is 1.000, as always. The global priorities shown in red for the Criteria and Subcriteria also add up to 1.000. Each
item with a red global priority contributes that amount to the priority of the Goal.
Based on the judgments entered by the family, the AHP has derived the priorities for the factors against
which each of the six cars will be compared. They are shown, from highest to lowest, in the table below.
Notice that Cost and Capacity will not be evaluated directly, but that each of their Subcriteria will be
evaluated on its own:
Factor Priority
Purchase Price 0.246
Safety 0.237
Passenger Capacity 0.181
Fuel Costs 0.127
Resale Value 0.081
Maintenance Costs 0.050
Style 0.042
Cargo Capacity 0.036
The next step is to evaluate each of the cars with respect to these factors. In the technical language of AHP,
we will pairwise compare the alternatives with respect to their covering criteria.
Comparing alternatives
The family can evaluate alternatives against their covering criteria in any order they choose. In this case,
they choose the order of decreasing priority of the covering criteria. That means Purchase Price first.
Purchase price
The family has established a budget of $25,000 for buying the new car, but they are willing to consider
alternatives whose price exceeds their budget. To refresh your mind, here are the six cars they are
13 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
considering—in AHP terminology, the six alternatives—along with their purchase prices:
The Jones Family's

alternatives, with purchase
prices.
Knowing that they will have a lot of pairwise comparisons to make, the family prepared this worksheet to
help them. It shows comparative information about the price and budget status of each pair of cars:
The Jones family's purchase price worksheet.
Now, what do they do?
First they might compare the purchase price of the Accord Sedan to that of the Accord Hybrid. If they stick
purely to arithmetic, they could say that the Sedan is favored by 1.5, since the Hybrid's price is about 1.5
times that of the Sedan, and a lower price is better. They could follow that pattern through all 15 of the
comparisons, and it would give a mathematically consistent set of comparisons.
But merely entering the numbers wouldn't take into account things like the $25,000 budget, or the value to
the family of saving, say, $5,000 vs. $1,000 on a purchase. Things like that can be highly important in
making decisions, and their importance can vary greatly with the situation and the people involved. Some
families might never want to exceed their budget. Others might be willing to exceed it by a few dollars or a
few percent, but very unwilling to go further. Still others might not care much if they spend double their
budget on the car. Because the AHP allows decision makers to enter their judgments about the data, rather
than just the data themselves, it can deal with all these situations and more.
Let's say that the Jones family is willing to exceed their budget by up to $1,000, but anything more is
unacceptable. They "never say never," however—budget-busting cars will score as low as possible on
purchase price, but won't be removed from the list of alternatives. And for cars priced under budget, a
14 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
$1,000 difference in price doesn't matter much to the Joneses, but a $5,000 difference is strongly important,
and a $10,000 difference is extreme. They might enter the following intensities into the AHP software
(throughout this example, the judgments of decision makers are shaded in green):
Purchase price judgments entered by the Jones family, with the rationale for their choices. From the Fundamental Scale,
preferred, 3 that A is moderately preferred to B, 5 that A is strongly preferred, 7 that A is very strongly preferred, and 9 th
Intensities 2, 4, 6, and 8 express intermediate values.
You can follow the family's thinking by looking at the rationale for each judgment. Whenever a car that is
under budget is compared with one that is over budget by more than $1,000, the former is extremely
preferred. For cars under budget, a $1,000 less expensive car is slightly preferred, a $5,000 one is strongly
preferred, and a $6,000 one is even more strongly preferred. When both cars are well over budget
(comparison #6), they are equally preferred, which is to say they are equally undesirable. Because budget
status and absolute price difference are enough to make each comparison, the ratio of prices never enters
into the judgments.
When the judgments shown above are entered, the AHP software returns the following priorities for the six
alternatives with respect to Purchase Price:
Local Global
Alternative
Priority Priority
Element 0.362 0.089

Accord 0.242 0.060
CR-V 0.242 0.060
Odyssey 0.100 0.025
Pilot 0.027 0.007
Accord Hybrid 0.027 0.007
TOTAL 1.000 0.246
The local priorities show how much the purchase price of each model contributes to the subcriterion of
Purchase Price. The global priorities show how much the purchase price of each model contributes to the
15 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
overall goal of choosing the best car for the Jones family.
Safety
Comparing the alternatives on the basis of Safety is much less objective than comparing them on Purchase
Price. Purchase prices are measured in dollars and can be determined to the penny. People can easily agree
on the meaning of a $20,360 purchase price, and can rationally compare it to all the other prices, using
methods and calculations that are understood and accepted by all.
But "safety" eludes our efforts even to define it in an objective way. Not only that, but the objective
measurements of safety are limited and not readily comparable from car to car.
The government conducts objective crash tests, but they are incomplete measures of the "safety" of a given
car. Also, the crash tests only compare the members of a single class of cars, such as Midsize Cars or
Minivans. Is a midsize car with 100% 5-star safety ratings equally as safe as a minivan with the same ratings?
It's not exactly clear. And when evaluating minivans that have 5-star ratings in all categories but one, who
can say if the one with four stars for "Frontal Impact, Driver's Side" is safer than the one whose four stars
are in "Side Impact, Rear Occupant?" There's really no way to tell.
In spite of these difficulties, the AHP provides a rational way to evaluate the relative safety of different cars.
Let's assume that the Jones family has researched the Safety of the six Hondas they are considering. They
will have found that all of them are among the safest cars on the road. All six are "Top Safety Picks" of the
IIHS safety standards organization. All of them do very well in the crash testing programs of the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But there are differences between them, and the family wants to
factor the differences into their decision. "Your car can never be too safe."
The worksheet below includes the data that the family has decided to evaluate. They believe that a heavier
car is a safer car, so they've documented the curb weights of their alternatives. They have investigated the
results of government crash tests, and they've summarized the results on the worksheet:
Safety data to be evaluated by the Jones family. Curb Weight is from

manufacturer's literature. Crash Ratings are from NHTSA and are given for
various classes of vehicle. For each class, they include Frontal Impact,
Driver's Side; Frontal Impact, Passenger's Side; Side Impact, Front
Occupant; Side Impact, Rear Occupant; and Rollover Rating. Ratings are
from one to five stars, with five stars being the best.
The family will consider everything in the worksheet as they compare their alternatives. They are not safety
experts, but they can apply their life experience to making decisions about the safety ratings. They all feel
safer when driving a car that is significantly heavier than another one. One family member has seen two
gruesome rollover accidents, and is terrified of a vehicle rolling over with her inside. She insists that the
family car has the highest possible Rollover Rating.
Here are the weights that the Jones family enters for the alternatives regarding Safety (throughout this
example, orange shading is used for judgments where A is favored; yellow shading is used for B):
16 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Safety judgments entered by the Jones family, with the intensity and rationale for each. From the
Fundamental Scale, 1 expresses that A and B are equally preferred, 3 that the better of the pair is
moderately preferred to the worse, 5 that the better is strongly preferred, 7 that the better is very strongly
preferred, and 9 that the better is extremely preferred to the worse. Intensities 2, 4, 6, and 8 express
intermediate values.
alternatives with respect to Safety:
Local Global
Alternative
Priority Priority
Odyssey 0.424 0.100

Accord 0.215 0.051
Pilot 0.083 0.020
CR-V 0.038 0.009
Element 0.025 0.006
TOTAL 1.000 0.237
The local priorities show how much the safety of each model contributes to the Criterion of Safety. The
global priorities show how much the Safety of each model contributes to the overall goal of choosing the best
car for the Jones family.
Passenger capacity
This characteristic is easy to evaluate. The alternatives can carry either four or five or eight passengers. Here
are the figures:
17 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Passenger Capacity of the

Jones family's alternatives.
The family has decided that four is barely enough, five is perfect for their needs, and eight is just a little bit
better than five. Here are their judgments:
Passenger Capacity judgments entered by the Jones

family. The rationale is that four passengers is barely enough,
five is perfect for their needs, and eight is just a little bit better
than five.
alternatives with respect to Passenger Capacity:
Local Global
Alternative
Priority Priority
Pilot 0.273 0.049

Odyssey 0.273 0.049
Accord 0.136 0.025
CR-V 0.136 0.025
Element 0.046 0.008
TOTAL 1.000 0.181
The local priorities show how much the passenger capacity of each model contributes to the Subcriterion of
18 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Passenger Capacity. The global priorities show how much the passenger capacity of each model contributes
to the overall goal of choosing the best car for the Jones family.
Fuel costs
After careful consideration, the Jones family believes that no matter which car they buy, they will drive it
the same number of miles per year. In other words, there is nothing about any of the alternatives, including
the price of fuel or the car's fuel consumption per mile, that would cause it to be driven more or fewer miles
than any other alternative. They also believe that the government MPG rating is an accurate basis on which
to compare the fuel consumption of the cars. Here is a worksheet showing the government MPG ratings of
the Jones family alternatives:
Fuel consumption figures for

the Jones family's alternatives.
They believe, therefore, that the fuel cost of any alternative vs. any other depends exclusively on the MPG
ratings of the two cars. So the pairwise judgments they enter for any two cars will be inversely proportional
to their MPG ratings. In other words, if car A has exactly twice the MPG rating of car B, the Fuel Cost for
car B will be exactly twice that of car A. This table shows the judgments they will enter for all the
comparisons:
Fuel Cost judgments entered by the Jones family. Judgments

are inversely proportional to the MPG ratings of the cars being
compared.
alternatives with respect to Fuel Cost:
Local Global
Alternative
19 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Priority Priority

Accord 0.188 0.024
CR-V 0.160 0.020
Odyssey 0.156 0.020
Element 0.151 0.019
Pilot 0.133 0.017
TOTAL 1.000 0.127
The local priorities show how much the fuel cost of each model contributes to the subcriterion of Fuel Costs.
The global priorities show how much the fuel cost of each model contributes to the overall goal of choosing
the best car for the Jones family.
Resale value
When the family researched Resale Value, they learned that lending institutions keep statistics on the market
value of different models after various time periods. These estimated "residual values" are used for leasing,
and are typically based on a limit of 12,000 miles (19,000 km) driven per year. Actual residual values
depend on the condition of the car, and can vary with market conditions.
The Joneses are going to buy their car, not lease it, and they expect to drive it more than 12,000 miles per
year, but they agree among themselves that the leasing figures are a good basis on which to compare the
alternatives under consideration. Their bank gave them this table showing the residual value of each
alternative after four years and 48,000 miles (77,000 km):
Four-year residual values. A

value of 0.52 means that this model
is worth 52% of its original price.
As they look at the table of residual values, they see that the residual value of a CR-V is 25% higher than
that of a Pilot (0.55 is 125% of 0.44). They reason that such a greatly higher residual value is an indication of
a better or more desirable car, so they want to place a premium on cars with relatively high residual value.
After some thought and discussion, they decide that, when comparing residual values, they want to look at
the higher one as a percentage of the lower, and assign their intensities on that basis. Where one model has a
residual value that is less than 105% of another, they consider the residual values as equal for all practical
purposes. Where one model has a residual value that is 125% of the residual value of another, they consider
the former model as quite strongly more important, desirable, valuable, etc., as indicated by its much higher
resale value. With a bit more thought and discussion, they decide to make their judgments on this basis:
20 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
The Jones rationale for comparing residual values.

It is based on the higher residual value as a percentage
of the lower one.
They realize that not every family would do it this way, but this way seems best for them. This table shows
the judgments they will enter for their Resale Value comparisons:
Resale Value comparisons entered by the Jones family. They are based on the rationale
shown above.
alternatives with respect to Resale Value:
Local Global
Alternative
Priority Priority
CR-V 0.415 0.034

Accord 0.225 0.018
Element 0.105 0.009
Odyssey 0.105 0.009
Pilot 0.055 0.004
TOTAL 1.000 0.081
The local priorities show how much the resale value of each model contributes to the Subcriterion of Resale
Value. The global priorities show how much the resale value of each model contributes to the overall goal of
21 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
choosing the best car for the Jones family.
Maintenance costs
The Jones family researched maintenance costs for the cars under consideration, but they didn't find any
hard figures. The closest they got was Consumer Reports magazine, which publishes 17 separate
maintenance ratings for every car on the market. Their Hondas ranked very well, with all ratings "Much
Better Than Average," except for a few on the Pilot and Odyssey. The Pilot got "Better Than Average" for
its audio system and the user rating, and "Average" for body integrity. The Odyssey got "Better Than
Average" for body hardware and power equipment, and "Average" for brakes, body integrity, and user
rating.
The Joneses also asked their favorite mechanic to evaluate the maintenance costs for their six cars. Using tire
prices and mileage estimates, he came up with figures for tire costs over 60,000 miles (97,000 km) of driving.
He didn't have figures for brake costs, but he said they'd be about twice as much for the SUVs and minivans
as they would for the sedans. He also cautioned them that the battery in the Accord Hybrid was an
expensive repair item, and that the engine placement on the Odyssey made it a more expensive car to work
on.
The family created this worksheet to keep track of all their information about maintenance costs:
Jones family worksheet for Maintenance Costs. Plus signs indicate

good maintenance history; the more plus signs, the lower the
maintenance costs.
Even though every column on the worksheet contains a different type of information, the Joneses can use it
to make reasonable, rational judgments about Maintenance Costs. Here are the judgments they will enter:
22 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Maintenance Cost judgments entered by the

Jones family. From the Fundamental Scale, 1
means that A and B are equally preferred, 3 that A is
moderately preferred, and 5 that A is strongly
preferred. Intermediate numbers express
intermediate preferences.
alternatives with respect to Maintenance Costs:
Local Global
Alternative
Priority Priority
Accord 0.357 0.018

CR-V 0.100 0.005
Element 0.089 0.004
Pilot 0.084 0.004
Odyssey 0.058 0.003
TOTAL 1.000 0.050
The local priorities show how much the projected maintenance cost of each model contributes to the
subcriterion of Maintenance Costs. The global priorities show how much the maintenance cost of each
model contributes to the overall goal of choosing the best car for the Jones family.
Style
The family decided that Style is important to them, but how can they determine the "style" of each of the six
alternatives? "Style" is a pretty subjective concept—it can truly be said that "style is in the eye of the
beholder." Yet through the method of pairwise comparison, the AHP gives the Jones family a way to
evaluate the "style" of the cars they are considering.
Honda's web site provides photos of each of the alternatives. It also has videos, commercials, rotatable 360°
23 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
views, color chips, and more, all available to help family members evaluate the Style of each car. The family
can compare their alternatives two-by-two on Style, using the tools on the web site to help them make their
judgments. They did just that, and here is the record of their judgments:
Style judgments entered by the Jones family. The

family looked at each pair of cars as shown in detail
on a web site, decided which of the two they
preferred, then entered the intensity of their
preference according to the Fundamental Scale.
When the judgments shown above are entered, the AHP software returns the following local priorities for
the six alternatives with respect to Style:
Local Global
Alternative
Priority Priority
Accord 0.346 0.015

CR-V 0.160 0.007
Odyssey 0.078 0.003
Pilot 0.045 0.002
Element 0.025 0.001
TOTAL 1.000 0.042
The local priorities show how much the style of each model contributes to the Style Criterion. The global
priorities show how much the Style of each model contributes to the overall goal of choosing the best car for
the Jones family.
Cargo capacity
The Cargo Capacity of each alternative, measured in cubic feet, is listed in the manufacturer's specifications
for each vehicle. The Joneses don't really know how it is calculated, but they trust that it's a good indication
of how much cargo can be packed into a vehicle. This worksheet shows the cargo capacities of the Jones'
24 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
alternatives:
Cargo Capacity of the Jones'

alternatives.
Cargo capacities for the alternatives vary from 14 to 148 cubic feet (4.2 m3). If they wanted to, the Jones
family could enter these capacities directly into the AHP software. But that would mean that, when
considering Cargo Capacity, a car with 148 cu ft (4.2 m3). of it would be over ten times as desirable as one
with only 14. Given the car's use as a family vehicle, that doesn't seem quite right. So the family looks at the
available capacities and determines that a 14 cu ft (0.40 m3). trunk is perfectly fine for their needs, that
something about five times larger is slightly better, and that something about ten times larger is moderately
so. These judgments correspond to values of 1, 2, and 3 on the AHP's Fundamental Scale.
Here are the judgments they would enter into the AHP software:
Cargo Capacity judgments entered by the Jones family. The rationale

is that 14 cubic feet (0.40 m3) is totally satisfactory, five times that
much (70 cu. ft.) is slightly better, and ten times that much (140 cu. ft.)
is moderately better than 14.
When the judgments shown above are entered, the AHP software returns the following local priorities for
the six alternatives with respect to Cargo Capacity:
Local Global
Alternative
Priority Priority
Odyssey 0.310 0.011
25 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Pilot 0.170 0.006

CR-V 0.170 0.006
Element 0.170 0.006
Accord 0.090 0.003
TOTAL 1.000 0.036
The local priorities show how much the cargo capacity of each model contributes to the subcriterion of
Cargo Capacity. The global priorities show how much the cargo capacity of each model contributes to the
overall goal of choosing the best car for the Jones family.
Make the decision
In the end, the AHP software arranges and totals the global priorities for each of the alternatives. Their grand
total is 1.000, which is identical to the priority of the goal. Each alternative has a global priority
corresponding to its "fit" to all the family's judgments about all those aspects of Cost, Safety, Style and
Capacity. Here is a summary of the global priorities of the alternatives:
Global priorities for the Jones family car buying decision. Note that the priorities for each group of children total
that of their parent.
The Odyssey Minivan, with a global priority of 0.220, is the alternative that contributes the most to the goal
of choosing the best car for the Jones family. The Accord Sedan is a close second, with a priority of 0.213.
The other models have considerably less priority than those two. In descending order, they are CR-V SUV,
Accord Hybrid, Element SUV, and Pilot SUV.
The Analytic Hierarchy Process has shown the Joneses that the Odyssey Minivan best satisfies all their
criteria and judgments, followed closely by the Accord Sedan. The other alternatives fall significantly short
of meeting their criteria. The family's next step is up to them. They might just go out and buy an Odyssey, or
they might use the AHP or other means to refine their decision between the Odyssey and the Accord Sedan.
Criticisms
The AHP is now included in most operations research and management science textbooks, and is taught in
numerous universities; it is used extensively in organizations that have carefully investigated its theoretical
underpinnings.[3] While the general consensus is that it is both technically valid and practically useful, the
method does have its critics.[6]
26 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
In the early 1990s a series of debates between critics and proponents of AHP was published in Management
Science[26][27][28][29] and The Journal of the Operational Research Society.[30][31][32] These debates seem
to have been settled in favor of AHP:
An in-depth paper discussing and rebutting the academic criticisms of AHP was published in
Operations Research in 2001.[3]
A 2008 Management Science paper reviewing 15 years of progress in all areas of Multicriteria
Decision Making showed that AHP publications have far outnumbered those in any other area,
characterizing their growth as "enormous."[33]
Also in 2008, the major international society for operations research and the management sciences
formally recognized AHP's broad impact on its fields.[34]
Occasional criticisms still appear. A 1997 paper examined possible flaws in the verbal (vs. numerical) scale
often used in AHP pairwise comparisons.[35] Another from the same year claimed that innocuous changes to
the AHP model can introduce order where no order exists.[36] A 2006 paper found that the addition of
criteria for which all alternatives perform equally can alter the priorities of alternatives.[37]
Most of the criticisms involve a phenomenon called rank reversal, discussed in the following section.
Rank reversal
Many people hear about rank reversal and assume that there is some sort of proven principle about it that
needs to be upheld in making decisions. That assumption has led to much misunderstanding of AHP and
other decision making techniques. In actuality, rank reversal is a complex matter about which there are many
conflicting ideas and opinions.[21] This section offers a simplified explanation of the situation.
Decision making involves ranking alternatives in terms of criteria or attributes of those alternatives. It is an
axiom of some decision theories that when new alternatives are added to a decision problem, the ranking of
the old alternatives must not change. But in the real world, adding new alternatives CAN change the rank of
the old ones. These rank reversals do not occur often, but the possibility of their occurrence has substantial
logical implications about the methodology used to make decisions, the underlying assumptions of various
decision theories, etc.
A simple example will demonstrate the phenomenon of rank reversal:
Consider a pretty girl in a small town. She's having a party next week, and she wants to buy a dress that will
impress her guests. She visits the town's only dress store and goes to the rack of party dresses. There are five
such dresses, and after long consideration she ranks them by desirability as follows:
Rank Style Color Price

1 Style A Blue $109
2 Style A Green $109
3 Style B Red $119
4 Style C Yellow $99
5 Style D Off-White $149
Now imagine that she enters the back room and sees the store's entire inventory of dresses. The dresses she
has looked at in Styles B, C, and D are the only ones of their kind, but there are four more Style A dresses in
green and eight more Style A dresses in blue. In the language of decision science, these dresses are copies of
27 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
the existing alternatives. In our one-store small town scenario, there's a reasonable chance that one or more
party guests would buy and wear one of the copies.
When made aware of these new alternatives, our fashion-conscious girl might rank her choices in a different
order. Considering her great embarrassment if a guest were to wear the same dress that she did, she might
rank her choices like this:
Old
Rank Style Color Price
Rank
1 3 Style B Red $119

2 4 Style C Yellow $99
3 5 Style D Off-White $149
4 2 Style A Green $109
5 1 Style A Blue $109
Notice that the rankings of the two Style A dresses have reversed (since there are more copies of the blue
dress than of the green one). Not only that, but Style A has gone from the most preferred style to the least
preferred. Rank reversal has occurred. Axioms of decision theories have been violated. Scholars and
researchers can cry "foul," or impugn the method by which the girl has made her choice, but there is no
denying that in the world of our example, ranks have been reversed. There is no doubt that the reversal is
due to the introduction of additional alternatives that are no different from the existing ones.
The above is but one example of rank reversal. Rank reversal can also occur when additional alternatives are
added/removed that are not copies of the original alternatives (e.g., red and yellow dresses in completely
different styles). Another example of rank reversal occurred in the 2000 U.S. presidential election. Ralph
Nader was an 'irrelevant' alternative, in that he was dominated by both the Democrat and Republican
candidates. However, since he attracted more votes from those who would have voted Democrat rather than
Republican, his presence caused the ranks to reverse. Put another way, if Nader were not in the race, it is
widely accepted that Al Gore would have won.
There are two schools of thought about rank reversal. One maintains that new alternatives that introduce no
additional attributes should not cause rank reversal under any circumstances. The other maintains that there
are both situations in which rank reversal is not reasonable as well as situations where they are to be
expected. The current version of the AHP can accommodate both these schools — its Ideal Mode preserves
rank, while its Distributive Mode allows the ranks to change. Either mode is selected according to the
problem at hand.
Rank reversal and the ideal alternative are extensively discussed in the previously-mentioned Operations
Research paper[3] as well as a chapter entitled Rank Preservation and Reversal, in the current basic book
on AHP.[21] The latter presents published examples of rank reversal due to adding copies and near copies of
an alternative, due to intransitivity of decision rules, due to adding phantom and decoy alternatives, and due
to the switching phenomenon in utility functions. It also discusses the Distributive and Ideal Modes of the
AHP.
See also
Analytic Network Process
Decision making
28 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
Decision making software

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
Thomas L. Saaty
Pairwise comparison
Preference
L. L. Thurstone
Law of comparative judgment
References
1. ^ Saaty, Thomas L. (2008-06). "Relative Measurement and its Generalization in Decision Making:
Why Pairwise Comparisons are Central in Mathematics for the Measurement of Intangible Factors -
The Analytic Hierarchy/Network Process (http://www.rac.es/ficheros/doc/00576.PDF) ". RACSAM
(Review of the Royal Spanish Academy of Sciences, Series A, Mathematics) 102 (2): 251–318.
http://www.rac.es/ficheros/doc/00576.PDF. Retrieved 2008-12-22.
2. ^ a b c Bhushan, Navneet; Kanwal Rai (January 2004). Strategic Decision Making: Applying the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1852337567
/ref=pd_sl_aw_flat-hi_txtbooks07high_27378365_1) . London: Springer-Verlag. ISBN
1-8523375-6-7. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1852337567/ref=pd_sl_aw_flat-
hi_txtbooks07high_27378365_1.
3. ^ a b c d e Forman, Ernest H.; Saul I. Gass (2001-07). "The analytical hierarchy process—an
exposition". Operations Research 49 (4): 469–487. doi:10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1287%2Fopre.49.4.469.11231) .
4. ^ a b de Steiguer, J.E.; Jennifer Duberstein, Vicente Lopes (October 2003), "The Analytic Hierarchy
Process as a Means for Integrated Watershed Management (http://www.tucson.ars.ag.gov
/icrw/Proceedings/Steiguer.pdf) ", in Renard, Kenneth G., First Interagency Conference on Research
on the Watersheds, Benson, Arizona: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
pp. 736–740
5. ^ Berrittella, M.; A. Certa, M. Enea, P. Zito (January, 2007), "An Analytic Hierarchy Process for the
Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts (http://www.feem.it
/NR/rdonlyres/A25B9563-2940-423B-A086-6842D51DF29B/2242/1207.pdf) ", Fondazione Eni
Enrico Mattei (Milano)
6. ^ a b McCaffrey, James (June 2005). "Test Run: The Analytic Hierarchy Process
(http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163785.aspx) ". MSDN Magazine.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163785.aspx. Retrieved 2007-08-21.
7. ^ Grandzol, John R. (August 2005). "Improving the Faculty Selection Process in Higher Education: A
Case for the Analytic Hierarchy Process (http://airweb.org/images/IR%20App6.pdf) " (PDF). IR
Applications 6. http://airweb.org/images/IR%20App6.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-21.
8. ^ Atthirawong, Walailak; Bart McCarthy (September, 2002), "An Application of the Analytical
Hierarchy Process to International Location Decision-Making (http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk
/cim/imnet/symposium2002/papers/Atthirawong.pdf) ", in Gregory, Mike, Proceedings of The 7th
Annual Cambridge International Manufacturing Symposium: Restructuring Global Manufacturing,
Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge, pp. 1–18
9. ^ Dey, Prasanta Kumar (November 2003). "Analytic Hierarchy Process Analyzes Risk of Operating
Cross-Country Petroleum Pipelines in India (http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet
/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=NHREFO000004000004000213000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes) ".
Natural Hazards Review 4 (4): 213–221. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1527-6988(2003)4:4(213)
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%291527-6988%282003%294%3A4%28213%29) .
http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&
id=NHREFO000004000004000213000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes. Retrieved 2007-08-20.
10. ^ Lippert, Barbara C.; Stephen F. Weber (October 1995). "HIST 1.0; Decision Support Software for
Rating Buildings by Historic Significance (http://www.fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build95/PDF/b95044.pdf)
" (PDF). National Institute of Standards and Technology, NISTIR 5683. http://www.fire.nist.gov
29 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
/bfrlpubs/build95/PDF/b95044.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-20.

11. ^ Larson, Charles D.; Ernest H. Forman (January, 2007), "Application of the Analytic Hierarchy
Process to Select Project Scope for Videologging and Pavement Condition Data Collection
(http://pubsindex.trb.org/document/view/default.asp?lbid=801508) ", 86th Annual Meeting
Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies
12. ^ Drake, P.R. (1998). "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Engineering Education
(http://www.ijee.dit.ie/articles/Vol14-3/ijee1017.pdf) " (PDF). International Journal of Engineering
Education 14 (3): 191–196. http://www.ijee.dit.ie/articles/Vol14-3/ijee1017.pdf. Retrieved
2007-08-20.
13. ^ Bodin, Lawrence; Saul I. Gass (January, 2004). "Exercises for Teaching the Analytic Hierarchy
Process (http://archive.ite.journal.informs.org/Vol4No2/BodinGass) " ( – Scholar search
(http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&
lr=&q=author%3ABodin+intitle%3AExercises+for+Teaching+the+Analytic+Hierarchy+Process&
as_publication=INFORMS+Transactions+on+Education&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&btnG=Search)
). INFORMS Transactions
on Education 4 (2). http://archive.ite.journal.informs.org/Vol4No2/BodinGass. Retrieved 2009-03-11.
14. ^ Hallowell, David L. (January 2005). "Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) – Getting Oriented
(http://software.isixsigma.com/library/content/c050105a.asp) ". ISixSigma.com.
http://software.isixsigma.com/library/content/c050105a.asp. Retrieved 2007-08-21.
15. ^ "Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (http://www.qfdi.org/workshop_ahp.htm) ". QFD Institute.
http://www.qfdi.org/workshop_ahp.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-21.
16. ^ "Analytical Hierarchy Process: Overview (http://thequalityportal.com/q_ahp.htm) ".
TheQualityPortal.com. http://thequalityportal.com/q_ahp.htm. Retrieved 2007-08-21.
17. ^ Sun, Hongkai (July, 2005), "AHP in China (http://www.superdecisions.com/~saaty/ISAHP2005
/Papers/SunHC_ApplicationofANPinChina.pdf) ", in Levy, Jason, Proceedings of the 8th
International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Honolulu, Hawaii
18. ^ "Participant Names and Papers, ISAHP 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii (http://www.superdecisions.com
/~saaty/ISAHP2005/Participants.html) ". July 2005. http://www.superdecisions.com/~saaty
/ISAHP2005/Participants.html. Retrieved 2007-08-22.
19. ^ a b c d e Saaty, Thomas L. (1999-05-01). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy
Process for Decisions in a Complex World (http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Making-Leaders-
Hierarchy-Decisions/dp/096203178X/ref=sr_1_1/105-2850894-2453264?ie=UTF8&s=books&
qid=1191602292&sr=1-1) . Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. ISBN 0-9620317-8-X.
http://www.amazon.com/Decision-Making-Leaders-Hierarchy-Decisions/dp/096203178X/ref=sr_1_1
/105-2850894-2453264?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191602292&sr=1-1. (This book is the primary
source for the sections in which it is cited.)
20. ^ Saaty, Thomas L.; Ernest H. Forman (1992). The Hierarchon: A Dictionary of Hierarchies
(http://www.amazon.com/Hierarchon-Dictionary-Hierarchies-Analytic-Hierarchy/dp/0962031755) .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. ISBN 0-9620317-5-5. http://www.amazon.com
/Hierarchon-Dictionary-Hierarchies-Analytic-Hierarchy/dp/0962031755. 496 pages, spiral bound.
Each entry includes a description and diagram of an AHP model; the models are grouped in
categories: educational, government/public policy, government public/strategy, health military,
non-profit, personal, planning, political, etc.
21. ^ a b c Saaty, Thomas L. (2001). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. ISBN 0-9620317-6-3.
22. ^ Trick, Michael A. (1996-11-23). "Analytic Hierarchy Process (http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/classes
/mstc/multiple/node4.html) ". Class Notes. Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business.
http://mat.gsia.cmu.edu/classes/mstc/multiple/node4.html. Retrieved 2008-03-02.
23. ^ Meixner, Oliver; Reiner Haas (2002) (in German). Computergestützte Entscheidungs-findung:
Expert Choice und AHP – innovative Werkzeuge zur Lösung komplexer Probleme. Frankfurt/Wien:
Redline Wirtschaft bei Ueberreuter. ISBN 3-8323-0909-8.
24. ^ Note that the demo site expresses priorities in percentages rather than decimal fractions as we do. It
also uses different numbers to represent the verbal descriptions presented here. It's only a demo, but
you should use our numbers, not theirs, and you should convert the percentages to decimal fractions.
IMPORTANT: The demo site is designed for convenience, not accuracy. The priorities it returns may
30 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
be significantly different from those returned by rigorous AHP calculations.

25. ^ Their comparisons under Cost were Purchase Price 2 over Fuel Cost, 5 over Maintenance Cost, and
3 over Resale Value; Fuel Cost 2 over Maintenance Cost and 2 over Resale Value; Maintenance Cost
-2 vs. Resale Value. Their comparisons under Capacity were Cargo Capacity -5 vs. Passenger
Capacity.
26. ^ Dyer, J. S. (1990): Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In: Management Science, 36 (3), S.
249-258.
27. ^ M. V. Mikhalevic "Remarks on the Dyer-Saaty controversy" Cybernetics and Systems Analysis,
Volume 30, Number 1 / January, 1994
28. ^ Patrick T. Harker, Luis G. Vargas, "Reply to 'Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process' by J. S.
Dyer", Management Science, Vol. 36, No. 3 (Mar., 1990), pp. 269-273
29. ^ Dyer, J.S. (1990b), "A clarification of ‘Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process’", Management
Science, Vol. 36 No.3, pp.274-5.
30. ^ Holder, R.D., Some Comment on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Journal of the Operational
Research Society, 1990, 41, 11 1073-1076.
31. ^ Thomas L. Saaty "Response to Holder's Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process" The Journal
of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 42, No. 10 (Oct., 1991), pp. 909-914
32. ^ R. D. Holder "Response to Holder's Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Response to the
Response" The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 42, No. 10 (Oct., 1991), pp. 914-918
33. ^ Wallenius, Jyrki; James S. Dyer, Peter C. Fishburn, Ralph E. Steuer, Stanley Zionts, Kalyanmoy Deb
(July, 2008). "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent
Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead (http://mansci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content/abstract
/54/7/1336) ". Management Science 54 (7): 1339–1340. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0838
(http://dx.doi.org/10.1287%2Fmnsc.1070.0838) . http://mansci.journal.informs.org/cgi/content
/abstract/54/7/1336. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
34. ^ The Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS) is an international
society for practitioners in the fields of operations research and management science. They are the
publishers of Management Science, one of the journals in which the original critical debates were
published. Their Impact Prize is awarded every two years to recognize contributions that have had a
broad impact on the fields of operations research and the management sciences; emphasis is placed on
the breadth of the impact of an idea or body of research. In 2008, Thomas L. Saaty received the
INFORMS Impact Prize for his development of the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
35. ^ Mari A. Pöyhönen, Raimo P. Hämäläinen, Ahti A. Salo "An Experiment on the Numerical
Modelling of Verbal Ratio Statements" Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol 6, no 1, ppg
1-10, 1997
36. ^ Stan Schenkerman "Inducement of nonexistent order by the analytic hierarchy process", Decision
Sciences, Spring 1997
37. ^ Perez et al. "Another Potential Shortcoming of AHP" TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish
Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Volume 14, Number 1 / June, 2006, Springer
Berlin/Heidelberg
External links
An illustrated guide (pdf) (http://www.boku.ac.at/mi/ahp/ahptutorial.pdf) - Dr. Oliver Meixner
university of Wien - "Analytic Hierarchy Process", a very easy to understand summary of the
mathematical theory
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Tutorial (http://people.revoledu.com/kardi/tutorial
/AHP/index.html) - Dr. Kardi Teknomo AHP Tutorial using MS Excel.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process"
Categories: Decision theory
This page was last modified on 11 October 2009 at 06:13.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may
31 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM
apply. See Terms of Use for details.

Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
32 of 32 10/20/2009 12:37 PM

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analytic Hierarchy Process - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.

Analytic Hierarchy Process

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a

Based on mathematics and psychology, it was

Several firms supply computer software to assist

Uses and applications

Decision situations to which the AHP can be applied include:[3]

selecting a single one or merely ranking them

Education and scholarly research

Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

The procedure for using the AHP can be summarized as:

These steps are more fully described below.

Model the problem as a hierarchy

AHP hierarchies explained

A simple AHP hierarchy. To avoid clutter in AHP diagrams, the lines

Priorities defined and explained

Simple AHP hierarchy with associated default priorities.

The Jones' hierarchy could be diagrammed as shown below:

We could show those judgments in a table like this:

Judgments made by the Jones family and

priorities will possibly be quite different from theirs.[24]

The Jones Family's

The Jones family's purchase price worksheet.

Now, what do they do?

Element 0.362 0.089

Safety data to be evaluated by the Jones family. Curb Weight is from

Odyssey 0.424 0.100

Passenger Capacity of the

Passenger Capacity judgments entered by the Jones

Pilot 0.273 0.049

Fuel consumption figures for

Fuel Cost judgments entered by the Jones family. Judgments

Accord Hybrid 0.212 0.027

Four-year residual values. A

The Jones rationale for comparing residual values.

CR-V 0.415 0.034

choosing the best car for the Jones family.

Jones family worksheet for Maintenance Costs. Plus signs indicate

Maintenance Cost judgments entered by the

Accord 0.357 0.018

Style judgments entered by the Jones family. The

Accord 0.346 0.015

Cargo Capacity of the Jones'

Cargo Capacity judgments entered by the Jones family. The rationale

Odyssey 0.310 0.011

Pilot 0.170 0.006

Make the decision

A simple example will demonstrate the phenomenon of rank reversal:

Rank Style Color Price

1 3 Style B Red $119

Decision making software

/bfrlpubs/build95/PDF/b95044.pdf. Retrieved 2007-08-20.

be significantly different from those returned by rigorous AHP calculations.

This page was last modified on 11 October 2009 at 06:13.

apply. See Terms of Use for details.

You might also like