Scribd
Upload
85 views5 pages

Ahp Template

The document discusses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method for multi-criteria decision making. It provides the fundamental scale for AHP pairwise comparisons and consistency measures. It then gives an example of using AHP to evaluate three criteria (cost, comfort, safety) for a decision on buying a car. The criteria are pairwise compared on a scale of 1 to 9 and normalized weights are calculated to determine the priority of each criterion.

Uploaded by

Dương Lương
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
85 views5 pages

Ahp Template

The document discusses the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method for multi-criteria decision making. It provides the fundamental scale for AHP pairwise comparisons and consistency measures. It then gives an example of using AHP to evaluate three criteria (cost, comfort, safety) for a decision on buying a car. The criteria are pairwise compared on a scale of 1 to 9 and normalized weights are calculated to determine the priority of each criterion.

Uploaded by

Dương Lương
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 5

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

fundamental scale of AHP size of matrix RI Pairwis


1/9 1 0
extremely less important
1/8 2 0 Criteria 1
1/7 3 0.58 Criteria 2
Very trongly less important
1/6 4 0.9 Criteria 3
1/5 5 1.12 Criteria 4
Trongly less important
1/4 6 1.24 Criteria 5
1/3 7 1.32 SUM
Moderately less important
1/2 8 1.41
1 9 1.45
Equa important
2 10 1.49
3 Criteria 1
Moderate important
4 Criteria 2
5 Criteria 3
Trong important
6 Criteria 4
7 Criteria 5
Very trong important
8 SUM
extremel important 9
Calculatio

Criteria 1
Criteria 2
Criteria 3
Criteria 4
Criteria 5
CESS
Pairwise Comparision Matrix
Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
5 5 5 5 5

NORMALIZED
Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 PRIORITY
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Calculation of weighted columns


Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4 Criteria 5 SUM of Weight PRIORITY LAMDA max
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 5
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 5
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 5
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 5
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 1.00 0.20 5
AVERAGE of LAMDAmax CI CR < 0.1

5 0 0
ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS: dec
Number of Criteria:

Pairwise Comparision Matrix


Cost
Cost 1
Comfort 1/7
Safety 1/3
SUM 1.47619

NORMALIZED
Cost
Cost 0.68
Comfort 0.10
Safety 0.23
SUM 1.00

Calculation of weighted colum


Cost
Cost 0.67
Comfort 0.10
Safety 0.22

fundamental scale of AHP size of matrix RI


1/9 1 0
extremely less important
1/8 2 0
1/7 3 0.58
Very trongly less important
1/6 4 0.9
1/5 5 1.12
Trongly less important
1/4 6 1.24
1/3 7 1.32
Moderately less important
1/2 8 1.41
1 9 1.45
Equa important
2 10 1.49
3
Moderate important
4
5
Trong important
6
7
Very trong important
8
extremel important 9
CESS: decision on buying a car
3

rwise Comparision Matrix


Comfort Safety
7 3
1 1/3
3 1
11 4.333333

NORMALIZED
Comfort Safety PRIORITY
0.64 0.69 0.67
0.09 0.08 0.09
0.27 0.23 0.24
1.00 1.00 1.00

ulation of weighted columns


Comfort Safety SUM of Weight PRIORITY LAMDA max AVERAGE of LAMDAmax CI CR < 0.1
0.62 0.73 2.02 0.67 3.013943551
0.09 0.08 0.26 0.09 3.001786222 3.00703038343476 0.003515 0.006061
0.26 0.24 0.73 0.24 3.005361377

You might also like