Bibliographical research on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Shim, Jung P.

doi:10.1016/0038-0121(89)90013-x

Cited by 145 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 121 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It is an analytical method based on both mathematics and psychology for the decision making of perplex problems [5], and it has been successfully employed in many cases (e.g., major policy decisions, strategic planning, marketing applications, etc.) [8][9][10][11]. A brief discussion about AHP is provided in the previous section.…”

Section: Ahp Methods Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance-Weights Determination of the Safety Factors of Fishing Ports in Zhuhai via the AHP Method

Wang¹,

Wang²,

Li³

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Engineering, Information Science &Amp; Application Technology (ICCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The importance-weights determination (IWD) of the safety factors of fishing ports is a meaningful work, because it can be helpful for relevant departments to determine the focus of work and adopt proper measures. But it is an intrinsically complex process as well, for it relates to many fields (e.g., maritime transport management, port operations, etc.) with multiple criteria. In this paper, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method, a commonly used decision analysis method, is utilized to make the IWD of Zhuhai's fishing ports safety factors. The IWD problem is greatly simplified and more valid with the AHP method, and through the consistency verification, the result effectively indicates the prioritizing order of all the safety factors.

show abstract

Section: Ahp Methods Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Importance-Weights Determination of the Safety Factors of Fishing Ports in Zhuhai via the AHP Method

Wang¹,

Wang²,

Li³

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Computer Engineering, Information Science &Amp; Application Technology (ICCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Among the MADM techniques, AHP is one of the efficient decision making tools that has been applied to numerous problems in recent decades [7]. The technique ranks/selects a set of plans with respect to a definite objective when multiple and conflicting objectives or criteria are present.…”

Section: Analytic Hierarchy Process (Ahp)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Generation Expansion Planning of Stand-Alone Micro-Power Systems under Uncertainty Using Advanced Planning Methodology

Khodayar

Rahimi-Kian

Ehsan³

2008

Energy Exploration & Exploitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper a strategic planning framework for selecting the best configuration and capacity of different power generating technologies including renewable energy resources in stand-alone micro-power systems is proposed. The proposed framework is composed of three decision making techniques to identify the most feasible and efficient plans according to attributes and uncertain parameters in the planning environment. The framework considers the robustness and risk analysis of different plans exposed to uncertainties in the planning environment and selects the configurations that meet the objectives with the least risk exposure. The proposed methodology is implemented as a case study of a stand-alone micro-power system for a small region in Iran.

show abstract

“…The AHP has been widely used to rank order the alternatives of problems formulated in hierarchical structures (Saaty 1972(Saaty , 1977a(Saaty , 1977b(Saaty , 1980(Saaty , 1990aWeiss and Rao 1987;Zahedi 1986). The AHP is a popular technique for determining weights in multicriteria problems (Shim 1989, Zahedi 1986, and it has been used to evaluate projects (Liberatore 1987, Lockett et al 1984. Schoemaker and Waid (1978) compared the AHP with three common multicriteria decision-making techniques: multiple regression, the multiattribute utility approach of Keeney and Raiffa (1976), and simple direct assessment.…”

Section: Interaction Phasementioning

confidence: 99%

CROSS: A Multicriteria Group-Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Prioritizing Advanced-Technology Projects at NASA

Tavana

2003

Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluating and prioritizing advanced-technology projects is a particularly difficult task for the staff at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) shuttle project engineering office. Because the evaluation process is complex and unstructured, decision makers (DMs) must consider vast amounts of diverse information concerning safety, systems engineering, cost savings, process enhancement, reliability, and implementation. Intuitive methods developed in the past have helped them to use large volumes of information in evaluating projects. However, these intuitive methods do not provide a structured framework for systematic evaluation. CROSS (consensus-ranking organizational-support system) is a multicriteria group-decision-making model that I implemented successfully at KSC to capture the DMs' beliefs through sequential, rational, and analytical processes. CROSS uses the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), subjective probabilities, the entropy concept, and the maximize-agreement heuristic (MAH) to enhance the DMs' intuition in evaluating sets of projects. (Government: programs. Decision analysis: multiple criteria.) T he rapid development of technology over the last few decades and the increased awareness of its effects on society have focused critical attention on government agencies that support technology development. The public is concerned with the governance of these agencies and with obtaining the maximum return from public investment in advanced technology. Public pressure has forced Congress to mandate the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) to be more accountable in its evaluation of advanced-technology projects. The demand for accountability, the pressure to cut costs, and the increasing number of projects have made evaluating projects extremely difficult.Over the last several decades, analysts have developed a philosophy and a body of intuitive and analytical models to help decision makers (DMs) to evaluate and select projects. However, the intuitive models do not offer a structured framework for evaluating projects systematically, while the analytical models are not intended to capture intuitive preferences. The literature on project selection contains hundreds of models, including scoring methods, economic methods, portfolio methods, and decision analysis.Scoring methods use algebraic formulas to produce a score for each project (Lockett et al. 1984, Melachrinoudis and Rice 1991, Moore and Baker 1969. Economic methods use financial models to calculate the monetary payoff of each project under consideration (Graves and Ringuest 1991, Mehrez 1988). Portfolio methods evaluate the entire set

show abstract

Bibliographical research on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Cited by 145 publications

References 121 publications

The Importance-Weights Determination of the Safety Factors of Fishing Ports in Zhuhai via the AHP Method

The Importance-Weights Determination of the Safety Factors of Fishing Ports in Zhuhai via the AHP Method

Generation Expansion Planning of Stand-Alone Micro-Power Systems under Uncertainty Using Advanced Planning Methodology

CROSS: A Multicriteria Group-Decision-Making Model for Evaluating and Prioritizing Advanced-Technology Projects at NASA

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About