Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction

Abstract

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) has gained increasing attention in construction management (CM) domain as a technique to analyze complex situations and make sound decisions. However, AHP per se or its potential applications on CM problems are ill-defined within extant literature. The present paper reviews 77 AHP-based papers published in eight selected peer-reviewed CM journals from 2004 to 2014 to better define and delineate AHP application areas and decision-making problems solved within CM. The findings indicated that risk management and sustainable construction were the most popular AHP application areas in CM. It was also revealed that AHP (1) is flexible and can be used as a stand-alone tool or in conjunction with other tools to resolve construction decision-making problems; and (2) is widely used in Asia. In addition, the most prominent justifications for using AHP were found to be small sample size, high level of consistency, simplicity and availability of user-friendly software. This paper provides a useful reference for researchers and practitioners interested in the application of AHP in CM. Future research is needed to compare and contrast between AHP and other multicriteria decision-making methods; such work could reveal which techniques provide optimized solutions under various decision-making scenarios.

Prioritizing the Factors Which Affect the Selection of Hotels by Consumers Traveling for Vacation with Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) Method

“…Decision makers often face situations of making multiple choice decisions on various issues (Darko et al, 2019). In these cases, it is possible to utilize Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM) techniques.…”

“…Advanced by Saaty, AHP represents a popular MCDM method which has drawn attention among all industries in the last 20 years (Darko et al, 2019). AHP, has been developed in order to overcome complex and multi-criteria decision-making problems, and is based on its developer Saaty's experiences while conducting research projects at the USA Arms Control and Disarmament Agency.…”

“…In this context, bearing in mind the decision objectives, each criteria's relative level of importance on the second level of the hierarchy is detected through pairwise comparisons. These pairwise comparisons are based on a nine point scale, as shown in Table 1 (Darko et al, 2019).…”

“…Thereafter, the CI is divided by the Random Index (RI) which is the standard correction value and is illustrated in Table 3. At this stage, if the decision makers' calculated rate of consistency is over the 0,1 threshold, they are asked review their original decisions (Darko et al, 2019;Omürbek, Makas, & Omürbek, 2015). At the sixth step, the ranking of each alternative is multiplied by the weight of sub-criteria and summed in order to obtain local rankings according to each criterion.…”

Analytical Hierarchy Process for Regional Development Priority in Maluku Province, Indonesia

“…This model consequently is a method of making a decision by grouping the criteria with a systematic approach based on human perception. The outline of this method has three steps: 1) determining the hierarchy, which is made from a "based on the purpose" structure; 2) pairwise comparison between criteria to another criterion; and 3) verification of the consistency of the weighted value (Darko et al 2018).…”