The Analytic Hierarchy Process—An Exposition

Abstract

This exposition on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) has the following objectives: (1) to discuss why AHP is a general methodology for a wide variety of decision and other applications, (2) to present brief descriptions of successful applications of the AHP, and (3) to elaborate on academic discourses relevant to the efficacy and applicability of the AHP vis-a-vis competing methodologies. We discuss the three primary functions of the AHP: structuring complexity, measurement on a ratio scale, and synthesis, as well as the principles and axioms underlying these functions. Two detailed applications are presented in a linked document at http://mdm.gwu.edu/FormanGass.pdf .

Exploring maintenance policy selection using the Analytic Hierarchy Process; An application for naval ships

“…The AHP was selected for this research because it is a well-established multiple criteria decisionmaking approach, both in academia and industry, and its specific benefits fit the issues described in Section 1, as the AHP [14,17,[19][20][21][22]:…”

Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation

“…Several papers have compiled the numerous AHP success stories (Forman and Gass 2001;Golden et al 1989;Ho 2008;Kumar and Vaidya 2006;Liberatore and Nydick 2008;Omkarprasad and Sushil 2006;Saaty and Forman 1992;Shim 1989;Vargas 1990;Zahedi 1986), but its popularity does not verify that the AHP recommendation is always the best alternative. In fact, AHP has been sharply criticised on several points (Bana e Costa and Vansnick 2008;Barzilai 2001;Belton and Gear 1983;Dodd and Donegan 1995;Donegan et al 1992;Dyer 1990;Holder 1991;Johnson et al 1979;Pöyhönen et al 1997;Salo and Hamalainen 1997;Webber et al 1996).…”

D-side: A facility and workforce planning group multi-criteria decision support system for Johnson Space Center

“…The D-Panel members are asked to provide their subjective assessment of each pairwise comparison. Saaty'sAHP [15][16][17] uses these pairwise comparisons to derive a set of weights representing the relative importance of the four missions and 10 strategic goals.…”