Analytic Hierarchy Process: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Louis F. Sander
imported>Louis F. Sander
Line 40: Line 40:
[[Image:AHPHierarchy2.png|thumb|600px|center|'''AHP hierarchy for the Jones family auto decision'''. Note the subcriteria under Cost. Though in the real-world hierarchy every Alternative is connected to every Criterion and ''vice versa'', only the connections for the Accord Sedan are shown in this simplified diagram.]]
[[Image:AHPHierarchy2.png|thumb|600px|center|'''AHP hierarchy for the Jones family auto decision'''. Note the subcriteria under Cost. Though in the real-world hierarchy every Alternative is connected to every Criterion and ''vice versa'', only the connections for the Accord Sedan are shown in this simplified diagram.]]


Note that some of the criteria, such as purchase price, are easy to state precisely and very confidently. Others, such as resale value, must be estimated and are harder to state with confidence. Still others, such as stylishness, can have different meanings for each participant and are difficult to state quantitatively at all. The AHP can deal with all these types of criteria, even when they are present in a single problem.  
Note that some of the criteria, such as purchase price, are easy to state precisely and very confidently. Others, such as resale value, must be estimated and are harder to state with confidence. Still others, such as stylishness, are difficult to state quantitatively at all, and might even have totally different meanings for different participants. The AHP can deal with all these types of criteria, even when they are present in a single problem.  


Also note that the vehicle-buying hierarchy might be different for other families (ones who don't limit themselves to Hondas, or who care nothing about stylishness, or who drive less than 5,000 miles a year, etc.). It would ''definitely'' be different for a wealthy playboy who cares nothing about cost and knows he will live forever, but who is intensely interested in speed, handling, and the numerous aspects of stylishness.  
Also note that the vehicle-buying hierarchy might be different for other families (ones who don't limit themselves to Hondas, or who care nothing about stylishness, or who drive less than 5,000 miles a year, etc.). It would ''definitely'' be different for a wealthy playboy who cares nothing about cost and knows he will live forever, but who is intensely interested in speed, handling, and the numerous aspects of stylishness.  

Revision as of 21:23, 6 October 2007

This article is developing and not approved.
 Main Article
 Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
Addendum [?]
 
https://en.citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Analytic_Hierarchy_Process&printable=yes
This editable Main Article is under development and subject to a disclaimer.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a technique for dealing with complex decisions where a number of competing factors demand consideration. It is especially suited to problems with high stakes, involving human perceptions and judgments, whose resolutions have long-term repercussions.[1] AHP provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a problem, for representing its elements and quantifying them, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions.

While it can be used by individuals working on straightforward problems, AHP is most commonly applied where teams of people are working on highly complex situations, particularly where some of the elements are difficult to quantify. Computer software is available to assist in the application of the process.

Developed in the 1970s by mathematician Thomas L. Saaty, AHP has been applied worldwide, in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as government, business, industry, healthcare, quality, and education.

Uses of AHP

The applications of AHP to complex decision situations number in the thousands,[2] typically where problems are important and complex. Many such uses are never reported to the outside world, 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)[3]
  • Quantifying the overall quality of software systems (Microsoft Corporation)[4]
  • Selecting university faculty (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania) [5]
  • Deciding where to locate offshore manufacturing plants (University of Cambridge)[6]
  • Assessing risk in operating cross-country petroleum pipelines (American Society of Civil Engineers)[7]
  • Deciding how best to manage U.S. watersheds (U.S. Department of Agriculture)[2]

AHP 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.[8]

The process is widely used in countries around the world. At a recent international conference on AHP, 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.[9] AHP was introduced in China in 1982, and its application has expanded greatly since then—its methods are highly compatible with the traditional Chinese decision making framework, and it has been used for many decisions in the fields of economics, energy, management, environment, traffic, agriculture, industry, and the military.[10]

How AHP works

Under Construction
AHP is a method that breaks complexity into manageable pieces, works with each piece, then collectively evaluates all the pieces. The steps are...

Express the problem as a hierarchy

When we attempt to understand something complex, we tend to break it down into parts, then to break these into their own parts, and so on. (Think of medical students learning anatomy—they separately consider the musculoskeletal system and its subsystems, the circulatory system and its components, the nervous system and its parts, etc.) By breaking the reality of a problem into homogeneous clusters and subdividing these clusters into smaller ones, we can integrate large amounts of information into our understanding of the problem and form a reasonably complete picture of the whole system.[11]

In the AHP, the participants break down their problem exactly in this way, formulating it as a hierarchy. An AHP hierarchy 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. In most cases at least some of the criteria will be further broken down into subcriteria, sub-subcriteria, etc., 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 filling up the middle.

A typical AHP hierarchy. To avoid clutter, the lines between the Alternatives and Criteria are often omitted or reduced in number. Regardless of any such changes to the diagram, every Alternative is connected to every Criterion and vice versa. In practice, many Criteria have one or more layers of subcriteria. These are not shown in this simplified diagram.

The specifics of any hierarchy will depend on the nature of the problem at hand and on the knowledge, wants, needs, values, judgments and opinions of the participants in the process. 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, and alternatives can be added or deleted.

In a hierarchy for the simple case of buying a vehicle, the goal might be to buy the best car for the Jones family. The criteria to be considered might be cost, carrying capacity, safety, and stylishness. The cost criterion might be subdivided into purchase price, fuel costs, maintenance costs, and resale value. Subcriteria for carrying capacity might be passenger capacity and cargo capacity. The alternatives for the family, which for personal reasons always buys Hondas, might be the Accord Sedan, Accord Hybrid Sedan, Pilot SUV, CR-V SUV, Element SUV, and Odyssey Minivan. Photos and other information about these alternatives can be found HERE.

The Jones' hierarchy could be diagrammed like this:

File:AHPHierarchy2.png
AHP hierarchy for the Jones family auto decision. Note the subcriteria under Cost. Though in the real-world hierarchy every Alternative is connected to every Criterion and vice versa, only the connections for the Accord Sedan are shown in this simplified diagram.

Note that some of the criteria, such as purchase price, are easy to state precisely and very confidently. Others, such as resale value, must be estimated and are harder to state with confidence. Still others, such as stylishness, are difficult to state quantitatively at all, and might even have totally different meanings for different participants. The AHP can deal with all these types of criteria, even when they are present in a single problem.

Also note that the vehicle-buying hierarchy might be different for other families (ones who don't limit themselves to Hondas, or who care nothing about stylishness, or who drive less than 5,000 miles a year, etc.). It would definitely be different for a wealthy playboy who cares nothing about cost and knows he will live forever, but who is intensely interested in speed, handling, and the numerous aspects of stylishness.

More information about hierarchies can be found HERE.

Teaching AHP

Though using AHP requires no specialized academic training, the subject is widely taught at the university level—one AHP software provider lists over a hundred colleges and universities among its clients.[12] AHP is considered an important subject in many institutions of higher learning, including schools of engineering[13] and graduate schools of business.[14] AHP is also an important subject in the quality field, and is taught in many specialized courses including Six Sigma and QFD.[15][16][17]

In China, nearly a hundred schools 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 that country, and there is at least one Chinese scholarly journal devoted exclusively to AHP.[10]

See also

Multi Criteria Decision Making

References

  1. ↑ Bhushan, Navneet; Kanwal Rai (January, 2004). Strategic Decision Making: Applying the Analytic Hierarchy Process. London: Springer-Verlag. ISBN 1852337567. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 de Steiguer, J.E. (October, 2003), The Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Means for Integrated Watershed Management, in Renard, Kenneth G., First Interagency Conference on Research on the Watersheds, Benson, Arizona: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, at 736-740
  3. ↑ Berrittella, M. (January, 2007), An Analytic Hierarchy Process for the Evaluation of Transport Policies to Reduce Climate Change Impacts, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (Milano)
  4. ↑ McCaffrey, James (June, 2005). "Test Run: The Analytic Hierarchy Process". MSDN Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-08-21.
  5. ↑ Grandzol, John R. (August, 2005). "Improving the Faculty Selection Process in Higher Education: A Case for the Analytic Hierarchy Process". IR Applications 6. Retrieved on 2007-08-21.
  6. ↑ Atthirawong, Walailak (September, 2002), An Application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process to International Location Decision-Making, in Gregory, Mike, Proceedings of The 7th Annual Cambridge International Manufacturing Symposium: Restructuring Global Manufacturing, Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge, at 1-18
  7. ↑ Dey, Prasanta Kumar (November, 2003). "Analytic Hierarchy Process Analyzes Risk of Operating Cross-Country Petroleum Pipelines in India". Natural Hazards Review 4 (4): 213-221. Retrieved on 2007-08-20.
  8. ↑ Larson, Charles D. (January, 2007), Application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process to Select Project Scope for Videologging and Pavement Condition Data Collection, 86th Annual Meeting Compendium of Papers CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies
  9. ↑ Participant Names and Papers, ISAHP 2005, Honolulu, Hawaii (July, 2005). Retrieved on 2007-08-22.
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Sun, Hongkai (July, 2005), AHP in China, in Levy, Jason, Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Honolulu, Hawaii
  11. ↑ Saaty, Thomas L. (1999-05-01). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. ISBN 0-9620317-8-X.  (This book is the source for most of the information in the section referenced.)
  12. ↑ List of Expert Choice education clients. Retrieved on 2007-08-23.
  13. ↑ Drake, P.R. (1998). "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process in Engineering Education". International Journal of Engineering Education 14 (3): 191-196. Retrieved on 2007-08-20.
  14. ↑ Bodin, Lawrence; Saul I. Gass (January, 2004). "Exercises for Teaching the Analytic Hierarchy Process". INFORMS Transactions on Education 4 (2). Retrieved on 2007-08-20.
  15. ↑ Hallowell, David L. (January, 2005). "Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) -- Getting Oriented". iSixSigma.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-21.
  16. ↑ "Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)". QFD Institute. Retrieved on 2007-08-21.
  17. ↑ "Analytical Hierarchy Process: Overview". TheQualityPortal.com. Retrieved on 2007-08-21.

External links

Retrieved from "https://citizendium.org/wiki/index.php?title=Analytic_Hierarchy_Process&oldid=277027"