The AHP can accommodate all these types of criteria, even when they are present in a single problem.Īlso note that the structure of the vehicle-buying hierarchy might be different for other families (ones who don't limit themselves to Hondas, or who care nothing about style, or who drive less than 5,000 miles (8,000 km) a year, etc.). Still others, such as style, are really in the eye of the beholder and are hard to state quantitatively at all. Others, such as resale value, must be estimated, so must be stated with somewhat less confidence. Note that the measurements for some criteria, such as purchase price, can be stated with absolute certainty. This information will be needed later, when the criteria and alternatives are evaluated. If there are published safety ratings, for example, or manufacturer's specs for cargo capacity, they should be gathered as part of the process. To save space in the diagrams, we have represented them as stacks of papers.Īs they build their hierarchy, the buyer should investigate the values or measurements of the different elements that make it up. The Jones' hierarchy could be diagrammed as shown below:Īlternatives for the car buying decision. The family, which for personal reasons always buys Hondas, might decide to consider as alternatives the Accord Sedan, Accord Hybrid Sedan, Pilot SUV, CR-V SUV, Element SUV, and Odyssey Minivan. They might separate Capacity into cargo capacity and passenger capacity.
They might subdivide the cost criterion into purchase price, fuel costs, maintenance costs, and resale value. The family might decide to consider cost, safety, style, and capacity as the criteria for making their decision. In an AHP hierarchy for a family buying a vehicle, the goal might be to choose the best car for the Jones family. In the end, there is a clear decision whose development can be seen, traced, and understood by all concerned.Ī practical example: choosing an automobile It involves factors from the tangible and precisely measurable (purchase price, passenger capacity, cargo capacity), through the tangible but difficult to measure (maintenance costs, fuel costs, resale value) to the intangible and totally subjective (style). The decision at hand requires a reasonably complex hierarchy to describe. The example below shows how a broad range of considerations can be managed through the use of the analytic hierarchy process. Teachers and users of the AHP know that the best way to understand it is to work through an example.
#AHP DECISION MAKING EXAMPLE FREE#
assigning points) or the free assignment of priorities. The core of AHP is the comparison of pairs instead of sorting (ranking), voting (e.g. In AHP, values like price, weight, or area, or even subjective opinions such as feelings, preferences, or satisfaction, can be translated into measurable numeric relations.
4 Pairwise comparing the criteria with respect to the goal.2 A practical example: choosing an automobile.
0 kommentar(er)
