Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP

on

  • 690 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
690
Views on SlideShare
690
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
56
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP Presentation Transcript

    • Analytic Hierarchy Process Vikas Sao – vikas.sao@gmail.com Vinit Modak – vinitmodak@gmail.com Vinothkumar – p.vinok@gmail.com Vipul Singh – vipulshipatul@gmail.com
    • Introduction • Developed by T. Saaty • Best known and widely used Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) approach • Relative priority of each criteria • Real world decision problems • Spend on Defence or Agriculture? • Buy an Ecosport or Koleos? • Integrated manufacturing (Putrus, 1990), • In the evaluation of technology investment decisions (Boucher and McStravic, 1991) • In flexible manufacturing systems (Wabalickis, 1988) • Layout design (Cambron and Evans, 1991) SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • History • AHP first introduced by Saaty in 1977 • Apparent problems with the way pairwise comparisons were used pointed out by Belton and Gear in 1983 • Belton and Gear introduced Revised-AHP • Saaty accepted the change and introduced Ideal Mode AHP in 1994 SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Procedure • Structure a decision problem and selection of criteria • Priority setting of the criteria by pairwise comparison (WEIGHING) • Pairwise comparison of options on each criterion (SCORING) • Obtaining an overall relative score for each option SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Structuring a decision problem and selection of criteria • Divide the problem into its constituent parts • Goal at the Topmost Level • Criteria at the Intermediate Level • Options at the Lowest Level • What it does? • Provides an overall view of the complex relationships • Access whether the element in each level are of the same magnitude to compare accurately Selecting a Car Style Reliability Mileage Ecosport (E) Koleos (K) Scorpio (S) Duster (D) SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Ranking of Criteria and Alternatives • Pairwise comparisons are made with the grades ranging from 1-9. • A basic, but very reasonable assumption for comparing alternatives: If attribute A is absolutely more important than attribute B and is rated at 9, then B must be absolutely less important than A and is graded as 1/9. • These pairwise comparisons are carried out for all factors to be considered, usually not more than 7, and the matrix is completed. SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Priority setting of the criteria by pairwise comparison (WEIGHING) • How important is criterion A relative to criterion B? • Assign a weight between 1 and 9 • Reciprocal of the value is assigned to the other criterion in the pair • How important is criterion B relative to criterion A? • Normalize and average the weighing to obtain average weight for each criterion 9 Extreme Importance 1 Equal Importance Scale Definition Explanation 1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective 3 Weak importance of one over another Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over another 5 Essential or strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity over another 7 Demonstrated importance An activity is strongly favoured and its dominance demonstrated in practice 9 Absolute importance The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation 2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments When compromise is needed SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Priority setting of the criteria by pairwise comparison (WEIGHING) Scale Definition Explanation 1 Equal importance Two activities contribute equally to the objective 3 Weak importance of one over another Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity over another 5 Essential or strong importance Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity over another 7 Demonstrated importance An activity is strongly favoured and its dominance demonstrated in practice 9 Absolute importance The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation 2,4,6,8 Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments When compromise is needed STYLE RELIABILITY MILEAGE STYLE 1 1/2 3 RELIABILITY 2 1 4 MILEAGE 1/3 1/4 1 SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Priority setting of the criteria by pairwise comparison (WEIGHING) STYLE RELIABILITY MILEAGE G.M. EIGEN VECTOR STYLE 1 1/2 3 1.14 0.3196 RELIABILITY 2 1 4 2.00 0.5584 MILEAGE 1/3 1/4 1 0.44 0.1220 SUM 3.33 1.75 8 3.58 SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Consistency Ratio • The next stage is to calculate max so as to lead to the Consistency Index and the Consistency Ratio. • Consider [Ax = max x] where x is the Eigenvector. 0.3196 0.5584 0.1220 1 0.5 3 2 1 4 0.333 0.25 1.0 0.9648 1.6856 0.3680 = = max λmax=average{0.9648/0.3196, 1.6856/0.5584, 0.3680/0.1220}=3.0180 0.3196 0.5584 0.1220 SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Consistency Index • The final step is to calculate the Consistency Ratio. • CI=(max –n)/(n-1) • CR=CI/RI=0.0090/0.58=0.01552 less than 0.1 so the evaluations are consistent • An inconsistency of 10% or less implies that the adjustment is small compared to the actual values of the eigenvector entries. • A CR as high as, say, 90% would mean that the pairwise judgment are just about random and are completely untrustworthy SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Pairwise comparison of options on each criterion (SCORING) • Using Pairwise Comparisons, the Relative Importance Of One Criterion Over Another can be expressed. E K S D E 1 1/4 4 1/6 K 4 1 4 1/4 S 1/4 1/4 1 1/5 D 6 4 5 1 Km / L E 34 K 27 S 24 D 28 E K S D E 1 2 5 1 K 1/2 1 3 2 S 1/5 1/3 1 1/4 D 1 1/2 4 1 STYLE RELIABILITY MILEAGE SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • 3.00 1.75 8.00 5.33 3.00 14.0 1.17 0.67 3.00 A2= Row sums 12.75 22.33 4.83 39.92 Normalized Row Sums 0.3194 0.5595 0.1211 1.0 Iteration 1: Initialization: A2xA2= 27.67 15.83 72.50 48.33 27.67 126.67 10.56 6.04 27.67 A= 1 0.5 3 2 1 4 0.33 0.25 1.0 Row sums 12.75 22.33 4.83 39.92 Normalized Row Sums 0.3196 0.5584 0.1220 0.0002 -0.0011 0.0009 E1-E0 = - 0.3194 0.5595 0.1211 0.3196 0.5584 0.1220 = Almost zero, so Eigen Vector, X = E1. E0 E1 SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Pairwise comparison of options on each criterion (SCORING) • Using Pairwise Comparisons, the Relative Importance Of One Criterion Over Another can be expressed. Km / L E.V E 34 0.3010 K 27 0.2390 S 24 0.2120 D 28 0.2480 STYLE RELIABILITY MILEAGE E K S D E.V. E 1.00 0.25 4.00 0.17 0.1160 K 4.00 1.00 4.00 0.25 0.2470 S 0.25 0.25 1.00 0.20 0.0600 D 6.00 4.00 5.00 1.00 0.5770 E K S D E.V E 1.00 2.00 5.00 1.00 0.3790 K 0.50 1.00 3.00 2.00 0.2900 S 0.20 0.33 1.00 0.25 0.0740 D 1.00 0.50 4.00 1.00 0.2570 SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Obtaining an overall relative score for each option • The option scores are combined with the criterion weights to produce an overall score for each option. Final Ranking Of Alternatives = Ranking Of Alternative (Category Wise)*Criteria Weights E D S K .1160 .3790 .3010 .2470 .2900 .2390 .0600 .0740 .2120 .5770 .2570 .2480 * .3196 .5584 .1220 = .2854 .2700 .0864 .3582 SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • In the industry Areas Company Application Choice Xerox Product selection Prioritization General Motors Prioritizing the design alternatives and arrive at a cost effective design Resource Allocation Korea Telecommunication Authority Allocation of R&D Budget for 10 technologies Benchmarking IBM Compare IBM CIM with best of breed companies Quality Management Steel & Magnetic Division, Italy Comparison with its competitors and improve the quality Public policy Japan Formulate policy to maintain Sea of Japan Health care Medical Center, Washington Type of team to be sent in case of different disaster Strategic Planning 3M A computerized AHP for quick evaluation of strategy. SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • AHP with feedback • Priorities of elements in a level is not dependent on the lower level elements. NOT ALWAYS TRUE • GOAL : Construction of bridge • CRITERIA : STRENGTH, COST, LOOK • OPTIONS : A,B • A – MEETS ALL THE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS, LOOKS BEAUTIFUL • B – MOST STRONGEST, EQUAL COST, UGLY SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • WEB BASED • http://www.isc.senshu-u.ac.jp/~thc0456/EAHP/AHPweb.htm • Input • Size of pairwise comparison Matrix • Pairwise comparison Matrix • Output • Eigen Vector • Consistency Index • www.superdecisions.com • Provide software for AHP and ANP • Exhaustive tutorials (PDF and Video) SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik
    • Thank You SIOM | Symbiosis Institute of Operations Management, Nashik