AHP Model brief description by Manish Agarwal, Akshay Sahu, Atul Kant & T.L.Sahu @ IIT,Kgp.

1. Skibniewski, M. J., & Chao, L. C. (1992). “Evaluation of advanced construction
technology with AHP method”. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 118(3), 577-593.
AHP for Evaluating advanced construction technology
Project Engineering and Management ID60001
Akshay Sahu 15ID60R04
Atul Kant 15ID60R22
Manish Agrawal 15ID60R10
Toshan Lal Sahu 15ID60R17
RCG-SIDM, IITKGP
1

2. ● The intangible benefits can’t be quantified with the use of traditional economic analysis
techniques such as ROI and NPW.
● There is always a risk involved in the applying a new technique or device.
● The risk is hard to measure, quantify and represent using economic analysis
techniques.
● Due to a high initial capital required for the implementation of a new technology, use of
NPW analysis often results in rejection.
● Due to high initial investment in new construction technology, sometimes the profitable
alternatives are rejected.
● Focuses on intuitive judgement of a decision maker, consistency of different
alternatives and also it agrees well with the behaviour of a decision maker. 2
Introduction

3. General AHP solution process
● Structuring of problem into hierarchy with
levels.
● Relative importance of elements are
measured with same scale to measure their
relative importance.
● Relative standing of each element is then
found out.
● The overall score for each alternative can
then be aggregated, and the sensitivity
analysis can be performed to see the effect
of change in the initial priority setting, while
the consistency of comparison can be
measured using Saaty's (1980) consistency
ratio.
Overall Assessment
Cost Factors Benefit Factors
Attributes of Cost & Benefits
Technology Alternatives
3Figure 1. A typical AHP hierarchy chart.

4. 4
Level of Importance Definition
1
3
5
7
9
2,4,6,8
Equal Importance
Weak importance of one over another
Essential or strong importance
Very strong or demonstrated importance
Absolute importance
Immediate values between adjacent scale values
Attributes (1) Attribute A (2) Attribute B (3) Attribute C (4)
A
B
C
Principal eigenvector
1
⅕
⅕
0.70
5
1
3
0.10
5
⅓
1
0.20
Table 1. Comparison Scale (adapted from Saaty 1980)
Table 2. Comparison of Attributes (adapted from Saaty 1980)

5. 5
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Table 3. No of Comparisons (n things)
Table 4. Random Consistency Index (RI)
Consistency Index (CI) = largest eigenvalue - n
n - 1
Consistency Ratio Index (CR) = CI
RI
Number of Things 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 n
Number of Comparisons 0 1 3 6 10 15 21 n(n-1)
2

6. The Case of Semi-automated Tower
Crane
Construction of a 20 storied (66 m) high office building
with a footprint area of 836 m2.
Attributes for cost and benefit factors are constructed.
Elements at each level are compared pairwise.
6
Overall Assessment
Cost Benefit
Cost
NPW cost Risk Concerns
Initial
Investment
Operating
Costs
Safety Flexibility
Reliability
Traditional
crane
Semi
automated
Attributes Cost Factors Benefit Factors
Cost Factors
Benefit Factors
P. Eigenvector
1
1
0.50
1
1
0.50
Table 5. Comparison of Cost and Benefit factors.
Attributes NPW costs Risk concerns
NPW costs
Risk concerns
P. Eigenvector
1
1/3
0.75
3
1
0.25
Table 6. Comparison of NPW and Risk.. Figure 2. AHP chart for attributes.

7. The Case of Semi-automated Tower
Crane
7
Overall Assessment
Cost Benefit
Cost
NPW cost Risk Concerns
Initial
Investment
Operating
Costs
Safety Flexibility
Reliability
Traditional
crane
Semi
automated
Table 7. Comparison of Initial investments and operating costs.
Attributes Initial
investments
Operating costs
Initial investments
Operating costs
P. Eigenvector
1
1/4
0.80
4
1
0.20
Attributes Safety Flexibility Reliability
Safety problems
System flexibility
System reliability
P.Eigenvector
1
1/3
1/3
0.59
3
1
1/2
0.25
3
2
1
0.16
Table 8. Comparison of Safety, flexibility and reliability.
Higher number represents more importance of one
over the other.
Largest Eigenvalue = 3.054, CI =0.027, and CR =
0.046 < 0.10.
Figure 2. AHP chart for attributes.

8. The Case of Semi-automated Tower
Crane
8
Overall Assessment
Cost Benefit
Benefit
Strategic Operational
Competitive
Leading Edge
Quality
performance
Schedule
performance
Traditional
crane
Semi
automated
Attributes Quality
performance
Schedule
performance
Quality performance
Schedule performance
Principal Eigenvector
1
7
0.13
1/7
1
0.87
Attributes Strategic benefits Operational
benefits
Strategic benefits
Operational benefits
Principal Eigenvector
1
5
0.17
1/5
1
0.83
Table 9. Comparison of Strategic Benefit and Operational benefit.
Table 10. Comparison of Quality performance and schedule performance
To fill up the next layer of attributes, questionnaire was
prepared and distributed among experts and it was
converted into the tables shown in the next slide.
Figure 3. Benefit sub hierarchy.

9. 9
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
P. Eigenvector
1
3
0.25
1/3
1
0.75
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
Principal Eigenvector
1
5
0.17
1/5
1
0.83
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
P. Eigenvector
1
3
0.25
1/3
1
0.75
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
P. Eigenvector
1
1/2
0.67
2
1
0.33
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
Principal Eigenvector
1
1/2
0.67
2
1
0.33
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
Principal Eigenvector
1
4
0.20
1/4
1
0.80
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
P. Eigenvector
1
4
0.20
1/4
1
0.80
Attributes Traditional Semiautomated
Traditional
Semiautomated
Principal Eigenvector
1
4
0.20
1/4
1
0.80
Table 11. Comparison for Scheduled performance.
Table 12. Comparison for Safety performance.
Table 13. Comparison for Initial investment.
Table 14. Comparison for Operation cost.
Table 15. Comparison for Safety problems.
Table 16. Comparison for system Flexibility.
Table 17. Comparison for strength in Competitive Leading Edge.
Table 18. Comparison for strength in quality performance.

10. 0.75
0.25
10
0.25 0.67 0.67 0.20 0.17
0.75 0.33 0.33 0.80 0.83
0.80 0.00
0.20 0.00
0.00 0.59
0.00 0.25
0.00 0.16
0.33 0.47
0.67 0.53
0.37
0.63
A =
B =
C = A * B=
D =
E = C*D =
0.83
0.17
0.56
0.44
L’ =
M’ = K*L’ =
Attributes Cost Factors Benefit Factors
Cost Factors
Benefit Factors
P. Eigenvector
1
1/5
0.83
5
1
0.17
Table 19. Rating Change in Comparison of Cost and Benefit factors on
overall Assessment.
0.20 0.24
0.80 0.76
0.17
0.83
0.24
0.76
H = F*G =
I = J = H X I =
0.50
0.50
0.43
0.57
L =
M = K * L =
Five cost criteria (initial
investment, operating costs,
safety problems, system
flexibility & system reliability)
(NPW costs and risk
concerns)
0.20 0.20 0.25
0.80 0.80 0.75
1.00 0.00
0.00 0.13
0.00 0.87
F =
G =
Relative impact of the two
alternatives on NPW costs
and risk concerns
Relative importance of NPW
costs and risk concerns on
cost factors
Impact on global cost factor
E inverse + J matrix to show
preferences of the alternatives
Relative importance of cost factors and
benefit factors
K = 0.63 0.24
0.37 0.76
The final evaluation result for the
traditional and the semi-automated
tower cranes.

11. It focuses on contribution of each alternative, favourable or unfavourable as per
the decisions makers goal and concerns
The AHP method has the potential to be a practical tool for evaluation of new
technologies and equipments in construction.
It quantifies each qualitative factors on a well defined scale
For assigning the weightage the opinions of the experts and professionals is
taken and the better coordination and communication will certainly lead to
better execution
11
Conclusion
THANK YOU