To select the best suitable product, process and strategies among various available options having different criteria and sub-criteria by applying Multiple Criteria Decision Making methodology i.e. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). To study in details the step by step process of Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP) To consider the selection of best mobile tablet model from 3 different models actual available in the market based on actual physical market survey to illustrate the MCDM methodology. To proposed a preference ranking order of the 3 models from best to worst. To discuss different applicable areas of different MCDM methodologies.

1. Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process for the Selection of
Best Tablet Model
Author as well as Presenting Author
Shankha Shubhra Goswami
Mechanical Engineering
(Specialization in Production Technology and Management)
Master of Technology, Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College
Co-Author
Dr. Soupayan Mitra
Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Jalpaiguri Government Engineering College
Presented in :-
TEMT-2019: International Conference on Emerging Trends in Electro-Mechanical Technologies and Management
HMR Institute of Technology and Management
New Delhi, India

2. Objectives of this research work
To select the best suitable product, process and strategies among various available
options having different criteria and sub-criteria by applying Multiple Criteria Decision
Making methodology i.e. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).
To study in details the step by step process of Analytic Hierarchy process (AHP)
To consider the selection of best mobile tablet model from 3 different models actual
available in the market based on actual physical market survey to illustrate the MCDM
methodology.
To proposed a preference ranking order of the 3 models from best to worst.
To discuss different applicable areas of different MCDM methodologies.

3. What is MCDM process?
Multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or multiple-criteria decision
analysis (MCDA) is a sub-discipline of operations research that explicitly evaluates
multiple conflicting criteria in decision making (both in daily life and in settings
such as business, government and medicine). Conflicting criteria are typical in
evaluating options: cost or price is usually one of the main criteria, and some
measure of quality is typically another criterion, easily in conflict with the cost.
In recent years various MCDM techniques have been suggested to do optimization.
Among many multi-criteria techniques AHP, TOPSIS, SAW, PROMETHEE, AHP-
FUZZY are the most commonly used methods.

4. Applicable Areas of MCDM Methods
 Manufacturing industry-Selection of Lathe, Best manufacturing process for a given product, best process planning,
Project Selection etc.
 Shipping Industry - Crane Selection, Best transportation selection etc.
 Electronics Industry- Selection of best refrigerator, Washing Machine, Mobile etc.
 Telecommunications Industry–Selection of best network, Selection of best location for mounting tower.
 Automobile industry- Four- wheeler and Two- Wheeler Selection, Selection for Two-Stroke Petrol Engines etc.
 Economic Sector – Rural development decision making selection, Resource Planning selection etc.
 Strategic decision making sector - Risk management decision making selection, Maintenance strategy selection etc.

5. What is AHP ?
AHP is a Multi-Criteria Decision Making Tool, initially put forward by Mathematician
Thomas L. Satty in 1970.
AHP helps decision makers to select the most suitable product, process or strategy and to set
priorities among different available alternatives with varying degree of choices or,
preferences.

6. Calculations Details of AHP
Saaty’s 9 pair comparison scale

7. Consistency calculation of the main criteria
It is a 4 × 4 matrix so, in this case n = 4
Summation of all the above consistencies.
4.17639 + 4.02223 + 4.15496 + 4.04940 = 16.40297
λ𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 16.40297 / 4 = 4.10074
CI = (λ𝑚𝑎𝑥 - n) / (n - 1) = (4.10074 - 4) / (4 -1) = 0.03358
From table below, RI value for n = 4 is 0.9
CR = CI / RI = 0.03358 / 0.9 = 0.03731 ≤ 0.1
Since the CR value is less than 0.1 so the judgement of the
decision maker is true and consistent.

8. Pair-wise Comparison Matrix of the Tablet Models in terms
of Price
Pair-wise Comparison Matrix of the Tablet Models in terms
of Internal Storage
CR is 0.00606 ≤ 0.1, which is well within the limit
hence the judgement is consistent.
CR is 0.00319 ≤ 0.1, which is well within the limit
hence the judgement is consistent.

9. Pair-wise Comparison Matrix of the Tablet Models in terms
of RAM
Pair-wise Comparison Matrix of the Tablet Models in terms
of Brand
CR is 0.05648 ≤ 0.1, which is well within the limit
hence the judgement is consistent.
CR is 0.05648 ≤ 0.1, which is well within the limit
hence the judgement is consistent.

10. Results and Discussions
Tablet 1: {(0.60338 × 0.66870) + (0.13639 × 0.12218) + (0.19567 × 0.07377) + (0.06456 × 0.07377)} = 0.43934 or 43.934%
Tablet 2: {(0.60338 × 0.24310) + (0.13639 × 0.64795) + (0.19567 × 0.28284) + (0.06456 × 0.64339)} = 0.33194 or 33.194%
Tablet 3: {(0.60338 × 0.08820) + (0.13639 × 0.22987) + (0.19567 × 0.64339) + (0.06456 × 0.28284)} = 0.22872 or 22.872%

11. Conclusions
From this present analysis it can be concluded that Model 1 is the best tablet model among these 3 available
models in the market based on the opinion of the common tablet users and the ranking of the tablet models
from best to worst is proposed as shown below in the table.
Scope for Future Work : Here in this work few important criteria and sub-criteria have considered which
influence the selection of the laptop model. Other criteria and sub-criteria of laptop model can also be
considered in addition to it for this analysis. The scope of work can be extended by applying different MCDM
methods on some more problems and applications of other MCDM tool like MAXMIN, MAXMAX,
ELECTRA, VIKOR, SMART etc. can also be applied to get the possible ranking order and it can be applied
after AHP for getting more probabilistic results considering real-life industrial and domestic problems. The
same decision-making tools can also be applied to other field of applications based on strategic selection e.g.
supplier selection, personnel selection, vendor selection, selection of cranes etc.
Models Overall Weightage % Ranking
Tablet 1 43.934% Rank 1
Tablet 2 33.194% Rank 2
Tablet 3 22.872% Rank 3

12. References
[1] Mitra S, Kundu S (2017) Application of analytic hierarchy process for domestic refrigerator selection. Int J Emerg Tech in Eng Res 5(12):126-
132. Url link: http://www.ijeter.everscience.org/Manuscripts/Volume-5/Issue-12/Vol-5-issue-12-M-21.pdf
[2] Mitra S, Kundu S (2018) Application of TOPSIS for best domestic refrigerator selection. Int J of Res and Anal Rev 5(3):226-231. Url link:
http://www.ijrar.com/upload_issue/ijrar_issue_1212.pdf
[3]Sri Krishna S, Sri Nivasulureaddy A, Vani S (2014) A new car selection in the market using TOPSIS. Int J Eng Res Gen Sci 2(4).
[4] Rew L (1988) Intuition in Decision‐making. J Nur Schl 20(3):150–154.
[5] Zionts S, Wallenius J (1976) An interactive programming method for solving the multiple criteria problem. Mgmt Sci 22(6):652–663. Url link:
http://amadeus.ecs.umass.edu/mie373/zionts_wallenius_1976.pdf
[6] Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[7] Saaty TL (2013) The modern science of multicriteria decision making and its practical applications: The AHP/ANP approach. J Oper Res
61(5):1101–1118. doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.2013.1197
[8] Tampi YAN, Pangemanan SS, Tumewu FJ (2016) Consumer decision making in selecting laptop using analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method
(Study: HP, Asus And Toshiba). J EMBA 4(1):316-322. Url link: https://ejournal.unsrat.ac.id/index.php/emba/article/view/11599/11195
[9] Mardani A, Jusoh A, MD Nor K, Khalifah Z, Zakwan N, Valipour A (2015) Multiple criteria decision making techniques and their applications –
A review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ Res 28(1):516-571. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1331677X.2015.1075139
[10] Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10(2):56-66. Url link:
https://www.orstw.org.tw/ijor/vol10no2/ijor_vol10_no2_p56_p66.pdf
[11] Russo Rosaria de FSM, Camanho R (2015) Criteria in AHP: A systematic review of literature. Proc Comp Sci, Elsevier, ScienceDirect 55:1123-
1132. Url link: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.07.081
[12] Rajput V, Kumar D, Sharma A, Singh S, Rambhagat (2018) A literature review on AHP (analytic hierarchy process). J Adv Res Appl Sci
5(1):349-355. Url link: http://iaetsdjaras.org/gallery/46-january-468.pdf