![]() |
![]() |
| Home | Meetings | Contact List | Committees | Documents | Mapping | Photo Gallery | Search | Links |
Multi Criteria Decision Modeling
Preference Ranking
The Analytical Hierarchy Process
A Tool for Decision SupportWhy is AHP needed?
- It is difficult to conceptualize all elements of a problem.
- You may leave important elements out - or unimportant ones in!
- It is difficult to keep track of your priorities.
This leads to INCONSISTENT DECISIONS!
AHP Preference RankingMajor Advantages
- Active community involvement and participation in decision making processes
- Incorporation of economic and social; objective and subjective considerations into decision making (i.e. integrated decision making)
- Provides a theoretical basis for consistent decision making
Structure the ProblemThis tool is used:
- to elicit preferences for certain objectives relative to other objectives
- to give the best, or several best, solutions from a range of potential solutions
Where the name comes fromGeneral Form
- a goal or the focus of a problem
- a finite number of alternative plans or options
- a set of criteria by which alternatives are to be judged, and
- a method of ranking the alternatives based on how well they satisfy the objective
General Structure of a Problem
Decision makers are asked...
… The nature of the question depends on the desired outcome and level being comparedScale of Relative Importance
Use this scale to articulate preferences
|
Numerical Value
1 |
Definition
Equally important or preferred |
Structure of the problem
Number of Jobs: quantity of the jobs
Average Wage or Salary: quality of the jobs
Level of Capital Investment: measure of permanency
Impacts of Population Growth: social impact (traffic, public services)
Level of Utility Requirements: pubic impact (infrastructure)
Cleanliness of Industry: environmental impact
Value added Multipliers: local economic impact
Through pairwise comparisons the relative importance of the different impacts can be expressed. This includes those impacts that are subjective in nature.
Decision Makers are Asked:
Judgement Matrix
| # Jobs | Avg. Pay | Prop. Value | Cleanliness | |||||||||||||||||
| # Jobs |
|
|||||||||||||||||||
| Avg. Pay | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Prop. Value | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Cleanliness | ||||||||||||||||||||
Pairwise Comparison Results Calculates the relative weights of the criteria Cleanliness of Industry
Avg. Wage/Salary
Impacts on Property Values
Number of Jobs
Impacts on Population Growth
Level of Capital Investment
Level of Utility Requirements52.0%
17.5%
11.5%
5.6%
4.8%
4.5%
4.0%Inconsistency Ratio: .2897
Pairwise Comparison Results
Re-Examine the Pairwise ComparisonsHow do I interpret an IR?
Range:
- 0.0 perfect consistency, inconsistent 0% of the time
- 1.0 no consistency, inconsistent 100% of the time
Expert Choice Software
Calculates the relative weights of the criteria
Cleanliness of Industry
Avg. Wage/Salary
Impacts on Property Values
Number of Jobs
Level of Capital Investment
Level of Utility Requirements
Impacts of Population Growth50.9%
15.9%
13.2%
6.3%
5.1%
4.7%
3.9%Inconsistency Ratio: .1963
Proposed Process
This web site is hosted by CARES- University
of Missouri - Columbia
This web site is maintained jointly by the Saline County Study Steering
Committee and CARES
For problems or questions regarding this web contact the Saline
County Steering Committee or Chris
Fulcher (CARES).
Last updated: November 14, 1999