AHP - Science method

Can we check the efficiency of the Eigenvector

AHP Analysis - Fabrication SWH

This analysis aims to determine the Standard Work Hours (SWH) by evaluating the criteria: Labor Efficiency (LE), Overall Efficiency (OE), Job Weight (JW), Weld Volume (WV), and Skill Level (SL)

Please give your expert opinion in following link

In AHP (Analytical Hierarchical Process) using 9 criteria, when I use a a scale of relative importance (1-9), I am getting a higher lambda-max and hence an inconsistent Consistency Ratio (>.10) is always getting generated. Any suggestion to get generate consistent CR (<0.10)?

Dear community,

does anybody have experience with any online tools or services to conduct AHP-based surveys? That means the question design should be some kind of matrix and additionally allow the functionalities to define numbers to weight factors and have a functionality of a pairwise comparison (for instance 9 -> 1/9; 3 -> 1/3)?

Until now i have only read one paper, which suggested Limesurvey for this kind of surveys. Maybe someone could share an experience with this or similar tools?

Thank you a lot in advance.

Kind Regards

Dimitri Petrik

Dear colleagues

In many articles I read that AHP has a strong mathematical foundation. I wonder if somebody can explain mathematically each of the steps in the AHP and ANP. Specifically, I am asking for somebody to explain rationally the following aspects:

1- It makes sense using pair-wise comparisons between two different criteria, but which is the mathematical justification of using intuition values to indicate the preferences of the DM, other than in personal problems?

2- The results from the Eigen Values (EV) or geometric mean analysis are trade-off values. Could somebody explain why they are considered equivalent to weights, when they are two different things?

3- Why in AHP AV is preferred to geometric mean?

4- Is it valid to assume that criteria preferences are constant?

5- Is it natural that the selection of criteria does not take into account the alternatives they have to evaluate? It appears that in so doing the preferences are constant, no matter to what alternatives or problem they refer. For instance, a preference of say quality is twice preferred to price, is applicable to everything, meaning that the DM cannot change his/her preferences in aspects so different as selecting a restaurant, buying a car or selecting a long-distance transportation mean.

6- Is there any axiom or theorem that says that the DM estimates must comply with transitivity?

7- Is there any axiom or theorem that says that these values and transitivity can be applied to the real world?

8- Is there any axiom or theorem that supports the idea that subjective weights can evaluate alternatives, or is it intuitive?

9- Is it real and valid that increasing or decreasing the importance of a criterion can be compensated by proportional changes in others? In case it is true, why should it be proportional? Simply because its sum is one?

10- Have users realized that decreasing, say one level, in the Saaty Fundamental Scale, is not as little as it appears to be?

11- AHP was in 1983 charged with Rank Reversal, which is true, albeit further it was found that RR happens in all MCDM methods. Does anybody know why or at least the cause that produces it, irrelevant the method?

12- Why is it assumed that a ranking is invariant when adding alternatives?

13- In sensitivity analysis, most methods work with increasing or decreasing the importance of only one criterion, while keeping the others constant. Is that realistic?

14- On what grounds AHP considers that the criterion with the highest weight is the most important. Is than correct or it is intuitive?

Thank you for your answers

Dear Colleague,

I hope this message finds you well.

I am excited to announce the Call for Chapters for our upcoming book project titled "Applying Remote Sensing and GIS for Spatial Analysis and Decision-Making," scheduled to be published by IGI Global.

We are seeking contributions from researchers and practitioners who are passionate about exploring the application of remote sensing and GIS technologies in spatial analysis and decision-making processes. Your expertise and insights would greatly enrich the content of our book, and we cordially invite you to submit a proposal for a chapter.

Submission Deadline: May 19, 2024

For more details about the submission process and guidelines, please visit the following link: [https://www.igi-global.com/publish/call-for-papers/call-details/7509]

Should you have any inquiries or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me . I am more than happy to assist you throughout the submission process.

Thank you for considering this opportunity to contribute to our publication. We look forward to receiving your proposals and collaborating with you on this exciting project.

Best regards,

Adil Moumane

University of Ibn Tofail. Kenitra, Morocco

I have tried using the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) for MCDM to evaluate the career preferences of graduates. However, I would like to know more about other best options.

Hi, i want to use Fuzzy AHP for calculating weightages of my criteria. I have already collected data on Saaty scale (1-9) from respondents. Please advise a research paper or excel work if any.

My email is usmanrafiq2k9@gmail.com

# 111

Dear Abbas El Toufaili, Dario Pozzetto, Elio Padoano, Luca Toneatti, and Ghassan Fakhoury

I read your article

Selection of a Suitable Waste to Energy Technology for Greater Beirut Area Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process

My comments

1- In page 5 you say: “4) the consistency of each pairwise comparison matrix is checked;”

Yes, it checks the consistency in judgements from the DM, and what is it good for? You can’t assume that the values derived from the DM mind are the same as in the real word. They are not even judgements but intuition, and there is not a theorem or an axiom that supports thar assumption, very convenient indeed. I have posted many times this, curiously nobody refuted me

Not really, sensitivity analysis tests the stability of the best or selected alternative

If you do not have the alternatives that can be used in YOUR CASE, how can you select the criteria to evaluate them?You need criteria that are relevant to your alternatives, that can be different in other similar projects. There is not a universal set of criteria, although you can learn indeed from other projects.

So now you agree with me, wren you say that the first thing is to select that the WtE technologies or alternatives; you are contradicting yourself!

Now you are talking about the weights designed arbitrarily by a set of experts, and what happens if another set of experts disagree?

You cannot use AHP in this studybecause almost all of the 12 criteria are related, and AHP works only with independent criteria, as Saaty said it very clearly. How can you explain this?

2- You cannot use one criterion to perform sensitivity analysis and keep the other constant, because it is reasonable. This is the famous ceteris paribus, a principle rejected by most economists, with reason, because it is not congruent with reality. If you go to a doctor due to a headache, he/she will not limit to study the brain because the problems may be associated with other parts of the body. Another interesting and wrong assumption in AHP.

3- You say this: “To apply the AHP method and obtain credible preferences”

The re asl world does not work with preferences, but with facts; preferences change, facts don’t

In page 7 you have four different types of criteria, which is fine. It appears that you must have five experts, one for each type, which is reasonable.

Now, consider that the expert on Environment-health has to compare with each one on the four other experts on pair of criteria. This means that this guy must have knowledge of the other four disciplines, if not, how is he going to discuss with each specialist? I hope that you recognize that this is possible but not probable.

My question is, how two experts addressing two different disciplines can agree, when there is even disagreement between two persons discussing about something they BOTH know?

The mentioned guy most probably knows nothing about technology sophistication and vice versa. Each one will be defending about their acquiring knowledge and expertise. How can the reach an agreement about how many times is a criterion more important thins other? Hoe do they refute each other?

See the fallacy of this procedure?

4- Needless to say, the way in which sensitivity analysis in AHP and most MCDM methods is inappropriate, because you can’t use a ceteris paribus principle,’ it does not have

any mathematical support. In addition, selecting the criterion to vary with the maximum weight it does not have either any support, other than intuition.

I hope these comments may help

Nolberto Munier

How do I generate ROC AUC specifically in ArcGIS environment for validation of Groundwater Potential zones?

I have generated groundwater potential zones using AHP technique with 3 classes.

and I want to validate my result with existing yield data (212 wells). what are the steps to Feloow?

can anyone please share with me the old version of ArcSDM too with ROC tool ?

I am currently investigating the application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with a specific focus on two criteria. I'm interested in understanding the feasibility of using AHP for weight calculations in a two-criteria context. According to Saaty's book (1980), the Random Index (RI) is zero for two criteria, potentially leading to inconsistent comparisons.

Are there any specific considerations or modifications that should be taken into account in such scenarios?

Is it possible to conduct a survey to 20 respondents for my AHP assessment?

Thank you.

AHP in detail

Why geometric mean is used in analytical hierarchy process (AHP) instead of arithmetic mean? How would it be possible to determine the inconsistency between two pair of comparisons between experts?

Hello--

I have seen some great tutorials for action potential analysis in Clampfit11 but not with Clampfit 10.4.

I have included an image of a representative data file and the action potential sweeps.

In Clampfit10.4, I have a created a template that allows me to count action potential numbers, but would like to take more information from my sweeps. Things like inter-event interval, AHP (fast/medium/slow), AP threshold (slope, decay, etc).

I am sure there are ways to do them, but this is beyond what the pClamp manual can describe.

Any help is appreciated.

Dear researcher, I am doing a research that using neutrosophic AHP and neutrosophic TOPSIS. My specific question are:

1) Have any example can refer to develop a questionnaire format for neutrosophic AHP and TOPSIS?

2) Have any recommended software to calculate neutrosophic AHP and TOPSIS/ any paper that has show a comprehensive calculation for both?

Hi,

Can I use AHP or other MCDM techniques to compare two alternatives?

Also, did anyone use AHP in two stages, for example, compare hybrid cars to electrical ones in the first stage, and after concluding that electric cars are better, choose the best electrical car type?

free Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy TOPSIS software

Dear Milan Dordevic, Rade Tešić, Srdjan Todorović , Miloš Jokić , Dillip Kumar Das, Željko Stević, and Sabahudin Vrtagic

Reference is made to your paper

“Development of Integrated Linear Programming Fuzzy‐Rough MCDM Model for Production Optimization”

I read it and my comments are:

1- I n the abstract you say “Exactly such a problem is solved in this paper, which integrates linear programming and a Multi‐Criteria Decision‐Making (MCDM) model”

In reality, Linear Programming (LP) is part of MCDM. As a matter of fact, it was the first method of MCDM, created by Kantorovich in 1940.

In “First, linear programming was applied to optimize production and several potential solutions lying on the line segment AB were obtained”

This is correct, and some times it happens, but only when the objective function has the same slope as a criterion. This is your case, and a-b t is a Pareto frontier, with infinite optimal solutions between a and b, if the alternatives are not finite.

2. In page 2 “This model includes qualitative and quantitative indicators, which is an advantage considering that the disadvantage of various multi‐objective programming models is that they are basically mathematical and often ignore qualitative and subjective factors”

In reality, practically all MCDM methods work with quantitative and qualitative criteria, however not LP, that works only with quantitative criteria or indicators, as you call them.

3. In page 2 “fuzzy analytic hierarchy process”

You can’t apply fuzzy in the AHP method. It was expressly said in writing by Saaty, its creator, because AHP is already fuzzy.

4- In “I” Figure 1, in my opinion, there is a sequence mistake, since determination of criteria must precede LP, not as is shown in the figure. You can’t solve a LP scenario if you don’t have the criteria.

5- In “IV” Figure 1, what is the gain in comparing rankings from different methods addressing the same problem? What information can you extract from this comparison?

6- In page 2 “When applying LP for the optimization and management of production processes in this special case, several potential solutions are obtained instead of one which is usually the case”

Again, LP can give several optimal solutions ONLYwhen the mono-objective function is parallel to a criterion. LP was designed to give, if it exists, only one optimal solution, like maximize benefits, or minimize costs, but not the two at the same time. However, you can use maximize a benefit or minimize a cost, at the same time, if they are criteria. The method will try to find a solution that balances both criteria, that is, it will find a compromise solution.

By the way, if you use LP, you don’t need weights. These are determined in each iteration of the LP method. DM preferences can be applied after a mathematically correct results are reached.

7- What are ‘Rough MCDM methods”? You did not explain this concept. The same for rough numbers. Remember that not all readers in RG , probably most, are not mathematicians

8- In page 9, Figure 2 where is the objective function Z?. In reality, it coincides with criterion C2

Look at your equations. Criteria C2 or Equation 2 is:

Look at your objective equation

Z = 2000 A + 1000 B

The only difference is that C2 has a goal (3000), i.e., it is definite, while Z is not.

The Figure is correct, but the objective function must be identified, if not, the reader will be asking where is it.

Z can be displaced to the right parallel to itself, because it is maximizing. Since it is indefinite it can take any value. Suppose that you assign it the value 3000. It means that whatever its initial position in the A-B coordinates system, at that value Z equals C2, which is what you have in your diagram.

Thus, this parallelism between Z and C2 has been forced by establishing that Z and C2 have the same slope (1 and 0.5). Therefore a-b constitutes a Pareto Front where all pairs of A and B are optimal.

But remember that this is a particular case. Most PL problems determine the optimal value when the Z line tangents one vertex of the polygon.

9- In page 9 “The optimal value of the objective function is unique because it is six million regardless of how many products A and how many products B will be produced, but there are infinitely many admissible solutions that provide this function value”

Exactly

10- In page 9 “Since we have as a solution many points that represent the optimal solution, a multicriteria model can be applied further”

I don’t understand. You already applied MCDM using LP. Why do you need to apply another method?

What is the ‘t’ value? In may opinion you should explain that it is a parameter or percentage.

11- On page 10 “3.3. Determining the Significance of Criteria Using the IMF SWARA Method”

What do you need that for if you already have the solution?

12- There is something that puzzles me, and it is why to develop so a complex procedure when the same result of A21, can be reached just putting ‘=’ instead of ‘≤’, by indicating in this inequation of yors.

1.5 x1 + 1.5 x2 = 6000

Since x1 = x2, I don’t see why you say that the best alternative is x1.

Obviously, the authors must have had reasons to follow a complex mechanism, when it can be replaced by a simple operation. I would like to hear from them about this.

In my opinion the article is very valuable, but very difficult to understand, mainly because it appears that the authors take for granted that readers don’t need any clarification.

Hope it helps

Nolberto Munier

I am creating a AHP model to compare the best business model which is the criteria and parameters affecting each criteria (sub- criteria). Is it possible to create a model to compare the criteria and sub criteria without the alternatives?

Can you please provide guidance on performing sensitivity analysis in Fuzzy AHP using Excel?

I'm wondering if anyone has a sample of online AHP surveys that can share with me? Since due to the COVID-19 lock-down it is not possible to physically access people, so are there any best online survey portals for researchers to collect data online that can support AHP kinds of questions as it's different from normal kind of survey.

Proposal for an objective binary benchmarking framework that validates each other for comparing MCDM methods through data analytics

Mahmut Baydaş1 , Tevfik Eren1 , Željko Stević2 , Vitomir Starčević3 and Raif Parlakkaya

I have read your article and my comments are:

1- In the abstract you say “However, because the algorithms of MCDM methods are different, they do not always produce the same best option or the same hierarchical ranking.”

In my opinion this is debatable. If we are using mathematical algorithms, with the same data and the same aim, results and rankings should be equal or very similar, because the mathematics are only one. It is like saying that 3^2 should be give different results according to the algorithm used for solution; multiplication, i.e., (3 x3 = 9), or logarithms (2 x log (3) = 9.

Results are different because each method introduces weights and assumptions that don’t have any mathematical support. Subjective weights in AHP, thresholds in PROMETHEE and ELECTRE, false assumptions as in BW method, distance in TOPSIS, etc.

2- In page 2 “Simply put, MCDM methods can be compared based on their ability to relate to real life. This brings to mind the naturally occurring sequences in real life”

100% in agreement. This is fundamental; if a MCDM method is unable to model a certain reality in a problem, it is useless, at least for that problem.

3- In page 2 “The factors that differentiate the ranking results of MCDM methods are the normalization type, assumptions, limitations and threshold value, along with different calculation procedures”

And subjectivity, possibly the most important, but not on calculation procedures, because you are using a universal tool: Mathematics. The same mathematics principles are used to build a house, and airplane or a car, even to compute financial performances. An example is entropy, using the same principles than Thermodynamics, or the design of blades in wind turbines, following the same aerodynamic principles used in aeronautics. This is science, very different to guessing and intuition.

4- In page 3 “In this study, an “output-based” solution obtained with “data analytics” is proposed as an alternative to a classical “input-based” methodological solution.”

Agreed. In other words, you promote, as I do, the ’Bottom -up’ approach, instead of the ‘Top-down’ approach, even supported by common sense.

5- In page 3 “To gain a more robust insight, a separate comparison metric will be proposed based on the RR findings produced by the MCDM methods”

Are you deleting or adding companies along the study? It is the only thing that can produce RR

6- In page 3 “On the other hand, comparative analyzes of the methods show that none of the MCDM methods are perfect”

I fail to see the relationship between comparing methods and perfection. None method is perfect

7- In page 6 “Since normalization distorts the original data in the first decision matrix, it violates the principle of independence from irrelevant alternatives (PIIA)”

Normalization in most forms consist in dividing each performance factor by a number originated by diverse modes, like sum of values, largest value, vector, etc. If all performance factors in a criterion are divided by the same factor, why is there a distortion, since the relative importance between values is not altered? Therefore, the performance values for all alternatives are divided by the same number. Where is the violation of independence here?

9- In page 6 you mention a procedure based on the Spearman correlation to measure RR.

It appears attractive, but I have my doubts because the alternatives that are added or removed combine in hundreds or thousands of relationships, and I don’t think that they can be condensed using a simple method like correlation. I base my presumption on the fact that removing only one alternative may have a large effect on the others remaining, imagine removing several at the same time!

Remember also, that either removing or adding alternatives means changing the number of dimensional spaces of the system, generating different scenarios, where each alternative identifies a different space, consequently, also the common space where are all feasible solutions of the problem is changed, and therefore, the ranking can be dramatically different. In Linear Programming for instance, you can have hundreds of iterations in where an alternative is deleted, but immediately replaced by another that was not in the former solution. In this way, you can have thousands of changes, but the number of dimensional spaces is always the same. In my humble opinion this is one of the reasons by which there is no RR in LP.

10 - In page 8 “Accordingly, we used representatives of all MCDM types in this study, including the new methods.”

This is inexact. I don’t see in your paper that you used methods like Linear Programming, Goal Programming, Solver (in Excel), LINGO, and SIMUS, all based in LP, and using different systems, as the other two large classification. All your methods use personal and thus, subjective appreciations, something that does not happen in LP.

I hope this helps

Nolberto Munier

Dear Monayem Parvej, Soupayan Mitra, Shankha Shubhra Goswami

Reference is made to your article:

An Integrated Approach of AHP and TOPSIS for Optimum Selection of Renewable Energy Source

I have read it and here are my comments:

1- In page 1 you say “The problem of optimum selectionis obtained by application of AHP-TOPSIS hybrid method”

There is no MCDM method that can produce an optimal selection. What they try to do is to find an equilibrium among the different demands, which is called a ‘Compromise solution”

You can only reach in MCDM an optimal solution using Linear Programming, however, this method requires the use of a single objective, while all MCDM treat multiple objectives.

In addition, there is no way to check validity, and consistency is not related with it. Consistency only means that there is a transitivity between all the DM estimates, which, by the way, does not correspond to reality.

2- In page 3 “The parameters chosen are: Capital cost, Energy generation, Tariff cost, Emissions, Efficiency, Maintenance cost and Land requirement”

In my opinion, you can’t determine the best renewable source using only 6 criteria. You should employ many more, for instance, reliability and capacity factor, which refers to the number of hours in a day that an alternative must generate electricity. Solar PV and Wind, depend respectively of sunlight and winds blowing.

3- In page 3 “The relative preferences of each parameter are considered by consulting with relevant sources like power industry and others”

This is as it should be, but not in AHP, where the preferences are by intuition, and thus, arbitrary.

In addition, most of your criteria are interrelated, for instance, capital cost depends on the energy output, or capital cost and energy generation, as you call them. Saaty, creator of AHP specifically said that criteria must be independent, consequently, it appears that you are using the wrong method.

4 – In page 4 “The positive ideal solution is identified with an alternative that has the best values for all considered attributes while the negative ideal solution is identified with an alternative that bears the worst criteria values”

This is inexact. The positive ideal solution is the shortest distance to the ideal solution and the largest distance to the worst solution.

5- You say “Lastly, Sensitivity analysis has been carried out by considering both subjective factors measure and objective factor measure to determine preference of the suppliers”

This is inexact. Sensitivity analysis measures the strength of the best solution when there are variations in some criteria, that affect that solution.

6 - In page 5 you say “Those parameters are very influential and essential for making a decision about the selection of renewable energy resources”

This is absolutely true.

7. Attributes are not the same as criteria. The first, are characteristics of the second.

8 – In page 6 “Wind energy is the best alternative for power generation among the others”

It could be, if it could work continuously 7/24, and therefore you can’t directly compare with hydro, bio and geothermal that can work 7y/24.

In addition, according to literature, PV is generally preferred to wind.

Hope that these comments may help you

Nolberto Munier

this is true about calculating AHP?

Dear Wojcieh Salabun and coauthors: Bartłomiej Kizielewicz , Andrii Shekhov

Reference is made to your article “ pymcdm—The universal library for solving multi-criteria decision-making problems"

I read it and my comments are:

1- In the an abstract you say “comprehensive software that should have relevant components”

What is the meaning if this sentence? Which are relevant components?

If for comprehensive software you mean a MCDM that allows inputting some characteristics or ‘components’ that belongs to a project, I plenty agree with you. For instance, at the beginning, PROMETHEE did not consider resources, and after a time they were incorporated, the same with GAIA, and thus giving a realistic graphic vision of the result. The same for AHP, that was greatly improved by ANP by considering any type of relationships. And of course, Python is probably the best language for MCDM, but it can’t invent procedures that don’t exist. For instance, it can’t solve multiple scenarios if the method does not contemplate that characteristic that a problem may have.

As a matter of fact, I have been fighting for this subject during years because present-day methods can’t incorporate aspects like precedence between alternatives, or incorporate binary notation that allows representing inclusivity and exclusivity, or than consider the time element in a portfolio of projects, etc.

2- You say “Therefore, this paper proposes a flexible library written in Python 3 for multi-criteria analysis/decision-making”

I agree that are many characteristics as those mentioned that can be solved by some of the methods in the library. However, for most semi-complex and complex problems I don’t think that there is in the library a method able to solve them. By the way, which is the difference between this library and ‘Decerns: A Framework for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis ‘(Boris Yatsalo), that has been around for some years now?

3- You say in page 2 “Therefore, simple techniques may not be enough when evaluating decision-making options”.

I agree in a 100% with his statement. Now, my question: If we know that lack of capacity, why are we still using anachronic methods and don’t develop new ones.? This has been partially done by addressing aspects such as rank reversal with new methods like Spotis.

4- Very good your comments in page 3, that briefly and precisely define the characteristics of each method. It can be very useful to practitioners that are confused and lost because the large number of different MCDM methods.

5- The paper says ‘flexibility and accuracy’. How does it mean ‘flexibility’? For what?

How can you measure accuracy?

6- You say “The continuous development of multi-criteria decision-making/analysis methods also creates a gap related to the lack of tools to use them”

Absolutely true, and in my opinion, this is the most important challenge for these methods

7-You say “Moreover, projected tests based on sources from the literature ensure the reliability of the library and the outputs it provides”

I disagree, for there is nothing that can ensure reliability of the output, whatever the method used.

8- In page 7 you say “Studies show a fundamental difference in the results they receive”

This old problem is, in my opinion, produced by the subjectivity of diverse methods, due not only to subjective weights but also to different assumptions, most without any mathematical support. I believe that one way of avoiding this disparity is working with real values without any distortion due to weights (except using objective weights), as well as without assumptions and thresholds. Since for a certain scenario all methods start from the same decision making, aim at the same goal and use mathematical algorithms, logic indicate that all results must coincide.

The DM input, very important and fundamental, can take place one a result, based on reliable numbers, is obtained.

9- You say “The tools that exist to date mostly center around a few selected approaches, sometimes insufficient for a comprehensive analysis of a given problem”

Excellent definition of the main problem in MCDM!

10- On page 8 you say “Sometimes it is difficult for the decision[1]maker to determine to what extent the criteria are relevant to the problem at hand, either under their complexity or the expertise required”

Determining criteria for a certain scenario is indeed difficult if the DM relies in his/her own expertise, or lack of it, because in this circumstance he must have the knowledge of an engineer, an accountant, a social worker and an environmentalist, a geologist, etc., at the same time.

Therefore, what he must do is to consult all stakeholders involved in the project. It is from them, that the DM can obtain the information he needs, and it does not matter if it is contradictory or redundant, just let the software to solve this problem. If as an example, the production manager puts emphasis in needing some especial equipment to be considered, and the financial officer says that there is no money for it, both positions must be taken in to account, because IT IS REALITY.

It is not for the DM to decide who is right and who is wrong, or what is valuable and which not.

Reading many papers published, it is possible to check this fact, however, they are approved by reviewers.

I hope that my comments help

Best regards

Nolberto Munier

As high number of factors increase pairwise comparison and applying AHP or ANP increasing the number of questions in survey questionnaire, so which method is suitable in this circumstances?

My team and I are in the middle of a prioritization problem that involves 350 alternatives (see figure for context about alternatives) or so. I have used the AHP to support the decision-making process in the past with only 7 or 8 alternatives and it has worked perfectly.

I would like to know if the AHP has a limit on the number of alternatives, because consistency may become a problem as Dr. Saaty's method provides Random consistency Indexes for matrix sizes of up to 10.

I was thinking in distributing the 350 alternatives in groups of 10, according to an attribute or classification criteria, to be able to use the RI chart proposed by Dr. Saaty.

If there are other more adecuate multi-criteria analysis tools, or different approaches to calculate the RI for larger matrices, please let me know.

Greetings and thank you,

Please find the attached file

Dear comunity,

at present, I am in a time sensitive situation, my doctoral dissertation is scheduled to be submitted in the next three months. However, I still need a publication to meet the requirements.

My PhD research include the application of remote sensing and GIS for Groundwater exploration

I prepared a manuscript on the integration of RS, GIS, and AHP techniques to map groundwater potential zones.

knowing that, Journals takes a lot of time to respond. Which are the quality/Free journals that take less time to respond or give review?

Thank you,

I have measured the attribute importance of a food service using AHP. There were 42 pairwise comparisons.

In many responses (about 30%), all or almost all pairs were rated equally important. How should I handle these responses? Should I keep all responses or eliminate those with too many answers of equal importance? Your suggestions will be highly appreciated.

Does the geometric mean make a pairwise comparison matrix consistent in AHP? What is the most recent research on AHP consistency?

Hi,

Can I use Likert scale to convert the qualitative data obtained from the literature to quantitative ones and do the comparison of alternatives using AHP ?

I am working on the Identification of potential groundwater zones using AHP and MCDA.

The drainage density value ranges from -ve to +ve, whereas the range of waterbodies in LULC is always +ve. so, what is the outcome due to the overlap of these factors while ranking them differently and analyzing them simultaneously since both are waterbodies and cannot be ignored.

Hello...

Please, I working on a couple of papers working regarding optimal solar location using GIS combined with AHP and TOPSIS on the first one and FAHP and TOPSIS on the second.

I find it really confusing to check the FAHP Consistency Ratio and Combining the AHP and TOPSIS.

Significance of normalization

Normalization is a process to transform data in different units into a common scale and comparable units.

Why normalize in AHP:

The first step in AHP is to assign numbers as per the Satty's scale to different attributes which affect the decesion making.

Weightage of different attributes can be calculated from step1 itself without normalizing.

i'm doing AHP and pairwise comparison for 5 criteria. Seems all respondents showed consistency ratio CR more than 0.1. Is that even possible?

Any suggestion to resolve this?

for 33 factors i need to design fuzzy AHP questionnaire.

My AHP result showing Consistancy ration minus value: -1.68

Why it is?

How many methods we have for multi-criteria Classification (sorting) problems? Could you please name them?

As I understood we have some methods in the below approaches:

1. Multi-Attribute decision making (ELECTRE-TRI, FlowSort, Promethee IV)

2. Multi-objective decision making

3. Goal programming

4. Linear programming (Integer programming)

5. Supervised methods (UTADIS/Decision tree)

6- Clustering (K-means/K-medoids/2steps/c-means)

Could you please name some more methods which can be applied for multi-criteria classification problems?

Thank you in advance.

Is there a mat-lab built interface to run fuzzy AHP that has three layers of decision hierarchy, the way we run fuzzy?

Hi. I just want to ask for any recommendation or link of studies, utilizing AHP from three experts. I am quite confused as to how you are going to integrate their responses in the questionnaire (using Saaty scale) into one pairwise comparison matrix. Thank you

When AHP is used for calculation of weights only and SAW is used for ranking the alternatives , how to carry out the sensitivity analysis ?

So we are working on a ranking index of HEIs, we have calculated weights of kpi's through AHP and I have two variables which are better if they are less.

1. Average teaching workload of instructors,

2. Number of students per faculty

All other variables are positive. How do I include them in the calculation of total points of a hei? Are there any methods that you can suggest for this?

Thanks a bunch in advance!

It is stated that as per my final draft of the questionnaire, there are 9 groups making 197 comparisons comprising one full questionnaire.

It would be psychologically difficult for one person to respond to 197 comparisons at once on the spot. My question is that is it possible that I ask one or two groups or maybe three group comparisons from one person and another two or three groups’ comparisons from another person; in short 3 or 4 people will fill out one questionnaire. Is it the correct way? Is any issue will be created in the calculation of AHP?

Therefore, your valuable input is requested in this regard, an earliest response is highly appreciated.

If you have any research paper related to my question, share it, please.

Actually, I am doing research in Engineering management. I have to use AHP for weighting computation and Topsis for Ranking computation I just want to know which software I can use to analyze If you can help please answer my questions Thanks

I have tried to calculate the inconsistency ratio of the expert answer but I found that the CR value is infinite because the RI of 2x2 matrix (according to Saaty) should 0.00. How do I solve it or any suggestions to find the CR value? Thanks in advance

Hello,

I am currently working on sensitivity analysis in the context of AHP. I use the online tool BPMSG from Goepel, maybe someone here knows it. However, I have a problem with the traceability of the results. Let's assume that there are exactly 3 criteria in the AHP (C1,C2,C3). Then I would like to know how the final value for an alternative (a1) results if one of the criteria changes in weighting, right?

I'll just say C1 decreases by x. However, the value x that is taken away from C1 must be distributed to C2 and C3. I just wonder which method is used to do this. Is x simply distributed equally to C2 and C3 or does this happen according to the share of C2 or C3 in the sum of C2 and C3?

When I do that, I get the following for the remaining two criteria:

(C1-x) = New C1

(C2 + (C2 / (C2 + C3)) * x) = New C2

(C3 + (C3 / (C2 + C3)) * x) = New C3

Unfortunately, however, I do not know if this is correct. If I multiply the criteria with the corresponding values of alternative a1 and combine the whole thing to a final value, I can calculate the same again with the other alternatives. When I compare the graphs to see how big x has to be to change the final prioritization of the alternatives, I always get the wrong values compared to the online tool. Therefore I would like to know if the redistribution of the weights is correct.

I hope someone can help me despite the long question. Thanks a lot!

I have two datasets. One with 9 past cyclones with their damage on the forest, wind speed, distance from the study site, recovery area. Another dataset with future sea-level rise (SLR) projections and potential loss area due to SLR.

Hi,

Greetings! Please share with me if you know of any AHP extensions for ArcGIS 10.5. There is one (https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=bb3521d775c94b28b69a10cd184b7c1f), but it works only for ArcGIS 10.1 and 10.2. Any help in this matter is highly appreciated.

Kind regards

Sohel

I am looking for a dataset which contains the judgments of the decision-makers for the decision problem, as in the AHP method. The problem can be in any area.

Most datasets are related with classification, regression, and time series problems, such as energy, diseases etc.

Let me know. Thanks in advance.

If I use AVI, BSI, SI and TI as biophysical factor.

Dear there,

I am conducting research on portable oil skimmers, I have used QFD to obtain the technical specifications from the customer's requirements. I have 3 conceptual designs now and I have to choose the best design via the AHP analaysis. However, I am very confused about how to set the weightage of each criteria.

My criteria are:

1- efficiency

2- Durability

3- Manufacturability

4- Safety

5- Cost

6- Portability

How many experts are needed in analytical hierarchy process (AHP)?

In my opinion, AHP has many drawbacks that make it very difficult to use in MCDM problems, even being the most used method. In my opinion, this happens because many practitioners ignore the reality behind the heralded easiness of use.

I propose an honest discussion from the technical point of view, naturally, supported by evidence, common sense, and rationality, not by words.

For that, we need the participants in this discussion, to work with an open mind, without prejudice and accusing or defending the method with reasons, not based on what other people say, or what the advertisement declares.

Just a suggestion, consider:

* The rationality of pair-wise comparison

* The rationality to give a value of the importance of one criterion over another

* The rationality in assuming that what the DM thinks is applicable to reality, and to pretend that the real world is transitive

* The rationality of determining weights without considering the alternatives they have to evaluate, and the justification for considering them constant, when they may be not

* The rationality in considering that the criterion with the highest weight is the most important

* Why AHP can only work with independent criteria?

Respected all,

I am trying to learn MCDM Techniques , therefore I am currently seeing lecture on

https://nptel.ac.in/courses/110/107/110107115/

Can anyone please help me

where can I find some solved code in python or r related to MCDM techniques.

I want to work with Supply chain decision making using fuzzy AHP and triangular scale...I need any pdf version of instructions or video link to learn the process...Please suggest me..I am greatly benefited by the kind scholars and their support..

I want to know how to combine the techniques of quality function deployment (QFD) and multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) such as (fuzzy) AHP, WASPAS, VIKOR, PROMETHEE, etc. in decision-making problems. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this combination?

I am doing a study which will require the use of Saaty's Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) for purposes of data analysis. I need to get and/or access the AHP software. I need information on how I can access the software.

Your responses is appreciated.

I am planning to apply fuzzy FMEA and AHP to identify risks and form strategies related to agriculture production process in an automated greenhouse. As I am new to the above method I need to clarify the steps associate with it clearly.

After doing FAHP, how to check the robustness of the model using sensitivity analysis. e.g I have four factors in my model, each factor has some weight in such a way that sum total of all is 1. If I change the weight of one factor keeping the total same (1), what will be the impact on other factors' weight. How to calculate the revised weight of other factors?

Hello. I want to ask how can I translate weightages of "yes" or "no" of a criterion in terms of numbers in AHP calculations?

for examples, my goal is to select most suitable construction material vendor (Alternative) according to the set criteria including "ASTM Standards", with 4 other criteria.

This criterion means "Is the material vendor giving the material according to the Construction Standard ASTM, or not?" So the answer given to this by the alternative (vendor) would be a "Yes" or a "No", but not a value.

First, I've sent a questionnaire to the experts to give me pair wise comparison weightages for one criteria vs the other. And I've got great response with consistency of 0.9. Acceptable!

But when I ask the vendors to provide their responses, they put numerical values to the first four criteria, and I find the comparison matrix for these vendors (alternatives) for each criteria using simple maths division (value of one vendor divided by second vendor). It gives me the exact zero consistency, because I've found the alternatives weightages using exact math comparison. But I get numerical values of weightages to find ranks, so it works fine for me.

But when it comes to the 5th criterion (ASTM Standards), the responses are in "Yes" or "No" terms! My question is that what numerical value should I give to a Yes and a No so that I can get their comparison by dividing with each other?

for instance, if I use Yes =1 and No = 0, the system hangs because anything divided by zero gives an infinity answer, and it doesn't proceed further.

If I want to use a scale of 1 to 9, saying Yes = 9, and No = 1, it gives me good results. But I've no reason to use 1 or 9, for it could be any numerical value say 1000 for Yes, and 1 for No.

Please suggest me a reasonable value with a citation if possible.

Thanks in advance.

I am planning to use fuzzy failure model effect analysis and Analytical hierarchy process to identify and formulate strategies related to chilli seed production under automated greenhouse conditions. But I do not have a proper format for preparing a effective questionnaire survey. What are the literature to find model questionnaire surveys for this kind of a risk assessment?

#AHP #AHPSoftware #MCDM #Multicriteriadecisionmaking #help #IndexDevelopment #Index #scale #Research #researchrelatedquestion

AHP online calculator for calculation of parameters

I am trying to apply Analytical Hierarchical Processing (AHP) method (Saaty,1980) on a set of seven (5 physical and 2 cultural) closely interdependent parameters to identify the vulnerability level of the study area. As we know, AHP is a decision making tool in business world, my concern is whether it will be appropriate to apply it in spatial science. My quarries are -

How much can we rely on the pairwise matrix as we know that in real world decisions are more random than consistent?

Saaty proposed the range of consistency Ratio (CR) to be 0 to 0.1, where 0 is perfectly consistent (and thus can not be achieved in real world) and values greater than 0.1 might be too inconsistent to be reliable. But should we take CRs greater than 0.1 in practice? if so, then how much CR value we should consider to be ok?