Lecture08 ahp

Mgt 610 Strategic Perspectives on Project Management

(c) 2013, Thomas Lechler and David Keeney. All rights reserved. For academic use only. 1

MGT610

Lecture 8

Stakeholder Perspective:

Prioritizing Needs



Project Value Network

Shareholder

Value

Outcome

Value

Stakeholder

Value Effort

Value

AHP



Topics and Objectives

• Strategic Thinking: Focusing on what creates

most value for the stakeholders

• Prioritize Customer Needs with AHP

• Deploy Prioritized Customer Needs

• Analyze [only] important relationships in detail



Session Agenda

Stakeholder Perspective:

Identifying Needs for Requirement Definition

1. Perceptions of value lead to expectations

2. Compatibility of expectations as segmentation basis

3. Stable needs but dynamic expectations

4. Describing expectation as a tolerance



3. Project Blitz QFD: The 7 Steps of Blitz QFD

0. Identify the Customers (Previous lecture)

1. Go to Gemba (Previous lecture)

2. Discover Customer Needs (Previous lecture)

3. Structure Customer Needs (Previous lecture)

4. Analyze Customer Needs Structure (Previous lecture)

5. Prioritize Customer Needs (AHP)

6. Deploy Prioritized Customer Needs (MVT)

7. Analyze Essential Tasks in Detail (WBS, FMEA)



Project Blitz QFD: Step 5-7

AnalyticHierarchyProcess

What needs aremost important?

Hierarchydiagram Maximum Value

table

How to meettheir needs?

items

task

s

nee

ds

needs

high-valuecustomer

needs

7MPtools

high-valuetasks

tasks

Project Tasktable

How will wedo it?

FMEAtable

risks

What couldgo wrong?

What needsweren't stated?

high-risk

items

high-value itemsp

rio

rities

a

b

c

?

[House ofQuality]

What detailsshould we know?



AHP: Priorities - Filtering / Selecting / Sorting

Should we focus on all identified customer needs?

We need a method for

– deciding which customer needs to focus on

by using a set of decision criteria

– deciding which to do now (priorities), and

which to do later (posteriorities)

But what are we looking for in a “priority”?



AHP: Different Types of Measurement Scales

scale

empirical

observations example

mathematical

structure

nominal determination of

equality

numbers on

football players

may interchange

values

ordinal determination of

rank order

team standings may square or

cube values

interval equality of intervals

or differences

temperature in ° F

or ° C

may add a

constant to values

ratio equality of ratios temperature in

° Kelvin

may multiply values

by a constant

source: S.S. Stevens, Science 103:678

For accurate selection, and for weights you can

multiply by, you must have ratio scale priorities



AHP: Direction to a Solution

What is the simplest way to get ratio scale

priorities?

Even though we don’t have ratio scale

judgments?

inputs AHP outputs

ratio

scale

results

judgments



AHP: The Analytical Hierarchy Process

Developed by Dr. Thomas L. Saaty

– well-tested, with excellent track record

• does not require consensus from participants

– works with quantitative and qualitative data

• produces ratio scale results in all cases

– psychologically “user friendly”

• uses relative judgment (pairwise evaluation)

– forces a detailed understanding of issues

• leads to a common understanding of the decision, and the

rationale for it



AHP: Inputs

How do we get our inputs?

– Pairwise evaluation

“Which one is more?

– Using a relative

judgment scale

“How much more?”

A pairwise evaluation on a

single dimension is the most

accurate judgment you make

Scale

– 9 extreme

– 8

– 7 very strong

– 6

– 5 strong

– 4

– 3 moderate

– 2

– 1 equal



AHP: Basic Template



AHP: Example: Apples with Oranges

Comparing apples and oranges, and other fruit, on

one characteristic: juiciness

– Additional characteristics can be handled the

same way…



AHP: Example: Apples with Oranges - Step1

For a single criteria (at a time)

Compare each pair

1 2 3 4

juiciness rmelon orange pear apple

1 watermelon 1

2 orange 1

3 pear 1

4 apple 1



AHP: Example: Apples with Oranges – Step1

After our first step the matrix looks like the following,

but with different numbers.

1 2 3 4


watermelon 1 2 4 6

orange 1 2 4

pear 1 2

apple 1




The second step completes the matrix.

After the second step the matrix looks like the

following, just with different numbers.

1 2 3 4


1 watermelon 1 2 4 6

2 orange 1/2 1 2 4

3 pear 1/4 1/2 1 2

4 apple 1/6 1/4 1/2 1




1 2 3 4


1 watermelon 1 2 4 6

2 orange 1/2 1 2 4

3 pear 1/4 1/2 1 2

4 apple 1/6 1/4 1/2 1

1.92 3.75 7.50 13.0




1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 row row

juiciness rmelon orange pear apple normalized columns total avg.

1 watermelon 1 2.0 4 6 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.46

2 orange 1/2 1 2 4 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.31

3 pear 1/4 1/2 1 2 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15

4 apple 1/6 1/4 1/2 1 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.08

1.92 3.75 7.50 13.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.000

relative judgment scale:

extreme 9.0 1/9 0.111

8.0 1/8 0.125

very strong 7.0 1/7 0.143

6.0 1/6 0.167

strong 5.0 1/5 0.200

4.0 1/4 0.250

moderate 3.0 1/3 0.333

2.0 1/2 0.500

equal 1.0 1/1 1.000

the

Row

Average of

Normalized

Columns

approximation



AHP: Example: Apples with Oranges – Step5 and

6

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 row row

juiciness rmelon orange pear apple normalized columns total avg.

1 watermelon 1 2.0 4 6 0.52 0.53 0.53 0.46 2.049 0.512

2 orange 1/2 1 2 4 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.31 1.101 0.275

3 pear 1/4 1/2 1 2 0.13 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.551 0.138

4 apple 1/6 1/4 1/2 1 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.299 0.075

1.92 3.75 7.50 13.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.000

relative judgment scale:

extreme 9.0 1/9 0.111

8.0 1/8 0.125

very strong 7.0 1/7 0.143

6.0 1/6 0.167

strong 5.0 1/5 0.200

4.0 1/4 0.250

moderate 3.0 1/3 0.333

2.0 1/2 0.500

equal 1.0 1/1 1.000

the

Row

Average of

Normalized

Columns

approximation



AHP: Example: Apples with Oranges – Output

• The results:

– accurate

– ratio-scale

– Priorities

– This can be proven

mathematically to be a

ratio scale

ratio-scale

juiciness priorities

1 watermelon 0.512

2 orange 0.275

3 pear 0.138

4 apple 0.075

1.000

What are your fruit ratios?



AHP: Example: Apples with Oranges – Checking

•How do we know it’s right?

– Sensitivity analysis

• visible process

• “what-if” scenarios

– Judgment consistency

• the inconsistency ratio (.10 < IR)

• revisit the most inconsistent judgments

Expert

Choice

ratio-scale exact

priorities calc.

0.512 0.542

0.275 0.303

0.138 0.110

0.075 0.045

1.000 1.000

IR=

0.06



AHP: Types of Evaluation Criteria

1. Relative judgments (Nominal Scale)

– the most generally applicable

– the most accurate judgment

2. Absolute judgments (Ordinal Scale)

– ranking against a standard scale

– requires experience and expertise

3. Quantitative judgments (Interval Scale)

Measurements or Estimates (numeric quantities)

– bigger is better

– smaller is better



AHP: Case 1: Selecting Projects

Many projects, and a few criteria

– Define the evaluation criteria

• And the values they may take on

– Prioritize the values

– For each criteria, assign values

• And plug in the priority of that value

– Add the priorities, normalize, and rank



AHP: Case 1: Rating projects

CriteriaRisk Reward

Un

cert

ain

ty

Co

mp

lexi

ty

Pace

Su

ccess

Projects S % rank

Project 1

Project 2

Project 3

Project 4



AHP: Case 1: Criteria Uncertainty

Technological Uncertainty

Uncertainty low

med

ium

hig

h

su

per-

hig

h

normalized columns S %

low 1 2 3 5 0.49 0.46 0.55 0.45 1.95 0.49

medium 1/2 1 1 3 0.25 0.23 0.18 0.27 0.93 0.23

high 1/3 1/1 1 2 0.16 0.23 0.18 0.18 0.76 0.19

super-high 1/5 1/3 1/2 1 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.36 0.09

2.03 4.33 5.50 11.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00

Take each criteria,

Define the values it can take on

Prioritize those values, with pairwise evaluation



AHP: Case 1: Criteria Complexity

System Complexity (scope)

Complexity assem

bly

syste

m

arr

ay


assembly 1 4 6 0.71 0.75 0.60 2.06 0.69

system 1/4 1 3 0.18 0.19 0.30 0.66 0.22

array 1/6 1/3 1 0.12 0.06 0.10 0.28 0.09

1.42 5.33 10.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00

Continue for each criteria, and all values



AHP: Case 1: Criteria Pace

And additional criteria would be handled the

same way…

Time frame available for completion

Pace reg

ula

r

fast

bli

tz


regular 1 2 4 0.57 0.60 0.50 1.67 0.56

fast 1/2 1 3 0.29 0.30 0.38 0.96 0.32

blitz 1/4 1/3 1 0.14 0.10 0.13 0.37 0.12

1.75 3.33 8.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00



AHP: Case 1: Criteria Success

Primary success dimension impact (expected)

Success eff

icie

ncy

cu

sto

mer

bu

sin

ess

futu

re


efficiency 1 3 5 7 0.60 0.58 0.68 0.44 2.29 0.57

customer 1/3 1 1 5 0.20 0.19 0.14 0.31 0.84 0.21

business 1/5 1/1 1 3 0.12 0.19 0.14 0.19 0.64 0.16

future 1/7 1/5 1/3 1 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.23 0.06

1.68 5.20 7.33 16.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 4.00 1.00

After the “risk” or “cost” criteria,

Here is a “reward” or “benefit” criteria…

Now fill the the appropriate values in the table



AHP: Case 1: Rating projects

CriteriaRisk Reward

Un

cert

ain

ty

Co

mp

lexi

ty

Pace

Su

ccess

Projects S % rank

medium system blitz customer

Project 1

low array fast business

Project 2

super assembly regular future

Project 3

high system blitz efficiency

Project 4

0.00



AHP: Case 1: Project Priorities

CriteriaRisk Reward

Un

cert

ain

ty

Co

mp

lexit

y

Pace

Su

ccess

Projects S % rank


Project 1 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.21 0.79 0.18 4


Project 2 0.49 0.09 0.32 0.16 1.06 0.24 3


Project 3 0.09 0.69 0.56 0.06 1.39 0.32 1


Project 4 0.19 0.22 0.12 0.57 1.11 0.25 2

4.34 1.00



AHP: Case 1: Many ways to apply …

CriteriaRisk Reward

Un

cert

ain

ty

Co

mp

lexi

ty

Pac

e

Su

cces

s

Projects S % rank S % rank


Project 1 0.23 0.22 0.12 0.58 0.17 3 0.21 0.21 0.21 2


Project 2 0.49 0.09 0.32 0.90 0.27 2 0.16 0.16 0.16 3


Project 3 0.09 0.69 0.56 1.33 0.40 1 0.06 0.06 0.06 4


Project 4 0.19 0.22 0.12 0.53 0.16 4 0.57 0.57 0.57 1

3.34 1.00 1.00 1.00

Risk Reward

May separate risk and reward… and add more

criteria



Case 2: Prioritizing in a Hierarchy

• Many criteria, and few alternatives

– Define the criteria

• Organize into a hierarchy

– Prioritize the criteria hierarchy top-down

• By what method?

– Apply the most important criteria first

• No need to continue once an alternative

dominates the rest

– Check the analysis for sensitivity



Case 2: Prioritizing in a Hierarchy

alternatives

bu

sin

es

s a

s u

su

al

sh

ut

off

th

eir

ox

yg

en

em

bra

ce

an

d e

xte

nd

rad

ica

l re

en

gin

ee

rin

gcriteria % wt. S

A1

SA

2

SA

3

SA

4

revenue

cost

risk

fun

%

¶

·

¸

¹Î

What project strategy

is to prefer?

What are the criteria?

Here we have an

example of each type

of criteria

(mathematically)



Case 2: Step 1 Prioritizing the Decision Criteria

Are the decision criteria equal in importance? No!

So prioritize the criteria… by the same method:

Pair wise Evaluation

(importance of criteria to strategy selection) row row

criteria revenu cost risk fun normalized columns total avg.

revenue 1 3 5 7 0.597 0.662 0.536 0.438 2.232 0.558

cost 1/3 1 3 5 0.199 0.221 0.321 0.313 1.053 0.263

risk 1/5 1/3 1 3 0.119 0.074 0.107 0.188 0.487 0.122

fun 1/7 1/5 1/3 1 0.085 0.044 0.036 0.063 0.228 0.057

1.676 4.533 9.333 16.000 1 1 1 1 4 1

Î



Case 2: Step 2 Prioritizing the Alternatives

revenue (projected revenue for alternative) totals

estimated value 100 60 120 80 360

normalized 0.278 0.167 0.333 0.222 1.000¶

cost (relative cost of alternative) totals

estimated value $100 $120 $110 $140 470

the inverse 0.010 0.008 0.009 0.007 0.035

normalized 0.289 0.241 0.263 0.207 1.000

·

Bigger is Better!

Smaller is Better! => Inverse!




risk (the degreeof strategic risk)

absolute judgment 2 5 3 4 no. of arrows

weight 0.260 0.035 0.134 0.068 0.4969

normalized 0.523 0.070 0.270 0.136 1.000

¸

risk (the degree of risk for alternative) row row

absolute judgment scale: safe some risk bold fool normalized columns total avg.

ô 1 safe 1 3 5 7 9 0.560 0.642 0.524 0.429 0.360 2.514 0.503

ôô 2 some risk 1/3 1 3 5 7 0.187 0.214 0.315 0.306 0.280 1.301 0.260

ôôô 3 risky 1/5 1/3 1 3 5 0.112 0.071 0.105 0.184 0.200 0.672 0.134

ôôôô 4 bold 1/7 1/5 1/3 1 3 0.080 0.043 0.035 0.061 0.120 0.339 0.068

ôôôôô 5 foolhardy 1/9 1/7 1/5 1/3 1 0.062 0.031 0.021 0.020 0.040 0.174 0.035

1.79 4.68 9.53 16.33 25.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 5.000 1.000

The absolute judgment requires expertise




(amount of enjoyment in doing alternative) row row

fun busine shut o embrac radica normalized columns total avg.

business as usual 1 1/3 1/5 5 0.109 0.074 0.122 0.227 0.532 0.133

shut off their oxygen 3/1 1 1/3 7 0.326 0.223 0.203 0.318 1.070 0.268

embrace and extend 5/1 3/1 1 9 0.543 0.670 0.608 0.409 2.231 0.558

radical reengineering 1/5 1/7 1/9 1 0.022 0.032 0.068 0.045 0.167 0.042

9.200 4.476 1.644 22.000 1 1 1 1 4 1

¹



Case 2: Step 3 Final Alternatives Evaluated

busin

ess a

s u

sual

shut

off

their o

xygen

em

bra

ce a

nd e

xte

nd

radic

al re

engin

eering

criteria % wt SA

1

SA

2

SA

3

SA

4

100 60 120 80

0.278 0.167 0.333 0.222

revenue 0.558 0.155 0.093 0.186 0.124

cost

risk

fun

% priorities

count or estimate

local priorities

global priorities



Case 2: Step 3 Final Alternatives Evaluated

busin

ess a

s u

sual

shut

off

their o

xygen

em

bra

ce a

nd e

xte

nd

radic

al re

engin

eering

criteria % wt SA

1

SA

2

SA

3

SA

4

100 60 120 80

0.278 0.167 0.333 0.222

revenue 0.558 0.155 0.093 0.186 0.124

100 120 110 140

0.289 0.241 0.263 0.207

cost 0.263 0.076 0.063 0.069 0.054

2 5 3 4

0.523 0.07 0.27 0.136

risk 0.122 0.064 0.009 0.033 0.017

0.133 0.268 0.558 0.042

fun 0.057 0.008 0.015 0.032 0.002

% 0.303 0.18 0.32 0.197 priorities

count or estimate

local priorities

global priorities



AHP: More criteria?

important

criteria

applied first

hierarchy of

criteria

alternatives

prio

rit

ies

priorities

For a large number of

criteria…

We must organize the

Criteria

• Pairwise evaluation

would be too time

consuming…



AHP: Complex criteria REQUIRE A HIERARCHY

primary secondary tertiary

Secondary 1.1

1.2.1

1.2.2

Secondary 1.2 1.2.3

1.2.4

PRIMARY 2 Secondary 2.1 1.2.4

2.1.1

2.1.2

2.1.3

Secondary 2.2

– Several goals?

– Several objectives for each goal?

– Several sub- objectives for each objective?

•Three levels is all you need…



AHP: Work top down

• First, compare

the primaries

• Then, compare

the secondaries

for the most

important

primary…

primary secondary tertiary

Secondary 1.1

local global

0.09 0.04 1.2.1

1.2.2

Secondary 1.2 1.2.3

local global 1.2.4

0.54 0.27


0.50 local global 2.1.1

0.32 0.16 2.1.2

2.1.3

Secondary 2.2

local global

0.06 0.03

1.00 0.50



AHP: Branch by branch primary secondary tertiary local global

Secondary 1.1

local global

0.09 0.04 1.2.1 0.47 0.13

1.2.2 0.32 0.09

Secondary 1.2 1.2.3 0.17 0.05

local global 1.2.4 0.04 0.01

0.54 0.27 1.00


0.50 local global 2.1.1

0.32 0.16 2.1.2

2.1.3

Secondary 2.2

local global

0.06 0.03

1.00 0.50

Then compare the tertiaries for the most

important secondary…



AHP: Most important criteria

primary secondary tertiary local global rank ?

Secondary 1.1 0.04 5

local global

0.09 0.04 1.2.1 0.47 0.13 1

1.2.2 0.32 0.09 3

Secondary 1.2 1.2.3 0.17 0.05 4

local global 1.2.4 0.04 0.01 9

0.54 0.27 1.00

PRIMARY 2 Secondary 2.1 1.2.4 0.64 0.10 2

0.50 local global 2.1.1 0.21 0.03 6

0.32 0.16 2.1.2 0.10 0.02 8

2.1.3 0.05 0.01 10

Secondary 2.2 1.00

local global

0.06 0.03 0.03 7

1.00 0.50 0.50



AHP: Results

•We can identify and prioritize the most important criteria

first

– Before all the criteria are prioritized,

or even identified

– Efficient prioritization!

•Apply those most important criteria to the alternatives

– And stop if one alternative is dominant

– Efficient selection!



AHP: Focusing on Few Criteria

• Exhaustive evaluation is unnecessary

Requirements Priority

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Req

uir

em

en

ts

Priority

High value

Requirements

BEST EFFORTS

Low value

Requirements

USUAL EFFORTS



AHP: Don’t make this mistake

– Criteria not at same level of detail?

– Priorities on ordinal or interval scale?

– All criteria applied, inconsistently, with an ordinal scale?

• Ordinal x ordinal = “error: invalid operation”

– Add table entries

– Result = garbage

all criteria

applied

alternatives

ord

ina

l p

rio

riti

es

big list

of

criteria

garbage



AHP: Summary

• The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

– How are priority/selection decisions made in

your organization?

– Is the process well-defined and visible?

• is it checked? improved? taught?

– Is it done efficiently?

• Is the math legitimate?

• Is it important, and useful, to be good at rapid,

accurate priorities?



AHP: Software

• There are several packages available to do the

calculations (including Excel).

– Expert Choice 2000 (www.expertchoice.com)

• Trial version available for free download

• Limited to three levels (you don’t need more for

most analyses)

• Excellent inconsistency and sensitivity analysis

• Good manual and tutorial in full version

• Many decision analysis tools include AHP



Step 6: Deploy Prioritized Customer Needs

• Now that you know the most important customer needs, you

know:

– What you must do to deliver them?

– How to find the most important contributors

in the other columns on the CVT

• or add them...

• Define the Maximum Value Table



Step 6: Maximum Value Table

customer voice table customer voice table customer voice table

c us t omer c onc erns t ec hnic al c onc erns des ign c onc erns

customer customer customer technical

segments problems needs requirements functions technology reliability safety

home owner "slips out of my can hold easily dimensions illuminate objectspower saving works in cold no sparks

hand and breaks" switch weather (gas leak)

driver "always dead charges quickly weight protect adjustable focus switch doesn't bright color,

when I need it" components stick glow-in-the-dark

camper "don't bring can carry easily stability transform energyadjustable lens doesn't crackstill works

when I need it" headband when dropped when dropped

On the MVT,

those items that contribute most to satisfying the most

important customer needs, are the maximum value items



Step 7. Analyze Essential Tasks in Detail

•Analyze Important Relationships in Detail and only to the extent

that is warranted!

– keep the focus on high-value items

– explore [only] to the depth necessary,

• the details of one column, or

• the interactions between two columns

•Redefine the WBS if necessary

•Modify the project risk analysis with FMEA



Doing Project Blitz QFD

• Don’t stagnate!

– continually improve at QFD, and product development

• get better at the tools & techniques

• refine your process

• become more sophisticated, more comprehensive

– graduate from Blitz QFD, to Comprehensive QFD




• Any negative effects?

– Is there any downside to doing Blitz QFD?

– Will anything else be worse because you are doing Blitz?

• Plan how to deal with negative effects and anticipated obstacles!

Any anticipated obstacles?

– If you can’t do Blitz QFD,

you can’t do QFD…

• easier, faster, cheaper

– Management may need a

professional overview of

QFD

• benefits

• who’s doing it




• Preparation (offline)

– one day: sort out our inputs; clarify what we have; what

we are doing; goals

• Workshop (with full team)

– one day: do Blitz

• Follow up (with selected team members)

– one day: how to fill in the holes we found




• Blitz QFD:

– emphasizes on all the basic themes of QFD

– develops good QFD habits,

and avoids bad QFD habits

– demonstrates the power of QFD quickly

– fully upwards compatible with high-powered comprehensive

QFD

– encourages development to a more sophisticated QFD

process



AHP Homework example: Where to go on

vacation?

• Alternatives?

– Bora Bora

– Orlando

– Paris

– New York

• Criteria?

– Relaxation

– Things to Do

– Cost

– Memories

• Take four alternatives, and apply four weighted

• criteria to them (as a minimum)



AHP: Example

Vacation Destinations

Bo

ra B

ora

Orl

and

o

Par

is

New

Yo

rk

Critieria priority

0.62 0.12 0.20 0.06 local priorities

Relaxation 0.16 0.10 0.02 0.03 0.01 global priorities


Things to Do 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.04 global priorities


Cost 0.34 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.20 global priorities


Memories 0.41 0.23 0.04 0.12 0.02 global priorities

1.00 0.36 0.16 0.22 0.26 priority 1.000

1 4 3 2 rank



AHP: Example

Criteria Weight Rel

axat

ion

Th

ing

s to

Do

Co

st

Mem

ori

es

normalized columns S pri

ori

ty

ran

k

Relaxation 1 3 1/2 1/5 0.120 0.273 0.182 0.079 0.653 0.163 3

Things to Do 1/3 1 1/4 1/3 0.040 0.091 0.091 0.132 0.353 0.088 4

Cost 2 4 1 1 0.240 0.364 0.364 0.395 1.362 0.341 2

Memories 5 3 1/1 1 0.600 0.273 0.364 0.395 1.631 0.408 1

8.333 11.000 2.750 2.533 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.000 1.000

Relaxation Bo

ra B

ora

Orl

and

o

Par

is

New

Yo

rknormalized columns S p

rio

rity

ran

k

Bora Bora 1 6 4 8 0.649 0.643 0.696 0.500 2.487 0.622 1

Orlando 1/6 1 1/2 3 0.108 0.107 0.087 0.188 0.490 0.122 3

Paris 1/4 2 1 4 0.162 0.214 0.174 0.250 0.800 0.200 2

New York 1/8 1/3 1/4 1 0.081 0.036 0.043 0.063 0.223 0.056 4

1.542 9.333 5.750 16.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.000 1.000



AHP: Example

Things to Do Bo

ra B

ora

Orl

and

o

Par

is

New

Yo

rk

totals

estimated number 10 40 60 80 190

normalized 0.053 0.211 0.316 0.421 1.000

4 3 2 1 rank

Cost Bo

ra B

ora

Orl

and

o

Par

is

New

Yo

rk

totals

estimated cost $5,000 $1,200 $2,200 $500 $8,900

the inverse 0.000 0.001 0.000 0.002 0.003

normalized 0.057 0.239 0.130 0.573 1.000

4 2 3 1 rank



AHP: Example

Now go and construct your own AHP example

using Excel (or download Expert Choice 2000)

Memories wee

ks

mo

nth

s

year

s

life

tim

e

normalized columns S pri

ori

ty

values weeks 1 1/4 1/7 1/9 0.048 0.019 0.033 0.070 0.169 0.042

months 4 1 1/5 1/7 0.190 0.075 0.046 0.090 0.402 0.101

years 7 5 1 1/3 0.333 0.377 0.230 0.210 1.151 0.288

lifetime 9 7 3 1 0.429 0.528 0.691 0.630 2.278 0.569

21.000 13.250 4.343 1.587 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 4.000 1.000

values applied Bo

ra B

ora

Orl

and

o

Par

is

New

Yo

rk

value lifetime months years weeks

priority 0.569 0.101 0.288 0.042

1 3 2 4 rank

Lecture08 ahp

Education

Transcript of Lecture08 ahp