Chapter 6

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Example

One Monday morning1 , Peter, instead of attending class, was mulling over his four job oers. His oers came from Acme Manufacturing (A), Bankers Bank (B), Creative Consulting (C), and Dynamic Decision Making (D). He knew that factors such as location, salary, job content, and long-term prospects were important to him, but he wanted some way to formalize the relative importance, and some way to evaluate each job oer. Luckily, he attended the following Tuesday class of MSTC, who showed him one way to think about these problems. This technique is called the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The rst step in AHP is to ignore the jobs and just decide the relative importance of the objectives. Peter does this by comparing each pair of objectives and ranking them on the following scale: Comparing objective i and objective j (where i is assumed to be at least as important as j), give a value aij as follows: Value aij 1 3 5 7 9 Comparison Objectives i Objectives i Objectives i Objectives i Objectives i description and j are of equal importance is weakly more important that j is strongly more important that j is very strongly more important that j is absolutely more important that j

Table 6.1: Pairwise comparison values Of course, we set aii = 1. Furthermore, if we set aij = k , then we set aji = thinking hard about his preferences, comes up with the following table: Location Salary Content Long Location 1 5 3 2 Salary
1 5 1 k.

Peter,

Content
1 3

Long
1 2

1
1 2 1 4

2 1
1 3

4 3 1

Table 6.2: Preferences on Objectives Now, the AHP is going to make some simple calculations to determine the overall weight that Peter is assigning to each objective: this weight will be between 0 and 1, and the total weights will add up to 1. We do that by taking each entry and dividing by the sum of the column it appears in. For instance the (Location,Location) entry would end up as 1 = 0.091. 1+5+3+2
1

Thanks to Michael Trick for the details of this example

2 The other entries become: Location Salary Content Long Location 0.091 0.455 0.273 0.182

6. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Example

Salary 0.102 0.513 0.256 0.128

Content 0.091 0.545 0.273 0.091

Long 0.059 0.471 0.353 0.118

Avg. 0.086 0.496 0.289 0.130 =1

Table 6.3: Weights on Objectives This suggests that about half of the objective weight is on salary, 30% on amount of job content, 13% on long term prospects, and 9% on location. Now, why does this magical transformation make sense? If we read down the rst column in the original matrix, we have the values of each of the objectives, normalized by setting the value of location to be 1. Similarly, the second column are the values, normalizing with salary equals 1. For a perfectly consistent decision maker, each column should be identical, except for the normalization. By dividing by the total in each column, therefore, we would expect identical columns, with each entry giving the relative weight of the rows objective. By averaging across each row, we correct for any small inconsistencies in the decision making process. Our next step is to evaluate all the jobs on each objective. For instance, if we take Location, if we prefer to be in the northeast (and preferably Boston), and the jobs are located in Pittsburgh, New York, Boston, and San Francisco respectively, then we might get the following matrix: Acme (A) Bankers (B) Creative (C) Dynamic (D) A 1 2 3
1 5

B
1 2

C
1 3 1 2

1 2
1 7

1
1 9

D 5 7 9 1

Table 6.4: Location Scores Again we can normalize (divide by the sums of the columns, and average across rows to get the relative weights of each job with regards to location.) In this case, we get the following: Acme (A) Bankers (B) Creative (C) Dynamic (D) A 0.161 0.322 0.484 0.032 B 0.137 0.275 0.549 0.040 C 0.171 0.257 0.514 0.057 D 0.227 0.312 0.409 0.045 Avg. 0.174 0.293 0.489 0.044 =1

Table 6.5: Relative Location Scores Location Value is about 49% for C, 29% for B, 17% for A and D has about 4%. We can go through a similar process with Salary, Content, and Long-term prospects. Suppose the relative values for the objectives can be given as follows: Recalling our overall weights, we can now get a value for each job. The value for Acme Manufacturing is (0.174)(0.086) + (0.050)(0.496) + (0.210)(0.289) + (0.510)(0.130) = 0.164

3 (A)cme 0.174 0.050 0.210 0.510 (B)ankers 0.293 0.444 0.038 0.012 (C)reative 0.489 0.312 0.354 0.290 (D)ynamic 0.044 0.194 0.398 0.188

Location Salary Content Long

Table 6.6: Relative scores for each objective

Similarly, the value Bankers Bank is (0.293)(0.086) + (0.444)(0.496) + (0.038)(0.289) + (0.012)(0.130) = 0.256 The value for Creative Consultants is 0.335, and that for Dynamic Decision is 0.238. Creative Consultants it is! Peter immediately makes his decision. Conclusion The Analytic Hierarchy Process is a method for formalizing decision making where there are a limited number of choices but each has a number of attributes and it is dicult to formalize some of those attributes. Note in this example, we did not collect any data (like miles from a preferred point or salary numbers). Instead, we use phrases like much more important than to extract the decision makers preferences. The AHP has been used in a large number of applications to provide some structure on a decision making process. Note that the system is somewhat ad-hoc (why 1-9 range?) and there are a number of hidden assumptions (if i is weakly preferred to j and j weakly preferred to k, then a consistent decision maker must have i absolutely preferred to k, which is not what my idea of the words means). Furthermore, an unscrupulous can easily manipulate the rankings to get a preferred outcome (by using a non-management science technique called lying) Despite the rather arbitrary aspects of the procedure, however, it can provide useful insight into the tradeos embedded in a decision making problem.