That is not the analytic hierarchy process: what the AHP is and what it is not

✍ Scribed by Thomas L. Saaty

• Publisher: John Wiley and Sons
• Year: 1997
• Tongue: English
• Weight: 271 KB
• Volume: 6
• Category: Article
• ISSN: 1057-9214
• DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199711)6:6<324::aid-mcda167>3.0.co;2-q

✦ Synopsis

which is the case here. To illustrate, consider the matrix in (8) of the paper. If the criteria weights under A 1 (resp. A 2 , A 3 ) are correct, then the conventional AHP criteria weights are (48/117, 33/117, 36/117) (resp. (72/235, 55/235, 108/235), (16/333, 308/333, 9/333)). Note that these three sets of weights have different ordinal orderings. The extreme inconsistency of the criteria weights is the cause of the rank reversal, not the supermatrix methodology.

EASE OF APPLICATION

If the ratio scale properties of the AHP are not needed in a decision, an evaluation of the linking pin AHP versus MAVT (including the method of S&H) should be based on ease and accuracy of use by real decision makers. We leave it to the reader to draw a conclusion with respect to the relative ease of response and accuracy from the following two typical questions:

(a) How many times more attractive is a 2 week vacation than a 1 week vacation?' (AHP question); (b) How many times greater is the attractiveness improvement from a 1 day vacation to a 2 week vacation than from a 1 day vacation to a 1 week vacation?' (MAVT question).

REFERENCES