134
M. Al Muhisen et al.
the score matrix. The workload on decision makers can be reduced by partially or
completely making the AHP automated, which is possible by identifying appropriate
thresholds to decide the various pairwise comparisons automatically.
14.4.1 Applications and Functions
1. One form of AHP application is specifically within group decision-making (Saaty
and Peniwati 2008). It is globally applied in a broad range of decision situations among fields such as government, corporate, manufacturing, healthcare,
shipbuilding (Saracoglu 2013) and education.
2. Instead of presenting the “correct” decision, the AHP assists the decision makers
to find one that best fits the objective and their comprehension of the problem. It
offers a widespread and logical structure for constructing a decision problem,
representing and quantifying its elements, linking those elements to overall
objectives, and assessing alternative results.
3. Initially, when using the AHP, the decision-maker breaks down the problem into
a hierarchy of more simply comprehended sub-problems that can be individually
analyzed. The components of the hierarchy can correspond to any feature of
the decision problem -tangible/intangible, measured carefully or roughly valued,
well or vaguely comprehended- any factor that applies to the specified decision.
4. After the hierarchy is composed, the decision maker thoroughly analyzes the
elements through the pairwise comparisons, which allows the decision maker to
use concrete information regarding the elements. Generally, decision makers rely
on their judgements regarding the elements relative importance and significance.
The foundation of AHP relies on not only human judgment but also the underlying
information for performing the assessments (Saaty 2008).
5. Once the elements are evaluated, the AHP converts the outcomes into numerical
quantities, which may be processed and compared throughout the entire extent of
the problem. For each element in the structure, a numerical weight or priority is
developed that allows the comparison of diverse and often inadequate elements
in a more rational and reliable manner. This potential distinguishes the AHP
method from the other decision-making methods.
6. The final step of the AHP computes the numerical priorities for each alternative,
which represents the relative ability of an alternative to achieve the decision
objective, allowing a direct consideration of the various options.
7. Most firms provide computer softwares to help execute the process. Even though
the AHP can be applied by individuals working on direct decisions, it is best
effective where teams of people are working on complicated problems, particularly those with high risks, concerning human judgements and perspectives,
whose solutions have long-term effects (Bhushan and Rai 2004). The approach
has remarkable benefits when crucial elements are too complex to be quantified,
compared, or when communication among team members are hindered by their
differences (field, terminology, viewpoints).
M. Al Muhisen et al.
the score matrix. The workload on decision makers can be reduced by partially or
completely making the AHP automated, which is possible by identifying appropriate
thresholds to decide the various pairwise comparisons automatically.
14.4.1 Applications and Functions
1. One form of AHP application is specifically within group decision-making (Saaty
and Peniwati 2008). It is globally applied in a broad range of decision situations among fields such as government, corporate, manufacturing, healthcare,
shipbuilding (Saracoglu 2013) and education.
2. Instead of presenting the “correct” decision, the AHP assists the decision makers
to find one that best fits the objective and their comprehension of the problem. It
offers a widespread and logical structure for constructing a decision problem,
representing and quantifying its elements, linking those elements to overall
objectives, and assessing alternative results.
3. Initially, when using the AHP, the decision-maker breaks down the problem into
a hierarchy of more simply comprehended sub-problems that can be individually
analyzed. The components of the hierarchy can correspond to any feature of
the decision problem -tangible/intangible, measured carefully or roughly valued,
well or vaguely comprehended- any factor that applies to the specified decision.
4. After the hierarchy is composed, the decision maker thoroughly analyzes the
elements through the pairwise comparisons, which allows the decision maker to
use concrete information regarding the elements. Generally, decision makers rely
on their judgements regarding the elements relative importance and significance.
The foundation of AHP relies on not only human judgment but also the underlying
information for performing the assessments (Saaty 2008).
5. Once the elements are evaluated, the AHP converts the outcomes into numerical
quantities, which may be processed and compared throughout the entire extent of
the problem. For each element in the structure, a numerical weight or priority is
developed that allows the comparison of diverse and often inadequate elements
in a more rational and reliable manner. This potential distinguishes the AHP
method from the other decision-making methods.
6. The final step of the AHP computes the numerical priorities for each alternative,
which represents the relative ability of an alternative to achieve the decision
objective, allowing a direct consideration of the various options.
7. Most firms provide computer softwares to help execute the process. Even though
the AHP can be applied by individuals working on direct decisions, it is best
effective where teams of people are working on complicated problems, particularly those with high risks, concerning human judgements and perspectives,
whose solutions have long-term effects (Bhushan and Rai 2004). The approach
has remarkable benefits when crucial elements are too complex to be quantified,
compared, or when communication among team members are hindered by their
differences (field, terminology, viewpoints).