Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

AHP Method According to a Changing Environment

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Advanced Maintenance Modelling for Asset Management

Abstract

Purpose Actual situations evidence how adopted decisions can change the decision constraints of the system where the AHP is being applied. Therefore, this research is intended to provide a dynamic view of the AHP method, considering the criteria and alternatives as temporary variables and finally obtaining not only one good choice for a specific moment but a more comprehensive picture of those alternatives resulting more important for the business, according to strategy and over time. Design/methodology/approach With this purpose this paper starts with a short literature review and the general characteristics of the AHP method. Afterwards, this paper presents the problem that appears frequently in actual situations which justify the development of this research. Once described, the uncertainty appeared after the AHP implementation, the proposed methodology called dynamic analytic hierarchy process (DAHP) is presented. Findings Finally, this paper shows a case study and concludes with the main points of the research suggesting applications and further extensions. Originality/value The value of this paper is the description of a DAHP as a tool that can facilitate decision-making related to some of the critical aspects in maintenance or post-sales area, permitting the alignment of actions with the business’ objectives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Crespo A, Parra C, Gómez JF, López M, and González-Prida V (2012) In: Van der Lei T, Herder P, Wijnia Y (eds) Life cycle cost analysis. Asset management. The state of the art in Europe from a life cycle perspective. Springer, Berlin, pp 81–99. ISBN: 978-94-007-2723-6

    Google Scholar 

  2. Moreu P, González-Prida V, Barberá L, Crespo A (2012) A practical method for the maintainability assessment using maintenance indicators and specific attributes. Reliability Eng Syst Saf 100:84–92. ISSN: 0951-8320

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rezaei J, Ortt R (2013) Multi-criteria supplier segmentation using a fuzzy preference relations based AHP. Eur J Oper Res 225(1):75–84

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. Serrano-Cinca C, Gutiérrez-Nieto B (2013) A decision support system for financial and social investment. Appl Econ 45(28):4060–4070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Bin L, Yong Y, Meng H (2012) The analysis and application of AHP in a construction project evaluation. Adv Mater Res 446:3740–3744

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barberá L, Crespo A, Viveros P, Stegmaier R (2012) Advanced model for maintenance management in a continuous improvement cycle: integration into the business strategy. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag 3(1):47–63. doi:10.1007/s13198-012-0092-y

  7. Barberá L, González-Prida V, Parra C, Crespo A (2012) Framework to assess RCM software tools. In: ESREL conference 2012, Helsinki (Finland)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Stegmaier R, Viveros P, Nikulín C, Gonzalez-Prida V, Crespo A, Parra C (2011) Generación de solución iinovadora y sustentable: uso de la metodología RCA y la teoría inventiva TRIZ. In: Babarovich V, Endo A, Pascual R, Stegmaier R (eds) MAPLA conference 2011, 8º Encuentro Internacional de Mantenedores de Plantas Mineras. Antofagasta, Chile

    Google Scholar 

  9. Viveros P, Zio E, Nikulín C, Stegmaier R, Bravo G (2013) Resolving equipment failure causes by root cause analysis and theory of inventive problem solving. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O J Risk Reliability (in press)

    Google Scholar 

  10. González-Prida V, Crespo A (2012) A framework for warranty management in industrial assets. Comput Ind 63(9):960–971

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saaty TL (1990) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. Saaty TL (1995) Decision making for leaders. RWS Publications, New York

    Google Scholar 

  13. Saaty TL, Vargas LG (1982) Logic of priorities. Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  14. Alessio Ishizaka (2012) A multicriteria approach with AHP and clusters for the selection among a large number of suppliers. Pesquisa Operacional 32(1):1–15

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  15. Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T (2011) Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation. J Oper Res Soc 62(10):1801–1812

    Google Scholar 

  16. Alessio Ishizaka, Ashraf Labib (2011) Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert Syst Appl 38(11):14336–14345

    Google Scholar 

  17. Saaty TL (2007) Time dependent decision-making; dynamic priorities in the AHP/ANP: generalizing from points to functions and from real to complex variables. Math Comput Model 46:860–891

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  18. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  19. Saaty TL (1994) Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 74:426–447

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. González-Prida V, Gómez J, Crespo A (2011) Practical applications of AHP for the improvement of waranty management. J Qual Maint Eng 17(2):163–182 (Emerald Grsoup Publishing Limited, pp 1355–2511)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ishizaka A, Balkenborg D, Kaplan T (2011) Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. J Oper Res Soc 62(4):700–710

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ishizaka A, Labib A (2011) Selection of new production facilities with the group analytic hierarchy process ordering method. Expert Syst Appl 38(6):7317–7325

    Google Scholar 

  23. Harker PT, Vargas LG (1990) Reply to remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. J.S. Dyer. Manage Sci 36(3):269–273

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Moffett A, Garson J, Sarkar S (2005) A software package for incorporating multiple criteria in conservation planning. Environ Model Softw 20:1315–1322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Dyer J (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 36:249–258

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  26. Dyer J (2005) MAUT-multiattribute utility theory. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 265–294

    Google Scholar 

  27. Arrow K, Raynaud H (1986) Social choice and multicriterion decision-making. The MIT Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Donegan HA, Dodd FJ, McMaster TBM (1992) A new approach to AHP decision-making. Statistician 41:295–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Donegan HA, Dodd FJ, McMaster TBM (1995) Theory and methodology inverse inconsistency in analytic hierarchies. Eur J Oper Res 80:86–93

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Zanakis SH, Solomon A, Wishart N, Dublish S (1998) Multi-attribute decision making: a simulation comparison of select methods. Eur J Oper Res 107(3):507–529

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Belton V (1986) A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function. Eur J Oper Res 26(1):7–21

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Bevilacqua M, Braglia M (2000) The analytical hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. Reliability Eng Syst Saf 70(1):71–83

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Viveros P, Zio E, Kristjanpoller F, Arata A (2011) Integrated system reliability and productive capacity analysis of a production line. A case study for a Chilean mining process. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part O J Risk Reliability

    Google Scholar 

  34. Costantino F, De Minicis M, González-Prida V, Crespo A (2012) On the use of quality function deployment (QFD) for the identification of risks associated to warranty programs. In: ESREL conference 2012, Helsinki, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  35. González-Prida V, Barberá L, Gómez JF, Crespo A (2012) Contractual and quality aspects on warranty: best practices for the warranty management and its maturity assessment. Int J Qual Reliability Manag 29(3). ISSN: 0265-671X, Emerald

    Google Scholar 

  36. González-Prida V, Parra C, Gómez JF, Crespo A (2012) Audit to a specific study scenario according to a reference framework for the improvement of the warranty management. In: Bérenguer G, Guedes S (eds) Advances in safety, reliability and risk management. Taylor & Francis Group, London, pp 2757–2767. ISBN 978-0-415-68379-1

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Dynamics—European Land Systems, Seville, Spain

    Vicente González-Prida Díaz

  2. Department of Industrial Management, Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María, Valparaíso, Chile

    Pablo Viveros Gunckel

  3. Department of Industrial Management, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Luis Barberá Martínez & Adolfo Crespo Márquez

Authors
  1. Vicente González-Prida Díaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pablo Viveros Gunckel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Luis Barberá Martínez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Adolfo Crespo Márquez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adolfo Crespo Márquez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Management, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Adolfo Crespo Márquez

  2. Department of Industrial Management, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Vicente González-Prida Díaz

  3. Department of Industrial Management, School of Engineering, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

    Juan Francisco Gómez Fernández

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

González-Prida Díaz, V., Viveros Gunckel, P., Barberá Martínez, L., Crespo Márquez, A. (2018). AHP Method According to a Changing Environment. In: Crespo Márquez, A., González-Prida Díaz, V., Gómez Fernández, J. (eds) Advanced Maintenance Modelling for Asset Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58045-6_7

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58045-6_7

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-58044-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-58045-6

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation