Journal of the Operational Research Society

, Volume 58, Issue 1, pp 29–38 | Cite as

Application of stochastic analytic hierarchy process within a domestic appliance manufacturer

Case-Oriented Paper


The stochastic analytic hierarchy process (SAHP) provides a mechanism for achieving more effective selection of alternatives in the form of considering multi and conflicting criteria using quantitative and qualitative information under uncertainty. In contrast to the traditional analytic hierarchy process, the SAHP uses probabilistic distributions to incorporate uncertainty that people have in converging their judgements of preferences into a Likert scale. The vector of priorities is calculated using Monte Carlo simulation, the final rankings are analysed for rank reversal using statistical analysis, and managerial aspects are introduced systematically. The present paper demonstrates an application of the SAHP in a world-class domestic appliance manufacturer. The case study was carried out by strictly following a disciplined and organized methodology for applying the SAHP developed by the authors. The results of this study were encouraging to key personnel within the company, establishing a greater opportunity to explore the applications of the SAHP in other core business processes.


SAHP AHP case study decision theory Monte Carlo simulation 



This research has been funded by the Mexican Council of Science and Technology, CONACYT. Special thanks to Nick Shubotham, Alwyn Hines and Phil Rowe. We thank the referees and two additional reviewers whose constructive suggestions helped in the improvement of the final version of the manuscript.


  1. Antony J and Kaye M (2000). Experimental Quality: A Strategic Approach to Achieve and Improve Quality. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arbel A (1989). Approximate articulation of preference and priority derivation. Eur J Opl Res 43: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arbel A and Vargas L (1993). Preference simulation and preference programming: robustness issues in priority derivation. Eur J Opl Res 69: 200–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bañuelas R and Antony J (2003). Going from six sigma to design for six sigma: an exploratory study using analytic hierarchy process. TQM Magazine 15: 334–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bañuelas R and Antony J (2004). Modified analytic hierarchy process to incorporate uncertainty and managerial aspects. Int J Prod Res 42: 3851–3872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang D (1996). Applications and extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP. Eur J Opnl Res 95: 649–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Creveling C, Slutsky J and Antis D (2003). Design for Six Sigma in Technology and Product Development. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.Google Scholar
  8. Crowe T, Noble J and Machimada J (1998). Multi-attribute analysis of ISO-9000 registration using AHP. Int J Qual Reliab Mngt 15: 205–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drake P (1998). Using the analytic hierarchy process in engineering education. Int J Eng Educat 14: 191–196.Google Scholar
  10. Hauser D and Tadikamalla P (1996). The analytic hierarchy process in an uncertain environment: a simulation approach. Eur J Opl Res 91: 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Korpela J, Lehmusvaara A and Tuominen M (2001). An analytic approach to supply chain development. Int J Prod Econ 71: 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee W, Lau H, Liu Z and Tam S (2001). A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process approach in modular product design. Experts systems 18: 32–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Levary R and Wan K (1998). A simulation approach for handling uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Opl Res 106: 116–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ramanatham R (1997). Stochastic decision-making using multiplicative AHP. Eur J Opl Res 97: 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenbloom ES (1996). A probabilistic interpretation of the final rankings in AHP. Eur J Opl Res 95: 371–378.Google Scholar
  16. Ruoning X and Xiaoyan Z (1992). Extensions of the analytic hierarchy process in fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Systems 52: 251–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saaty TL (1988). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pergamon Press: New York.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saaty TL (1996). The Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications: Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  19. Saaty TL and Kearns KP (1985). Analytic Planning. The Organisation of Systems. Pergamon Press: Oxford.Google Scholar
  20. Scott M (2002). Quatifying certainty in design decisions: examining AHP. In: ASME DETC 2002 Design Engineering Technical Conferences, Design Theory and Methodology Conference (DTM). Montreal, Quebec, September 2002.Google Scholar
  21. Van den Honert R (1998). Stochastic group preference modelling in the multiplicative AHP: a model for group consensus. Eur J Opl Res 110: 99–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vargas L (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur J Opl Res 48: 2–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wheeler DJ and Chambers DS (1992). Understanding Statistical Process Control, 2nd edn. SPC Press: Knoxville, TN.Google Scholar
  24. Zahir MS (1991). Incorporating the uncertainty of decision judgements in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Opl Res 53: 206–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan Ltd 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WarwickCoventryUK
  2. 2.Glasgow Caledonian UniversityGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations