Abstract
This article describes the original Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as it is implemented in the software package Expert Choice. We demonstrate its application through a practical example. In particular, we discuss problem modelling, pairwise comparisons, judgement scales, derivation methods, consistency indices, synthesis of the weights and sensitivity analysis. Finally, the limitations of the original AHP along with the new proposed development are explained.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aguarón, J. and Moreno-Jiménez, J. (2000) Local stability intervals in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 125 (1): 113–132.
Aguarón, J. and Moreno-Jiménez, J. (2003) The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research 147 (1): 137–145.
Alonso, J. and Lamata, T. (2006) Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: A new approach. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 14 (4): 445–459.
Bajwa, G., Choo, E. and Wedley, W.C. (2008) Effectiveness analysis of deriving priority vectors from reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research 25 (3): 279–299.
Bana e Costa, C. and Vansnick, J. (2008) A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 187 (3): 1422–1428.
Barzilai, J. (1997) Deriving weights from pairwise comparisons matrices. Journal of the Operational Research Society 48 (12): 1226–1232.
Barzilai, J. (2005) Measurement and preference function modelling. International Transactions in Operational Research 12 (2): 173–183.
Barzilai, J. and Lootsma, F. (1997) Power relation and group aggregation in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (3): 155–165.
Belton, V. and Gear, A. (1983) On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytical hierarchies. OMEGA 11 (3): 228–230.
Belton, V. and Stewart, T.J. (2002) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Brugha, C. (2004) Structure of multi-criteria decision-making. Journal of the Operational Research Society 55 (1): 1156–1168.
Budescu, D. (1984) Scaling binary comparison matrices: A comment on Narasimhan's proposal and other methods. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 14 (2): 187–192.
Budescu, D., Zwick, R. and Rapoport, A. (1986) A comparison of the eigenvalue method and the geometric mean procedure for ratio scaling. Applied psychological measurement 10 (1): 69–78.
Cho, E. and Wedley, W. (2004) A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. Computers and Operations Research 31 (6): 893–908.
Crawford, G. and Williams, C. (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 29 (4): 387–405.
Dodd, F. and Donegan, H. (1995) Comparison of priotization techniques using interhierarchy mappings. Journal of the Operational Research Society 46 (4): 492–498.
Donegan, H., Dodd, F. and Mc Master, T.B.M. (1992) A new approach to AHP decision-making. The Statician 41 (3): 295–302.
Dyer, J. (1990a) A clarification of ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’. Management Science 36 (3): 274–275.
Dyer, J. (1990b) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36 (3): 249–258.
Escobar, M. and Moreno-Jiménez, J. (2000) Reciprocal distributions in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 123 (1): 154–174.
Fichtner, J. (1986) On deriving priority vectors from matrices of pairwise comparisons. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 20 (6): 341–345.
Figueira, J., Greco, S. and Ehrgott, M. (2005) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Forman, E. (1990) Random indices for incomplete pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1): 153–155.
Forman, E. and Gass, S. (2001) The analytic hierarchy process – An exposition. Operations Research 49 (4): 469–486.
Golany, B. and Kress, M. (1993) A multicriteria evaluation of the methods for obtaining weights from ratio-scale matrices. European Journal of Operational Research 69 (2): 210–220.
Golden, B., Wasil, E. and Harker, P. (1989) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies. Heidelberg, Germany: Springer-Verlag.
Harker, P. and Vargas, L. (1987) The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 33 (11): 1383–1403.
Harker, P. and Vargas, L. (1990) Reply to ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’. Management Science 36 (3): 269–273.
Herman, M. and Koczkodaj, W. (1996) A Monte Carlo study of pairwise comparison. Information Processing Letters 57 (11): 25–29.
Ho, W. (2008) Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications – A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 186 (1): 211–228.
Holder, R. (1990) Some comment on the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of the Operational Research Society 41 (11): 1073–1076.
Holder, R. (1991) Response to holder's comments on the analytic hierarchy process: Response to the response. Journal of the Operational Research Society 42 (10): 914–918.
Hovanov, N., Kolari, J. and Sokolov, M.V. (2008) Deriving weights from general pairwise comparisons matrices. Mathematical Social Sciences 55 (2): 205–220.
Ishizaka, A. (2004a) The advantages of clusters in AHP. 15th Mini-Euro Conference MUDSM, Coimbra.
Ishizaka, A. (2004b) Développement d’un Système Tutorial Intelligent pour Dériver des Priorités dans l’AHP, Berlin, http://www.dissertation.de.
Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D. and Kaplan, T. (2006) Influence of aggregation and preference scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Workshop on Advances in Preference Handling, 28–29 August, Riva del Garda, pp. 51–57.
Ishizaka, A. and Lusti, M. (2004) An expert module to improve the consistency of AHP matrices. International Transactions in Operational Research 11 (1): 97–105.
Ishizaka, A. and Lusti, M. (2006) How to derive priorities in AHP: A comparative study. Central European Journal of Operations Research 14 (4): 387–400.
Ji, P. and Jiang, R. (2003) Scale transitivity in the AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society 54 (8): 896–905.
Johnson, C., Beine, W. and Wang, T.Y. (1979) Right-left asymmetry in an eigenvector ranking procedure. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 19 (1): 61–64.
Jones, D. and Mardle, S. (2004) A distance-metric methodology for the derivation of weights from a pairwise comparison matrix. Journal of the Operational Research Society 55 (8): 869–875.
Kainulainen, T., Leskinen, P., Korhonen, P., Haara, A. and Hujala, T. (2009) A statistical approach to assessing interval scale preferences in discrete choice problems. Journal of the Operational Research Society 60 (2): 252–258.
Karapetrovic, S. and Rosenbloom, E. (1999) A quality control approach to consistency paradoxes in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 119 (3): 704–718.
Kumar, S. and Vaidya, O. (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169 (1): 1–29.
Kwiesielewicz, M. and van Uden, E. (2004) Inconsistent and contradictory judgements in pairwise comparison method in AHP. Computers and Operations Research 31 (5): 713–719.
Lane, E. and Verdini, W. (1989) A consistency test for AHP decision makers. Decision Sciences 20 (3): 575–590.
Leskinen, P. and Kangas, J. (2005) Rank reversal in multi-criteria decision analysis with statistical modelling of ratio-scale pairwise comparisons. Journal of the Operational Research Society 56 (7): 855–861.
Liberatore, M. and Nydick, R. (2008) The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research 189 (1): 194–207.
Lin, C. (2007) A revised framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research 176 (2): 1145–1150.
Lootsma, F. (1989) Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions. European Journal of Operational Research 40 (1): 109–116.
Lootsma, F. (1993) Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2 (2): 87–110.
Lootsma, F. (1996) A model for the relative importance of the criteria in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. European Journal of Operational Research 94 (3): 467–476.
Ma, D. and Zheng, X. (1991) 9/9–9/1 Scale method of AHP. 2nd International Symposium on AHP, Pittsburgh, Vol. 1; pp. 197–202.
Millet, I. and Saaty, T. (2000) On the relativity of relative measures-accommodating both rank preservation and rank reversals in the AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 121 (1): 205–212.
Millet, I. and Schoner, B. (2005) Incorporating negative values into the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research 32 (12): 3163–3173.
Omkarprasad, V. and Sushil, K. (2006) Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research 169 (1): 1–29.
Peláez, P. and Lamata, M. (2003) A new measure of consistency for positive reciprocal matrices. Computers & Mathematics with Applications 46 (12): 1839–1845.
Pérez, J. (1995) Some comments on Saaty's AHP. Management Science 41 (6): 1091–1095.
Pöyhönen, M., Hämäläinen, R. and Salo, A.A. (1997) An experiment on the numerical modelling of verbal ratio statements. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (1): 1–10.
Roy, B. (1996) Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Analysis. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Saaty, T. (1972) An Eigenvalue Allocation Model for Prioritization and Planning. Energy Management and Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania. Working Paper.
Saaty, T. (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15 (3): 234–281.
Saaty, T. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Saaty, T. (1986) Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 32 (7): 841–855.
Saaty, T. (1990) An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper ‘Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process’. Management Science 36 (3): 259–268.
Saaty, T. (1991) Response to holder's comments on the analytic hierarchy process. journal of the Operational Research Society 42 (10): 909–929.
Saaty, T. (1994) Highlights and critical points in the theory and application of the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 74 (3): 426–447.
Saaty, T. (2003) Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary? European Journal of Operational Research 145 (1): 85–91.
Saaty, T. (2006) Rank from comparisons and from ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research 168 (2): 557–570.
Saaty, T. and Forman, E. (1992) The Hierarchon: A Dictionary of Hierarchies. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Saaty, T. and Hu, G. (1998) Ranking by eigenvector versus other methods in the analytic hierarchy process. Applied Mathematics Letters 11 (4): 121–125.
Saaty, T. and Ozdemir, M. (2003) Negative priorities in the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 37 (9–10): 1063–1075.
Saaty, T. and Takizawa, M. (1986) Dependence and independence: From linear hierarchies to nonlinear networks. European Journal of Operational Research 26 (2): 229–237.
Saaty, T. and Vargas, L. (1984a) Comparison of eigenvalue, logarithmic least squares and least squares methods in estimating ratios. Mathematical Modeling 5 (5): 309–324.
Saaty, T. and Vargas, L. (1984b) Inconsistency and rank preservation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 28 (2): 205–214.
Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R. (1997) On the measurement of preference in the analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (6): 309–319.
Shim, J. (1989) Bibliography research on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 23 (3): 161–167.
Stam, A. and Duarte Silva, P. (2003) On multiplicative priority rating methods for AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 145 (1): 92–108.
Stein, W. and Mizzi, P. (2007) The harmonic consistency index for the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research 177 (1): 488–497.
Stillwell, W., von Winterfeldt, D. and John, R.S. (1987) Comparing hierarchical and non-hierarchical weighting methods for eliciting multiattribute value models. Management Science 33 (4): 442–450.
Temiz, N. and Tecim, V. (2009) The use of GIS and multi-criteria decision-making as a decision tool in forestry. ORInsight 22 (2): 105–123.
Triantaphyllou, E. (2001) Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the multiplicative AHP. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 10 (1): 11–25.
Troutt, M. (1988) Rank reversal and the dependence of priorities on the underlying MAV function. Omega 16 (4): 365–367.
Tummala, V. and Wan, Y. (1994) On the mean random inconsistency index of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Computers & Industrial Engineering 27 (1–4): 401–404.
Vargas, L. (1990) An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of Operational Research 48 (1): 2–8.
Vargas, L. (1997) Comments on Barzilai and Lootsma why the multiplicative AHP is invalid: A practical counterexample. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6 (4): 169–170.
Wang, Y., Chin, K.-S. and Luo, Y. (2009) Aggregation of direct and indirect judgements in pairwise comparison matrices with a re-examination of the criticisms by Bana e Costa and Vansnick. Information Sciences 179 (3): 329–337.
Wang, Y. and Luo, Y. (2009) On rank reversal in decision analysis. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 49 (5–6): 1221–1229.
Webber, S., Apostolou, B. and Hassell, J.M. (1996) The sensitivity of the analytic hierarchy process to alternative scale and cue presentations. European Journal of Operational Research 96 (2): 351–362.
Weber, M., Eisenführ, F. and Von Winterfeldt, D. (1988) The effects of spitting attributes on weights in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science 34 (4): 431–445.
Zahedi, F. (1986) The analytic hierarchy process: A survey of the method and its applications. Interface 16 (4): 96–108.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the anonymous reviewer for the valuable feedback and constructive criticism.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ishizaka, A., Labib, A. Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight 22, 201–220 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2009.10
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2009.10