{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

For information on ahp see thomas l saaty the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: tified performance or technical attributes that are considered constraints. Practical application again requires that all of the alternatives be put on an equal basis with respect to the performance or technical attributes. This may not be practical for trade The Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP is a decision technique in which a figure of merit is determined for each of several alternatives through a series of pair-wise comparisons. AHP is normally done in six steps: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Describe in summary form the alternatives under consideration. Develop a set of high-level evaluation objectives; for example, science data return, national prestige, technology advancement, etc. Decompose each hi-level evaluation objective into a hierarchy of evaluation attributes that clarify the meaning of the objective. Determine, generally by conducting structured interviews with selected individuals (“experts”) or by having them fill out structured questionnaires, the relative importance of the evaluation objectives and attributes through pair-wise comparisons. Have each evaluator make separate pair-wise comparisons of the alternatives with respect to each evaluation attribute. These subjective evaluations are the raw data inputs to a separately developed AHP program , which produces a single figure of merit for each alternative. This figure of merit is based on relative weight determined by the evaluators themselves. Iterate the questionnaire and AHP evaluation process until a consensus ranking of the alternative is achieved With AHP, sometimes consensus is achieved quickly; other times, several feedback rounds are required. The, feed back consists of reporting the computed values (for each evaluator and for the group) for each option, reasons for differences in evaluation, and identified areas of contention and/or inconsistency. Individual evaluators may choose to change their subjective judgments on both attribute weights and preferences. At this point, inconsistent and divergent preferences can be targeted for...
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Ask a homework question - tutors are online