User:Louis F. Sander/Analytic Hierarchy Process: Difference between revisions
imported>Louis F. Sander (add navigation table) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{AccountNotLive}} | |||
<font color=red>'''DO NOT DELETE: This is a development page for the article on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.'''</font> | <font color=red>'''DO NOT DELETE: This is a development page for the article on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.'''</font> | ||
Latest revision as of 04:16, 22 November 2023
The account of this former contributor was not re-activated after the server upgrade of March 2022.
DO NOT DELETE: This is a development page for the article on the Analytic Hierarchy Process.
This table will help you access articles that are useful in developing AHP topics:
ARTICLE | LINK FOR PASTING INTO A BROWSER WINDOW |
AHP article in Citizendium | http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process |
AHP Development Page in Citizendium | http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Louis_F._Sander/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process |
AHP Sandbox in Citizendium | http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Louis_F._Sander/Sandbox |
AHP article in Wikipedia | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process |
Thomas L. Saaty article in Citizendium | http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Saaty |
Thomas L. Saaty article in Wikipedia | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Saaty |
ANP article in Citizendium | http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Analytic_Network_Process |
ANP article in Wikipedia | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_Network_Process |
MCDM article in Citizendium | http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/MCDM |
MCDM article in Wikipedia | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MCDM |
Left out of the lead for various reasons, but must be covered:
- AHP primarily used in groups
- Homogeneity
- Consistency checking (check the matrix, OR check the results for "looking right")
From previous Citizendium leads:
It not only allows the decision to be considered more rationally and objectively, but it encourages communication that leads to a better global understanding of the problem and its possible solutions.
Constructing this hierarchy not only requires the participants to examine the decision problem very carefully, but also promotes extensive communication among them, both of which improve their collective understanding of the problem and its possible solutions.
As the participants construct the hierarchy and prepare for the next step, they refine their understanding of the problem and its possible solutions.
Old Wikipedia lead:
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a technique for decision making where there are a limited number of choices, but where each has a number of different attributes, some or all of which may be difficult to formalize. [1] It is especially applicable when decisions are being made by a team.
AHP can assist with identifying and weighting selection criteria, analyzing the data collected for the criteria, and expediting the decision-making process. It helps capture both subjective and objective evaluation measures, providing a useful mechanism for checking the consistency of the evaluation measures and alternatives suggested by the team. [2]
The process is based on a series pairwise comparisons which are checked for internal consistency and then combined.
Underlying philosophy
Under Construction
There is a lot of good material on this in the books. If it can be put here in a suitable way, this maybe should be the first section of the article, or at least somewhere way up at the top.
Maybe this should be "history and philosophy." At least there should be a little history somewhere.
Early on, we need to convey the meaning of priorities.
There is philosophical stuff here about A) psychology, and B) measurement.
There is underlying mathematical rigor.
Mind mapping could be a good way to construct a hierarchy. Tony Buzan.
In the 1960s, the U.S. and the Soviet Union were negotiating to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by both parties. On the U.S. side, the study of this problem was assigned to the State Department's Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Over several years, this agency spent significant resources to tap the knowledge of some of the world's leading thinkers in mathematical economics, utility theory, game theory, and conflict resolution. It was found, unfortunately, that negotiators and other nontechnical people could neither learn nor apply the findings of these scholars. There was a two culture chasm in thought and language that could not be bridged.
The quest to understand and bridge such chasms led to the search for a decision making method that
- Does not require inordinate specialization to master
- Can incorporate both intuitive and analytical judgments
- Is adaptable to both groups and individuals, and
- Encourages compromise and consensus building
Three principles guide one in using the AHP:
- Decomposition
- Comparative judgments
- Synthesis of priorities
Decision making is a process that involves these steps:
- Structure a problem as a hierarchy or as a system with dependence loops
- Elicit judgments that reflect ideas, feelings or emotions
- Represent those judgments with meaningful numbers
- Use these numbers to calculate the priorities of the elements in the hierarchy
- Synthesize these results to determine an overall outcome
- Analyze the sensitivity to changes in judgment
People find AHP easy to use because:
- People find it natural and ar usually attracted rather than alienated by it
- It does not need advanced technical knowledge and nearly everyone can use it
- It takes into consideration judgments based on people's feelings and emotions as well as their thoughts
- It deals with intangibles side by side with tangibles. What we perceive with the senses is dealt with by the mind in a similar way to what we feel.
- It derives scales through reciprocal comparison rather than by assigning numbers pulled from the mind directly
- It does not take for granted the measurements on scales, but asks that scale values be interpreted according to the values of the problem
- It relies on simple-to-elaborate hierarchic structures to represent decision problems. With such appropriate representation, it is able to handle problems of risk, conflict, and prediction
- It can be used to make direct resource allocation, benefit/cost analysis, resolve conflicts, design and optimize systems
- It is an approach that describes how good decisions are made rather than prescribes how they should be made. No one living at a certain time knows what is good for people for all time.
- It provides a simple and effective procedure to arrive at an answer, even in group decision making where diverse expertise and preferences must be considered
- It can be applied in negotiating conflicts by focusing on relations between relative benefits to costs for each of the parties
Description of the process
The introductory material for this section is Under Construction
AHP is a method that breaks complexity into manageable pieces, works with each piece, then collectively evaluates all the pieces. The steps are...
Though the AHP can be used by an individual, our discussion will assume it's used by a group.
Brainstorming goes on a lot in the early stages.
We say "decision problem," but there might be a more general term.
Make it clear that this is a simplified description, and that it is based on previously published information, especially Decision Making for Leaders, but also including lots and lots of other books and articles.
Include a summary of the main steps in the process (the steps further described below).
Hello again, Lou....
Make judgments
Under Construction
Establish priorities for the elements of the hierarchy.
Includes inputting data.
Be careful about data. There are scales involved. Some are meaningful to us and the problem, some are not.
This includes the consistency check step (repeated at every level)
(Rozann: pairwise comparisons using judgment)
Derive priorities
Under Construction
This is done by "AHP Magic Math."
It turns your pairwise comparisons of items at one level into weights for the items at that level.
Maybe we are "developing" priorities, or "calculating" them, or ????
Synthesize priorities throughout the structure
Under Construction
More "AHP Magic Math"
It takes the priorities for the various items at the various levels and turns them into one big integrated set of priorities for the whole hierarchy.
Check sensitivity
Under Construction
Take a look at what would happen if your judgments changed.
The mathematics of AHP
Under Construction
New stuff goes here.
Validation examples
Under Construction
New stuff goes here.
Using AHP with groups
Under Construction
When you get to this part, go through the whole article and harmonize "user", "participants", etc.
Criticisms and drawbacks
Under Construction
See also
Multi Criteria Decision Making
References
- ↑ Analytic Hierarchy Process example at cmu.edu
- ↑ Analytical Hierarchy Process :: Overview at thequalityportal.com