MODULE 1

Analytic Hierarchy Process

TEACHING SUGGESTIONS
Teaching Suggestion M1.1: Using Multifactor Decision-Making Techniques.
Many decisions students make involve a number of factors. Thus, multifactor decision-making
techniques can be useful and practical. This section can be started by having students give
examples of decisions that require the analysis of multiple factors. Buying a car or stereo and
picking the best job offer are examples. Once students understand the principles of multiplying
factor weights by factor evaluations, they will be able to understand the use of AHP.
Teaching Suggestion M1.2: Using AHP.
Have the students describe situations where AHP would be preferred over the multifactor
evaluation process. You may want to take one of these situations and show how pairwise
comparisons can be made. Students can then be asked to complete the AHP problem and
determine the best solution. This can lead to in-class discussions on the AHP process.

SOLUTIONS TO QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

M1-1. Multifactor decision making is appropriate when a decision involves a number of factors.
Deciding to buy a house, for example, can involve the price, location, taxes, utilities, and so forth.
M1-2. When using multifactor decision making, each factor receives an importance weight.
These weights will sum to 1. Then every alternative and factor combination will receive a factor
evaluation. The factor weights are multiplied by the factor evaluations to get a weighted
evaluation for each alternative. The alternative with the highest weighted evaluation is selected.
M1-3. The analytic hierarchy process should be used when it is difficult or impossible to
determine factor weights and factor evaluations subjectively. In this case, pairwise comparisons
are performed to assist in the decision-making process and determine the best alternative.
M1-4. Here is an analysis of Georges decision.
Factor weights:
Factor
Price
Color
Warranty
Size
Brand name

Importance (Weight)
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3

Factorevaluations:
Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-1

Factor

Sun
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9

Price
Color
Warranty
Size
Brand name

Hitek
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9

Surgo
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.6

Evaluation of SUN:
Factor
Name
Price
Color
Warranty
Size
Brand name
Total

Factor
Rating
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.0

Factor
Evaluation
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9

Weighted
Evaluation
0.28
0.09
0.08
0.08
0.27
0.80

Factor
Evaluation
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9

Weighted
Evaluation
0.24
0.09
0.09
0.08
0.27
0.77

Evaluation of HITEK:
Factor
Name
Price
Color
Warranty
Size
Brand name
Total

Factor
Rating
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.0

Evaluation of SURGO:
Factor
Name
Price
Color
Warranty
Size
Brand name
Total

Factor
Rating
0.4
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.3
1.0

Factor
Evaluation
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.6

Weighted
Evaluation
0.32
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.18
0.60

SUN is selected, with the highest total weighted evaluation of 0.80.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-2

M1-5. Lindas problem can be analyzed as follows:

Price
Car 1
Car 2
Car 3

Car 1

Car 2
2

Car 3
7
4

Thefollowingwillbetheprioritiesforprice:
Priority for car 1 is 0.6025.
Priority for car 2 is 0.3151.
Priority for car 3 is 0.0824.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (1.8096 0.9460 0.2473)
Consistency vector = (3.0035 3.0019 3.0005)
Lambda = 3.0020
Value of CI = 0.0010
RI = 0.5800
CR = 0.0017
M1-6.
Warranty

Car 1

Car 2

Car 3

1/3

1/8

Car 1
Car 2

1/5

Car 3
The following will be the priorities for warranty:
Priority for car 1 is 0.0768.
Priority for car 2 is 0.1863.
Priority for car 3 is 0.7370.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (0.2310 0.5640 2.2825)
Consistency vector = (3.0088 3.0276 3.0972)
Lambda = 3.0445
Value of CI = 0.0223
RI = 0.5800
CR = 0.0384
M1-7.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-3

Style

Car 1

Car 2

Car 3

1/3

Car 1
Car 2

Car 3
The following will be the priorities for style:
Priority for car 1 is 0.2364.
Priority for car 2 is 0.6816.
Priority for car 3 is 0.0820.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (0.7096 2.0468 0.2460)
Consistency vector = (3.0011 3.0031 3.0004)
Lambda = 3.0015
Value of CI = 0.0008
RI = 0.5800
CR = 0.0013
M1-8.
Factors

Price

Warranty

Style

Price
Warranty

Style
The following will be the priorities for the factors:
Priority for price is

0.6049.

Priority for warranty is 0.3337.

Priority for style is

0.0614.

Consistency information follows:

Weighted sum vector = (1.8246 1.0044 0.1842)
Consistency vector = (3.0163 3.0097 3.0016)
Value of CI = 0.0046
RI = 0.5800
CR = 0.0079
The following are the final rankingsCar 1 is selected.
Item

Ranking

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-4

Car 1
Car 2
Car 3

0.4045
0.2946
0.3008

M1-9. The weighted averages of these scores are shown in the table. Gina should choose
Univesity B.

Weight
A
B
C

Cost
0.6
4
8
7

Reputation
0.2
9
5
6

Quality of life
0.2
7
7
3

Weighted
Average
5.6
7.2
6.0

M1-10. Using AHP, we have the following matrices.

Cost
A
B
C
Column Total

Normalized
A
B
C

A
0.1111
0.5556
0.3333

Reputation
A
B
C
Column Total
Normalized
A
B
C

1
5
3
9

B
0.2
1
0.333333
1.533333
B
0.1304
0.6522
0.2174

A
1
0.142857
0.2
1.342857
A
0.7447
0.1064
0.1489

C
0.333333
3
1
4.333333

B
0.6364
0.0909
0.2727

C
0.0769
0.6923
0.2308

B
7
1
3
11
C
0.7895
0.0526
0.1579

Factor Evaluation
(Row Average)
0.1062
0.6333
0.2605

C
5
0.333333
1
6.333333
Factor Evaluation
(Row Average)
0.7235
0.0833
0.1932

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-5

Quality of Life
A
B
C
Column Total
Normalized
A
B
C
Factors
Cost
Reputation
Quality of life
Column Total

Normalized
Cost
Reputation
Quality of life

A
1
1
0.2
2.2

B
1
1
0.142857
2.142857

C
5
7
1
13

0.4545
0.4545
0.0909

0.4667
0.4667
0.0667

0.3846
0.5385
0.0769

Factor Evaluation
(Row Average)
0.4353
0.4866
0.0782

Reputation
3
1
0.5
4.5

Quality of life
7
2
1
10

Cost
1
0.333333
0.142857
1.47619

Cost
0.6774
0.2258
0.0968

Reputation
0.6667
0.2222
0.1111

Quality

Factor
Evaluation

of life
0.7000
0.2000
0.1000

(Row Average)
0.6814
0.2160
0.1026

Using the factor weights, we find the following weighted averages for each university.

A
B
C
Weights

Cost

Reputation

0.1062
0.6333
0.2605
0.6814

0.7235
0.0833
0.1932
0.2160

Quality
of life
0.4353
0.4866
0.0782
0.1026

Weighted
Average
0.2733
0.4995
0.2272

Therefore, Gina should choose University B.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-6

M1-11. The analysis to determine which computer system is to be selected is as follows:

Price
S-1
S-2
S-3

S-1

S-2
2

S-3
8
5

The following will be the priorities for price:

Priority for system 1 (S-1) is 0.6039.
Priority for system 2 (S-2) is 0.3258.
Priority for system 3 (S-3) is 0.0703.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (1.8178 0.9792 0.2109)
Consistency vector = (3.0099 3.0056 3.0011)
Lambda = 3.0055
Value of CI = 0.0028
RI = 0.5800
CR = 0.0048
Brand Name
S-1
S-2
S-3

S-1

S-2
1

S-3
6
4

The following will be the priorities for brand name:

Priority for system 1 (S-1) is 0.4838.
Priority for system 2 (S-2) is 0.4232.
Priority for system 3 (S-3) is 0.0930.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (1.4649 1.2789 0.2794)
Consistency vector = (3.0278 3.0220 3.0051)
Lambda= 3.0183
Value of CI = 0.0092
RI = 0.5800
CR = 0.0158

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-7

Memory
S-1
S-2
S-3

S-1

S-2
1/2

S-3
1/7

The following will be the priorities for memory:

Priority for system 1 (S-1) is 0.0919.
Priority for system 2 (S-2) is 0.1535.
Priority for system 3 (S-3) is 0.7545.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (0.2765 0.4631 2.3192)
Consistency vector

= (3.0078 3.0164 3.0736)

Lambda= 3.0326
Value of CI= 0.0163

Speed
S-1
S-2
S-3

RI

= 0.5800

CR

= 0.0281

S-1

S-2
1/3

S-3
2
5

The following will be the priorities for speed:

Priority for system 1 (S-1) is 0.2299.
Priority for system 2 (S-2) is 0.6479.
Priority for system 3 (S-3) is 0.1222.
Consistency information:
Weighted sum vector = (0.6902 1.9485 0.3667)
Consistency vector

= (3.0026 3.0071 3.0013)

Lambda= 3.0037
Value of CI= 0.0018
RI

= 0.5800

CR

= 0.0032

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-8

Flexibility
S-1
S-2
S-3

S-1

S-2
1/2

S-3
1/8
1/4

The following will be the priorities for flexibility:

Priority for system 1 (S-1) is 0.0909.
Priority for system 2 (S-2) is 0.1818.
Priority for system 3 (S-3) is 0.7273.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (0.2727 0.5455 2.1818)
Consistency vector

= (3.0000 3.0000 3.0000)

Lambda= 3.0000
Value of CI= 0.0000

PC
Compatibility
S-1
S-2
S-3

RI

= 0.5800

CR

= 0.0000

S-1

S-2

S-3

4
1/3

ThefollowingwillbetheprioritiesforPCcompatibility:
Priority for system 1 (S-1) is 0.7146.
Priority for system 2 (S-2) is 0.0789.
Priority for system 3 (S-3) is 0.2064.
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector = (2.1717 0.2371 0.6218)
Consistency vector = (3.0389 3.0040 3.0122)
Lambda = 3.0184
Value of CI = 0.0092
RI = 0.5800
CR = 0.0158

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-9

The following will be the weights for the factors:

Weight for price is

0.3849

Weight for brand name is

0.0447

Weight for memory is

0.0816

Weight for speed is

0.0514

Weight for flexibility is

0.149

Weight for PC compatibility is 0.288

See the table for factors for Problem M1-11.
Table for Factors for Problem M1-11
Brand
Factors
Price
Name
Price
9
Brand name
Memory
Speed
Flexibility
PC compatible
Consistency information follows:
Weighted sum vector =
Consistency vector =

Memory
4
1/2

Speed
5
1
2

PC
Flexibility Compatibility
3
2
1/4
1/5
1/2
1/6
1/3
1/6
1/2

2.39 0.275 0.493

0.312 0.918 1.801

6.2208 6.1480 6.0362
6.0592 6.1485 6.2518

Lambda = 6.1441
Value of CI = 0.02 88
RI = 1.2400
CR = 0.0232
The following are the final rankingssystem 1 (S-1) is selected.
Item
System 1 (S-1)
System 2 (S-2)
System 3 (S-3)

Ranking
0.4928
0.2400
0.2671

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

M1-10