Skip to main content

Understanding the Analytic Hierarchy Process

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Practical Decision Making

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Operations Research ((BRIEFSOPERAT))

Abstract

In this chapter, we will explain the fundamentals of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The reader is referred to the original Saaty (2012)’s discussion of AHP or to Brunnelli (2015)’s for a theoretical introduction to the method. In this book, AHP concepts will be explained from a practical point of view, using examples for greater clarity.

Developing a Model https://mix.office.com/watch/17icbrnswidq0.

Deriving Priorities (weights) for the Criteria https://mix.office.com/watch/4odxenri07nm.

Deriving Local Priorities (preferences) for the Alternatives https://mix.office.com/watch/1idaxl30c6o5o.

Deriving Overall Priorities https://mix.office.com/watch/ztkx3ea8lki8.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For this chapter, it is recommended that the reader follows the calculations of this example using a spreadsheet.

  2. 2.

    Each criterion, alternative and the goal are collectively referred as model elements.

  3. 3.

    In this figure, the intermediate values 2, 4, 6 and 8 are used to address situations of uncertainty. For example, when the decision maker is in doubt whether to rate a pairwise comparison as “moderately more important (3)” or “strongly more important (5)”, a possible solution is to rate it as “From moderately to strongly more important;” that is, a 4.

  4. 4.

    Inconsistency will be explained later in our discussion.

  5. 5.

    It is customary to refer to overall (also called general or final) priorities of the alternatives when they are calculated with respect to the whole model; that is, after the synthesis process.

References

  • Brunnelli, M. (2015). Introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Decision Lens. (2015). Decision Lens. Retrieved from http://www.decisionlens.com.

  • Expert Choice. (2015). Expert Choice. Retrieved from http://www.expertchoice.com.

  • Ishizaka, A., & Nemery, P. (2013). Multi-criteria decision analysis: Methods and software. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (2012). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Third Revised Edition. Pittsburgh: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Super Decisions. (2015). Super Decisions. Retrieved from http://www.superdecisions.com.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrique Mu .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mu, E., Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2017). Understanding the Analytic Hierarchy Process. In: Practical Decision Making. SpringerBriefs in Operations Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33861-3_2

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics