(CAPUT REPORT)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

Prepared by: Mohammed Ismail Mansour Ahamed

Supervised by: Prof. John L Simons

1- What is AHP?
The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a structured technique for dealing with complex decisions. Rather than prescribing a "correct" decision, the AHP helps decision makers find one that best suits their goal and their understanding of the problemit is a process of organizing decisions that people are already dealing with, but trying to do in their heads. Based on mathematics and psychology, the AHP was developed by Thomas L. Saaty in the 1970s and has been extensively studied and refined since then. It provides a comprehensive and rational framework for structuring a decision problem, for representing and quantifying its elements, for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative solutions. It is used around the world in a wide variety of decision situations, in fields such as government, business, industry, healthcare, and education. AHP Process. Users of the AHP first decompose their decision problem into a hierarchy of more easily comprehended sub-problems, each of which can be analyzed independently. The elements of the hierarchy can relate to any aspect of the decision problemtangible or intangible, carefully measured or roughly estimated, well- or poorly-understoodanything at all that applies to the decision at hand. Once the hierarchy is built, the decision makers systematically evaluate its various elements by comparing them to one another two at a time, with respect to their impact on an element above them in the hierarchy. In making the comparisons, the decision makers can use concrete data about the elements, or they can use their judgments about the elements' relative meaning and importance. It is the essence of the AHP that human judgments, and not just the underlying information, can be used in performing the evaluations.[1] The AHP converts these evaluations to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire range of the problem. A numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing diverse and often incommensurable elements to be compared to one another in a rational and consistent way. This capability distinguishes the AHP from other decision making techniques. In the final step of the process, numerical priorities are calculated for each of the decision alternatives. These numbers represent the alternatives' relative ability to achieve the decision goal, so they allow a straightforward consideration of the various courses of action.

The diagram above shows a simple AHP hierarchy at the end of the decision making process. Numerical priorities, derived from the decision makers' input, are shown for each node in the hierarchy. In this decision, the goal was to choose the most suitable leader based on four specific criteria. Dick was the preferred alternative, with a priority of .493. He was preferred about a third more strongly than Tom, whose priority was .358, and about three times more strongly than Harry, whose priority was only .149. Experience was the most important criterion with respect to reaching the goal, followed by Charisma, Education, and Age. These factors were weighted .547, .270, .127, and .056, respectively.

2- Example of AHP
Here we are showing an example of AHP which is the showing how we can use the AHP. As it is in table () we have three alternatives (X, Y, Z). We also have four criteria or factors (A, B, C, D). Table 1: Evaluation based on scores of each factor
Criteria / Alternatives

Choice X 1 20 -2 0.4 19.4 12.9%

ChoiceY 4 70 0 0.75 74.75 49.7%

Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Sum Normalized Score

Choice Z 5 50 1 0.4 56.4 37.5%

Range 0-5 1-100 -2 to +2 0 to 1

150.55 100%

= total sum

Table 3: Evaluation based on ranks of each factor Criteria | Choice X Alternatives Factor A 3 Factor B 3 Factor C 3 Factor D 2 Sum 11 Normalized Score 26.09% Choice Y 2 1 2 1 6 36.96% Choice Z 1 2 1 2 6 36.96%

23

= total sum

100%

Table 4: Converted New Scores based on Range Criteria | Alternatives Factor A Factor B Factor C Factor D Sum Normalized Score Choice X 0.2 0.192 0 0.4 0.792 12.8% Choice Y 0.8 0.697 0.5 0.75 2.747 44.4% Choice Z 1 0.495 0.75 0.4 2.645 42.8%

6.184 = total sum 1

Table 5: Weight of Importance Factor A 6 Importance Level 54.5% Importance Weight Table 6: Weighted scores Criteria | Weight Alternatives Factor A 54.5% Factor B 18.2% Factor C 18.2% Factor D 9.1% Sum 100.0% Normalized Score Choice X 0.109 0.035 0.000 0.036 0.180 10.5% Choice Y 0.436 0.127 0.091 0.068 0.722 42.2% Choice Z 0.545 0.090 0.136 0.036 0.808 47.2% Factor B 2 18.2% Factor C 2 18.2% Factor D 1 9.1% Sum 11 100.0%

1.711 1

= total sum

Therefore, Choice Z is the best decision to take.

3- SE Relevance
The AHP is relevant in somehow to the system engineering since their target is to get the optimum target and the best solution. In the world of ideas, we use hierarchies to help us acquire detailed knowledge of complex reality (same for the System Engineering we deal with real problem): we structure the reality into its constituent parts, and these in turn into their own constituent parts, preceding down the hierarchy as many levels as we care to. At each step, we focus on understanding a single component of the whole, temporarily disregarding the other components at this and all other levels. As we go through this process, we increase our global understanding of whatever complex reality we are studying. For example, in our case study of we are trying to reduce the BTS down time in order to increase the reliability of the whole system. Suppose that company X wants to increase the whole system reliability according to its historical data that showed many factors that cause the system failure. Then the company has to breakdown the whole system to identify the root causes. However, some of these factors is related to administrative problems, others for bad weather and so on. Assume that the company X also has alternatives or choices for solving the system failure. These alternatives could be applying a preventive maintenance program with the company engineering stuff, hiring subcontractor to do this for the company, or redesigning the system. The company has to choose the best alternative according the minimum cost (Criteria). The company X has to identify the most critical causes of failures which affect the reliability of the system by using the AHP for weighting them. Furthermore, the company X has to come up with the best solution based on the cost.

4- Theoretical applicability
While it can be used by individuals working on straightforward decisions, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is most useful where teams of people are working on complex problems, especially those with high stakes, involving human perceptions and judgments, whose resolutions have long-term repercussions.[2] It has unique advantages when important elements of the decision are difficult to quantify or compare, or where communication among team members is impeded by their different specializations, terminologies, or perspectives. Decision situations to which the AHP can be applied include:[3]

Choice - The selection of one alternative from a given set of alternatives, usually where there are multiple decision criteria involved. Ranking - Putting a set of alternatives in order from most to least desirable Prioritization - Determining the relative merit of members of a set of alternatives, as opposed to selecting a single one or merely ranking them Resource allocation - Apportioning resources among a set of alternatives Benchmarking - Comparing the processes in one's own organization with those of other best-of-breed organizations

Quality management - Dealing with the multidimensional aspects of quality and quality improvement

The applications of AHP to complex decision situations have numbered in the thousands,[4] and have produced extensive results in problems involving planning, resource allocation, priority setting, and selection among alternatives.[2] Other areas have included forecasting, total quality management, business process re-engineering, quality function deployment, and the Balanced Scorecard.[3] Many AHP applications are never reported to the world at large, because they take place at high levels of large organizations where security and privacy considerations prohibit their disclosure. But some uses of AHP are discussed in the literature. Recently these have included:

Deciding how best to reduce the impact of global climate change (Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei)[5] Quantifying the overall quality of software systems (Microsoft Corporation)[6] Selecting university faculty (Bloomsburg University of Pennsylvania)[7] Deciding where to locate offshore manufacturing plants (University of Cambridge)[8] Assessing risk in operating cross-country petroleum pipelines (American Society of Civil Engineers)[9] Deciding how best to manage U.S. watersheds (U.S. Department of Agriculture)[4]

AHP is sometimes used in designing highly specific procedures for particular situations, such as the rating of buildings by historic significance.[10] It was recently applied to a project that uses video footage to assess the condition of highways in Virginia. Highway engineers first used it to determine the optimum scope of the project, then to justify its budget to lawmakers.

5- practical experiences
For practical examples you can visit the following web sites: file:///N:/AHP/Example_Leader.htm & file:///N:/AHP/Example_Car.htm

6- Own appraisal
From our point of view, the nature of AHP and SE is in somehow relevant, however, the SE look for the real problem solutions based on the technical aspects while AHP is used for choosing the best solutions based on economical aspects. Moreover, the AHP can be used according to importance of the weighted criteria from the users view of point, while the SE used according to technical requirements. Reference: file:///N:/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process.htm