International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
Application of the AHP in project management
Kamal M. Al-Subhi Al-Harbi *
Department of ConstructionEngineering and Management, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, KFUPM Box 1468, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia Received 12 June 1998; received in revised form 2 March 1999; accepted 19 May 1999
Abstract This paper presents the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a potential decision making method for use in project management. The contractor prequali®cation problem is used as an example. A hierarchical structure is constructed for the prequali®cation criteria and the contractors wishing to prequalify for a project. By applying the AHP, the prequali®cation criteria can be prioritized and a descending-order list of contractors can be made in order to select the best contractors to perform the project. A sensitivity analysis can be performed to check the sensitivity of the ®nal decisions to minor changes in judgements. The paper presents group decision-making using the AHP. The AHP implementation steps will be simpli®ed by using the `Expert Choice' professional software that is available commercially and designed for implementing AHP. It is hoped that this will encourage the application of the AHP by project management professionals. # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Analytical hierarchy process; AHP; Project management; Contractor prequali®cation
1. Introduction The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision-aiding method developed by Saaty [24±27]. It aims at quantifying relative priorities for a given set of alternatives on a ratio scale, based on the judgment of the decision-maker, and stresses the importance of the intuitive judgments of a decision-maker as well as the consistency of the comparison of alternatives in the decision-making process . Since a decision-maker bases judgments on knowledge and experience, then makes decisions accordingly, the AHP approach agrees well with the behavior of a decision-maker. The strength of this approach is that it organizes tangible and intangible factors in a systematic way, and provides a structured yet relatively simple solution to the decisionmaking problems . In addition, by breaking a problem down in a logical fashion from the large, descending in gradual steps, to the smaller and smaller, one is able to connect, through simple paired comparison judgments, the small to the large.
The objective of this paper is to introduce the application of the AHP in project management. The paper will brie¯y review the concepts and applications of the multiple criteria decision analysis, the AHP's implementation steps, and demonstrate AHP application on the contractor prequali®cation problem. It is hoped that this will encourage its application in the whole area of project management. 2. Multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) Project managers are faced with decision environments and problems in projects that are complex. The elements of the problems are numerous, and the interrelationships among the elements are extremely complicated. Relationships between elements of a problem may be highly nonlinear; changes in the elements may not be related by simple proportionality. Furthermore, human value and judgement systems are integral elements of project problems . Therefore, the ability to make sound decisions is very important to the success of a project. In fact, Schuyler  makes it a skill that is certainly near the top of the list of project management skills, and notices that few of us have had formal training in decision making.
* Tel.: +966-3-860-3312; fax: +966-3-860-3287. E-mail address: firstname.lastname@example.org (K.M. Al-S. Al-Harbi).
0263-7863/00/$20.00 # 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. PII: S0263-7863(99)00038-1
-S. The pair-wise comparisons are done in terms of which element dominates the other.12. the method asks decision-makers meaningless questions. She noticed that both approaches have been widely used in practice which can be considered as a measure of success. A. the AHP is a viable. M. The aim of MCDM methods is to help decision-makers learn about the problems they face.20. to learn about their own and other parties' personal value systems. The CR is acceptable. Watson and Freeling  said that in order to elicit the weights of the criteria by means of a ratio scale. De®ne the problem and determine its goal. as two of the multiple criteria approaches. to learn about organizational values and objectives. where n is the matrix size. 3. 2. Having made all the pair-wise comparisons. usable decision-making tool. Belton and Gear  and Dyer and Wendel  attacked the AHP on the grounds that it lacks a ®rm theoretical basis. They commented that the AHP is based upon a ®rm theoretical foundation and. for example: `Which of these two criteria is more important for the goal? By how much?' Belton and Gear  and Dyer  pointed out that this method can suer from rank reversal (an alternative chosen as the best over a set of X. CI as follows: gs
lmx À na
n À 1. is excluded from X). The analytical hierarchy process (AHP) Belton  compared AHP and a simple multi-attribute value (MAV). and through exploring these in the context of the problem to guide them in identifying a preferred course of action [5. the consistency is determined by using the eigenvalue. Steps 3±6 are performed for all levels in the hierarchy. Two types of the problems that are common in the project management that best ®t MCDA models are evaluation problems and design problems. Construct a set of pair-wise comparison matrices (size n Â n) for each of the lower levels with one matrix for each element in the level immediately above by using the relative scale measurement shown in Table 1. corporations and consulting ®rms illustrate. The design problem is concerned with the identi®cation of a preferred alternative from a potentially in®nite set of alternatives implicitly de®ned by a set of constraints . lmx . the judgment matrix is inconsistent.35].34. 6. to calculate the consistency index. Saaty [24±27] developed the following steps for applying the AHP: 1. In other words. They seek to take explicit account of more than one criterion in supporting the decision process . If it is more. Harker and Vargas  and Perez  discussed these major criticisms and proved with a theoretical work and examples that they are not valid. Hierarchical synthesis is now used to weight the eigenvectors by the weights of the criteria and the sum is taken over all weighted eigenvector entries corresponding to those in the next lower level of the hierarchy. 4. perhaps an unimportant one. Hwang and Yoon  published a comprehensive survey of multiple attribute decision making methods and applications. single dimension . The evaluation problem is concerned with the evaluation of. Judgment consistency can be checked by taking the consistency ratio (CR) of CI with the appropriate value in Table 2. She also commented that the greatest weakness of the MAV approach is its failure to incorporate systematic checks on the consistency of judgments. To obtain a consistent matrix.32. MCDA is useful in circumstances which necessitate the consideration of dierent courses of action. is not chosen when some alternative. A number of criticisms have been launched at AHP over the years. 5. Structure the hierarchy from the top (the objectives from a decision-maker's viewpoint) through the intermediate levels (criteria on which subsequent levels depend) to the lowest level which usually contains the list of alternatives.20
K. judgments should be reviewed and improved. if it does not exceed 0. and possible choice between. Reciprocals are automatically assigned in each pair-wise comparison. as examples in the literature
and the day-to-day operations of various governmental agencies.10. discretely de®ned alternatives. Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
Multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) approaches are major parts of decision theory and analysis.
Table 1 Pair-wise comparison scale for AHP preferences [24±27] Numerical rating 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Verbal judgments of preferences Extremely preferred Very strongly to extremely Very strongly preferred Strongly to very strongly Strongly preferred Moderately to strongly Moderately preferred Equally to moderately Equally preferred
. 7. There are n
n À 1a judgments required to develop the set of matrices in step 3. which can not be evaluated by the measurement of a simple. She noticed that for large evaluations. the number of judgments required by the AHP can be somewhat of a burden. 3.
agreement can be reached on the higher-order and lower-order objectives of the problem by including all the concerns that members have expressed.45 1. This occurs because attention is focused on a speci®c aspect of the problem as judgments are being made. values and knowledge to break down a problem into a hierarchy and solve it by the AHP steps. or may choose to take the `average' of the judgments. in order to determine the contractors' competence or ability to participate in the project bid. 4. developed by Expert Choice. 1. All calculations are done automatically on the computer screen. If desired.49
.58 0. There are a number of dierent approaches to group decision-making. The Group Meeting: While Expert Choice is an ideal tool for generating group decisions through a cohesive. M. Even if we assume a group with common interests. there is no need to implement the steps manually. and there is buy-in and consensus with the result. Professional commercial software. Another formal de®nition by Clough  is that prequali®cation means that the contracting ®rm
Table 2 Average random consistency (RI) [24±27] Size of matrix 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Random consistency 0 0 0. When Expert Choice is used in a group session. If the group has achieved consensus on some judgment. is available on the market which simpli®es the implementation of the AHP's steps and automates many of its computations. . Group decision making The AHP allows group decision making. They can modify it to suit their understanding of the problem. If during the process it is impossible to arrive at a consensus on a judgment.-S. the software does not replace the components necessary for good group facilitation. some better than others. a person who may be shy and hesitant to speak up when a group's discussion drifts from topic to topic will feel more comfortable in speaking up when the discussion is organized and attention turns to his area of expertise. other decision processes such as the well known Delphi technique may no longer be attractive. 5. Each member can present his own concerns and de®nitions. the group can cooperate in identifying the overall structure of the issue. eliminating drift from topic to topic as so often happens in group discussions. it is important to have a meeting in which everyone is engaged. However.9 1. The group may decide to give all group members equal weight. 2. Above all. In this way. rigorous process.12 1. individual group members will each have their own motivations and.K. Group decisions involving participants with common interests are typical of many organizational decisions. Prequali®cation is de®ned by Moore  and Stephen  as the screening of construction contractors by project owners or their representatives according to a predetermined set of criteria deemed necessary for successful project performance. 4. the group can be shown a hierarchy that has been prepared in advance. contractor prequali®cation (an evaluation problem) will be used as an example of the possibility of using AHP in project management. A group with widely varying perspectives can feel comfortable with a complex issue. An interesting aspect of using Expert Choice is that it minimizes the dicult problem of `groupthink' or dominance by a strong member of the group. input only that judgment. Since Expert Choice reduces the in¯uences of groupthink and dominance. the group may use some voting technique. when the issue is broken down into dierent levels. Inc. or the group members could give them dierent weights that re¯ect their position in the project. The following suggestions and recommendations are suggested in the Expert Choice software manual . Expert Choice could be used within the Delphi context. The group would then provide the judgments. it also inhibits communication between members of the group. The group de®nes the issues to be examined and alters the prepared hierarchy or constructs a new hierarchy to cover all the important issues. Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
Fortunately. As a result. Expert Choice. Then.32 1. Application of the AHP in project management In this paper. where group members can use their experience. A. Nevertheless. will be in con¯ict on certain issues. 3. hence.41 1. The Delphi technique was
designed to alleviate groupthink and dominance problems. This mode maximizes communication as well as each group member's stake in the decision.24 1. since the group members are `supposed' to be striving for the same goal and have more in common than in con¯ict. Brainstorming and sharing ideas and insights (inherent in the use of Expert Choice in a group setting) often leads to a more complete representation and understanding of the issues. it is usually best to work as a group and attempt to achieve consensus.
The judgment may be in¯uenced by owner biases. management sta. and concluded that the projects awarded to the lowest bidder have lower performance quality and schedule delays as compared to the projects which were awarded based on speci®c prequali®cation criteria. This is consistent with the `elimination by aspect' method suggested by Tversky .-S. claim attitude. then the contractor is removed from the bidding process. and this rank order of the contractors is used for prequali®cation. screening of contractors is done on preliminary factors. because of the skill. completion of a project within the estimated cost and time is more probable. In this method. such as previous experience with the contractor or how well the contractor's ®eld sta operates. Furthermore. a list of the most important prequali®cation criteria is developed in descending order depending on how important the cri-
teria is. In the second step. the contractor's prequali®cation is dependent on the contractors maximum capability. The maximum capability is de®ned as the maximum amount of uncompleted work in progress that the contractor can have at any one time. owners may base their contractor selection decision on subjective judgment and not on a structured approach. something for which the AHP does provide a methodology. This method is useful for quick removal of ineligible candidates. becomes an essential part of the process. The previous methods were devised with a common goal to introduce an ecient and systematic procedure for contractor prequali®cation. Russel and Skibniewski  mentioned that the actual process of contractor prequali®cation had received little attention in the past. and developed a computerized tool for implementing it. The problem with this method is deciding the weight of the respective criteria. manpower resources availability. If the dierence between the contractor's capability and current uncompleted work is less than the project works. If a candidate fails to meet any of the criteria. equipment resources. the choice selection criteria and their weights are dependent on the owner. prequali®cation formula. safety consciousness. Then.22
K. Prequali®cation of contractors aims at the elimination of incompetent contractors from the bidding process. and (2) monitoring the contractor's performance after contract award.
. Contractors are then evaluated on these factors. A. contractor organization. In dimension-wide strategy method . familiarity with the project's geographic location. planning/scheduling and cost control. This included experience. A contractor's total score is calculated by summing their ranks multiplied by the weight of the respective criteria. past performance. two-step prequali®cation. He also discussed how prequali®cation can provide the owner with appropriate facilities representing an eective and ecient expenditure of money. A number of studies have focused on contractor prequali®cation. Al-Ghobali  surveyed the Saudi construction market and listed a number of factors against which contractors should be considered for prequali®cation. Aitah  studied the bid awarding system used in Saudi Arabia. current uncompleted work and the size of the project under consideration. Al-Alawi  conducted a study on contractor prequali®cation for public projects in Bahrain. In the ®rst step. and equipment repairing and maintenance yard facilities. current workload. The two-step prequali®cation method  is a modi®cation of the dimensional weighting method. Lower  reviewed the guidelines of the prequali®cation process in dierent States in the US. M. project management capabilities. quality assurance and control. based on individual experience. purchase expertise and material handling. Russel and Skibniewski  tried to describe the contractor prequali®cation process along with the decision-making strategies and the factors that in¯uence the process. All contractors are ranked on the basis of the criteria. In some instances. The prequali®cation formula method  prequali®es contractors on the basis of a formula that calculates the maximum capability of a contractor. Prequali®cation can aid the public and private owner in achieving successful and ecient use of their funds by ensuring that it is a quali®ed contractor who will construct the project. previous failure to complete a contract. Nguyen  argued that the prequali®cation process remains largely an art where subjective judgment. contractors are ranked on the basis of their total scores. capability and eciency of a contractor. In the dimensional weighting method . He evaluated public building construction projects. ®nancial stability. He surveyed the market and determined the most important criteria in the prequali®cation process. They must get through this step to be eligible for the second phase of prequali®cation. Russel  analyzed contractor failure in the US and recommended that an owner should have two means of avoiding or minimize the impact of contractor failure: (1) analyzing the contractor quali®cation prior to contract award. the dimensional weighting technique is used for more specialized factors. the candidate is removed from the prequali®cation process. and subjective judgment. They reported ®ve methods that they found in use for contractor prequali®cation: dimensional weighting. dimension-wide strategy. The method continues until contractors are measured on all criteria . Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
wishing to bid on a project needs to be quali®ed before it can be issued bidding documents or before it can submit a proposal.
manpower resources. it is the choice of the decision-maker to eliminate contractor E immediately since he/she does not meet the minimum criteria. A. Other criteria can be added if necessary. quali®es him for immediate elimination from the list by the project
owner. personnel Two delayed projects Safety program 100 labourers 200 by subcontract Availability in peaks 6 mixer machines 1 excavator 1 bulldozer 20 others 15. ®nancial stability. Nevertheless. personnel Good reputation Many certi®cates Safety program 150 labourers 10 special skilled labourers 4 mixer machines 1 excavator 15 others
$6 M assets $1.5 M liabilities Bad organization Unethical techniques One project terminated Average quality 40 labourers 260 by subcontract
2 mixer machines 10 others 2000 sf steel formwork 6000 sf wooden formwork
Current works load
1 big project ending 2 projects in mid (1 medium +1 small)
2 big projects ending 1 medium project in mid
2 small projects started 3 projects ending (2 small + 1 medium)
. the factors that will be used in the project example for prequali®cation are experience. 1. the hierarchy of the problem can be developed as shown in Fig.-S.M. The matter is safeguarded by checking the consistency of the pairwise comparison which is a part of the AHP procedure. Example A simpli®ed project example of contractor prequali®cation will be demonstrated here for illustration purposes. as will be shown at the end of the example. Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
6. Contractor E could be left on the list (the choice in this paper for demonstration purposes) so that he appears at the end of the list of `best contractors in descending order'. C. B.5 M liabilities Part of a group of companies Average organization C. quality performance.000 sf steel formwork 1 medium project started 2 projects ending (1 big + 1 medium) Contractor D 10 years experience Two similar projects $11 M assets $4 M liabilities Good relation with banks Good organization Good reputation Many certi®cates Cost raised in some projects 90 labourers 130 by subcontract 4 mixer machines 1 excavator 9 others Contractor E 15 years experience No similar project
$7 M assets High growth rate No liability Good organization C. equipment resources. together with a suggestion that a computer be used to simplify calculations. By following the AHP procedure described in the Section 5. Descriptions presented in Table 3 under `Contractor E'. the decision-makers have to indicate preferences or priority for each decision alternative in terms of how it contributes to each criterion as shown in Table 4. and current workload. An argument could be presented that contractor E is not meeting the minimum criteria. M. This is quite consistent with the method `elimination by aspect' suggested by Tversky . To simplify calculations.M. team Government award Good reputation QA/QC program 120 labourers Good skilled labors 25 special skilled labourers 1 batching plant 2 concrete transferring trucks 2 mixer machines 1 excavator 1 bulldozer 16 others 17.000 sf steel formwork 2 projects ending (1 big + 1 medium) Contractor C 8 years experience No similar project 1 international project $14 M assets $6 M liabilities Good organization C.K. such as `bad organization' and `unethical techniques'.M. For step 3. D and E wish to prequalify. Table 3 presents a project example for which contractors A.
Table 3 Example Contractor A Experience 5 years experience Two similar projects Contractor B 7 years experience One similar project Special procurement experience $10 M assets $5.
estimating the consistency ratio is as follows:
Table 5 Synthesized matrix for experiencea Exp.073 0.08 in Table 5 is obtained by dividing 1 (from Table 4) by 12.066
E 0.055 0X999
A B C D E
lmx 5X037. 5. Synthesizing the pair-wise comparison matrix is performed by dividing each element
of the matrix by its column total. g 0X0082 ` 0X1 OK. M. For example.176 0. in order to obtain the value 0.412 0. calculating the consistency ratio. 5.086.-S. A B C D E A 1 3 2 6 1/2 B 1/3 1 1/2 2 1/4 C 1/2 2 1 3 1/3 D 1/6 1/2 1/3 1 1/7 E 2 4 3 7 1
B 0. The priority vector for experience. Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
Fig.078 0. The priority vector in Table 5 can be obtained by ®nding the row averages.118 0.. calculating lmx . P Q 0X086 T 0X249 U T U T 0X152 U
I T U R 0X457 S 0X055 Now.457 0.059
Priority vector 0. i.439 0. the following can be done manually or automatically by the AHP software.489 0.
Then. gs 0X00925. The calculations for these items will be explained next for illustration purposes. the priority of contractor A with respect to the criterion `experience' in Table 5 is calculated by dividing the sum of the rows (0X08 0X082 0X073 0X078 0X118) by the number of contractors (columns).235 0.245 0. s 1X12. 2.16 0.233 0.466 0.082 0. the sum of the column items in Table 4 (1 3 2 6 1a2).152 0. 6.e.. synthesizing the pair-wise comparison matrix (example: Table 5). Hierarchy of the project example.122 0.24
K. indicated in Table 5.293 0. For example.
D 0. 3. selecting appropriate value of the random consistency ratio from Table 2. A 0. the value 0. calculating the consistency index. checking the consistency of the pair-wise comparison matrix to check whether the decision-maker's comparisons were consistent or not. 4.08 0.04
Table 4 Pair-wise comparison matrix for experience Exp. and 7.155 0.061
C 0. Expert Choice: 1.5.249 0.146 0. calculating the priority vector for a criterion such as experience (example: Table 5).48 0. 1.086 0. A.24 0. CI. is given below.
. or we manually combine the criterion priorities and the priorities of each decision alternative relative to each criterion in order to develop an overall priority ranking of the decision alternative which is termed as the priority matrix (Table 12). the Expert Choice software can do the rest automatically. we also use the same pair-wise comparison procedure to set priorities for all six criteria in terms of importance of each in contributing to the overall goal. s 1X12.151 0.088 0.273 0. CI. A. as follows: gs lmx À n 5X037 À 5 0X00925 nÀ1 5À1
As the value of CR is less than 0. we ®nd the consistency index. gs 0X095. Now.178 0. Similarly.425 0. Table 11 shows the pair-wise comparison matrix and priority vector for the six criteria. We then calculate the consistency ratio.163 0.449 0. we obtain: 0X431 1X259 0X766 5X012Y 5X056Y 5X039Y 0X086 0X249 0X152 2X312 0X276 5X059Y 5X018 0X457 0X055
We then compute the average of these values to obtain lmx lmx
5X012 5X056 5X039 5X059 5X018 5
5X037 Now.074 0.045 0X999
lmx 5X32.12.1. as follows: gs 0X00925 0X0082 g s 1X12
Table 6 Pair-wise comparison matrix for ®nancial stability (FS)a FS A B C D E
Table 8 Pair-wise comparison matrix for manpower resources (MPR)a MPR A B C D E
A 1 1/6 1/3 1/2 1/7
B 6 1 4 2 1/3
C 3 1/4 1 3 1/5
D 2 1/2 1/3 1 1/7
E 7 3 5 7 1
Priority vector 0.
Dividing all the elements of the weighted sum matrices by their respective priority vector element.031 0X998
lmx 5X38.081 0. Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
1 1a3 1a2 T 3 U T 1 U T 2 U T U T U T U 0X086T 2 U 0X249T 1a2 U 0X152T 1 U T U T U T U R 6 S R 2 S R 3 S 1a2 1a4 1a3 P Q P Q P Q 1a6 2 0X431 T 1a2 U T 4 U T 1X259 U T U T U T U T 1a3 U 0X055T 3 U T 0X766 U 0X457T U T U T U R 1 S R 7 S R 2X312 S 1a7 1 0X276
weighted sum mtrix
Table 7 Pair-wise comparison matrix for quality performance (QP)a QP A B C D E
A 1 1/7 3 1/2 1/8
B 7 1 5 4 1/4
C 1/3 1/5 1 1/4 1/9
D 2 1/4 4 1 1/6
E 8 4 9 6 1
Priority vector 0. respectively. for a matrix size of ®ve using Table 2. In addition to the pair-wise comparison for the decision alternatives. CR. g 0X071 ` 0X1 OK.268 0. g 0X085 ` 0X1 OK. g 0X053 ` 0X1 OK.269 0. s 1X12.
lmx 5X24. the pair-wise comparison matrices and priority vectors for the remaining criteria can be found as shown in Tables 6±10. s 1X12.461 0.-S. M.039 0X998
A 1 2 4 1/2 1/5
B 1/2 1 3 1/5 1/7
C 1/4 1/3 1 1/4 1/6
D 2 5 4 1 1/2
E 5 7 6 2 1
Priority vector 0. the judgments are acceptable. RI. we ®nd RI = 1. gs 0X08. The calculations for ®nding the overall priority of contractors are given below for illustration purposes:
S yverll priority of ontrtor e 0X372
Selecting appropriate value of random consistency ratio. gs 0X059.
A.084 0.163 0. g 0X05 ` 0X1 OK. s 1X12. as follows: D. The paper has presented the AHP as a decision-making method that allows the consideration of multiple criteria.288 0. Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
yverll priority of ontrtor f 3X372
yverll priority of ontrtor g 0X372
0X173 0X241 yverll priority of ontrtor h
Table 9 Pair-wise comparison matrix for equipment resources (ER)a ER A B C D E
0X084 0X288 yverll priority of ontrtor i 0X372
A 1 6 8 1/2 1/3
B 1/6 1 4 1/5 1/7
C 1/8 1/4 1 1/9 1/9
D 2 5 9 1 1/2
E 3 7 9 2 1
Priority vector 0.173 0. (0.241 0. gs 0X10.039) 0.372) A B C D E 0.046
lmx 5X40.537 0.087) 0.372 0.201 0.457 0. An example of contractor prequali®cation was created to demonstrate AHP application in project management.144 0.151 0.556 0.425 0.461 0.222 0.084 0.93) 0.039 QP (0. and E. the contractors are now ranked according to their overall priorities.088 0. g 0X089 ` 0X1 OK.087 1X00
1 1/2 1/3 1/6 1/6 1/5
lmx 6X31.053 0.038 CWL (0.062 Overall priority vector 0.293 0.537 0. indicating that D is the best quali®ed contractor to perform the project. g 0X063 ` 0X1 OK.084 0.053) 0.081 0. A.273 0.269 0.057 0.268 0. 7.084 0.086 0.074 0.173 0.556 0. s 1X24.031 MPR (0. Summary Project management involves complex decision making situations that require discerning abilities and methods to make sound decisions.-S. C.178 0.156) 0. B. where the decision-maker can check the sensitivity of his judgements on the overall priorities of contractors by trying dierent values for his comparison judgements.144 0. Expert Choice does provide facilities for performing sensitivity analysis.264 0.152 0.
Table 10 Pair-wise comparison matrix for current work load (CWL)a CWL A B C D E
A 1 5 3 1/3 1/3
B 1/5 1 1/5 1/6 1/6
C 1/3 5 1 1/2 1/2
D 3 6 2 1 1/2
E 3 6 2 2 1
Priority vector 0. FS QP MPR ER CWL
For prequali®cation purposes.
Table 11 Pair-wise comparison matrix for the six criteriaa Exp.249 0.26
lmx 5X28. s 1X12.055 FS (02.449 0.
FS 2 1 1/3 1/6 1/6 1/5
QP 3 3 1 1/4 1/4 1/3
MPR 6 6 4 1 1/2 2
ER 6 6 4 2 1 4
CWL 5 5 3 1/2 1/4 1
Priority vector 0. M. Exp.045 ER (0.156 0.039 0.057 0.
Table 12 Priority matrix for contractor prequali®cation Exp. gs 0X071.264 0. gs 0X062.
Contract management handbook for commercial construction. USA  French S. KFUPM.79(4):281±99. The method can also be implemented on computer.  Schuyler JR.33(1):1383±403. He has an interdisciplinary minor in computer science. 1980. Dhahran.. Management Science 1995.  Lower J. Surety bonding and owner±contractor prequali®cation: comparison. New York: Wiley. Expert Choice software and manual. Dhahran.-S. A structured approach to the contractor prequali®cation process in the USA. 1996. cost estimating.  Zeleny M. Operational research tutorial papers. Multiple criteria decision making.  Hwang CL. 1988  Al-Alawi MA. European Journal of Operational Research.  Harker PT.41(6):1091±5. Dhahran. Vargas LG. Edwards W. Decision criteria in contractor prequali®cation. Decision making for leaders. Freeling ANS.  Belton V. The analytic hierarchy process. Some comments on Saaty's AHP. Inc. The analytic hierarchy process series 1991. USA. 1982. He provides implementation services for a number of professional software systems.11(3):228±30. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. Skibniewski MJ. On a shortcoming of Saaty's method of analytical hierarchy. Saudi Arabia.  Stephen A. The University of Texas at Austin. Prof. New York: McGraw-Hill. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (KFUPM). business administration. How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Prequalifying construction contractors.  Skibniewski MJ.  Russell JS.3:249±58. Wendel RE.  Watson SR.  Saaty TL. Assessing attribute weights. Omega 1985. Kearns KP . 4RWS PublicationsPittsburgh. USA. European Journal of Operational Research 1986. Prof. Contractor prequali®cation: a computerized model for public projects in Bahrain. Department of Management. In: Hendry LC. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management.116(4):360±74. 1986.  Russell JS.39:74±5  Nguyen VV.
. 1986.  Dyer JS. Upper Darby.13(3):143±4. New York: McGrawHill. He was a part of the team who developed a State-Wide Bridge Maintenance Management System for the State of North Carolina. Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Contractor failure: analysis. Session D:240±51Danish Building ResearchCopenhagen. computer applications and simulation. Working Paper 84/85-4-24. Decision theory: an introduction to the mathematics of rationality.  Russell JS.. References
 Aitah RA.5(3):163±80. 1991  Al-Ghobali KHR. and has a weekly Arabic article in the international magazine of `AlEqtesadiah'. Chao L. 1988.26:7±21. KFUPM. A critique of the analytical hierarchy process. Shaifer EF. pp. Remarks on the analytical hierarchy process. 1994  Belton V. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. Gear T. Omega 1983. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering. 1990. American Water Works Association Journal 1982. 1985. CIB-SBI Fourth Int.  Tversky A. Journal of Management in Engineering. California: Life Time Leaning Publications. The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 1990. Saudi Arabia. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. Buede DM. Master thesis. AHP allows group decision-making. NY: Wiley. Management Science 1987.
 Perez J.4(2):148±64.118(3):577±93. ASCE 1988. Pittsburgh.  Watson SR. North-Holland 1990. Tender evaluation by fuzzy sets. Eglese RW. Skibniewski M. Chichester: Ellis Horwood. contract administration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Decision analysis in projects. principles of contractor evaluation.  Von Winterfeldt D.S.
Kamal Al-Subhi Al-Harbi A certi®ed project management professional (PMP) and a KFUPM university professor in the area of construction and project/maintenance management. He is a well-known lecturer. Saudi Arabia. ASCE 1991. CA: Naris Publications. Plant Engineering 1985. M. 53±102  Belton V. 1981.10(6):582±3. ASCE 1990. 4922 Elsworth Ave. Analytical planning: the organization of systems. Performance study of lowest bidder bid awarding system in government projects. 1987. 1984. Kamal has numerous publications in many areas related to project management. Omega 1982.  Saaty TL. Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications: A-State-of-the-Art Survey.48:9±26. M. PA 15213. Factors considered in contractors prequali®cation process in Saudi Arabia. Denmark. A. Psychological Review 1972. King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals. 1985  Expert Choice. Decision and risk analysis for construction management. Belmont.  Saaty TL.vol. Al-Harbi / International Journal of Project Management 19 (2001) 19±27
Contractor prequali®cation involves criteria and priorities that are determined by owner requirements and preferences as well as the characteristics of the individual contractors. ASCE 1992. 1990. and has conducted training seminars for over 3000 professional from major western and local organizations throughout the Arabian Gulf States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Decision analysis and behavioral research. Evaluation of advanced construction technology with AHP method.  Dyer JS.  Lifson MW. Saudi Arabia for providing the facilities and support to conduct and publish this paper.74:220±3  Moore MJ. Sym. Kamal is an international reputable consultant and trainer. ASCE 1985. editors.  Clough R. Gear T. Master thesis.  Saaty TL.  Belton V. Selecting a contractor for fast-track projects: Part I. The legitimacy of rank reversal Ð a comment. on Building Economics. USA: Project Management Institute.K. Yoon K. Dhahran. Multiple criteria decision analysis Ð practically the only way to choose.3(3):231±43. New York. PA. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. Decision synthesis: the principles and practice of decision analysis. Construction contracting. and industrial engineering. thesis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.  Russel JS. A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function.