The Fundamental Scale for Pairwise Comparisons

Intensity of
Definition
Importance

1 Equal importance

Moderate/weak
3 importance of one over
another
Essential or strong
5
importance

7 Demonstrated importance

9 Absolute importance

Intermediate values
2, 4, 6, 8 between the two adjacent
judgments

Reciprocals
If a has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared with b. Then b
of above
has the reciprocal value when compared with a.
nonzero

Ratios arising from the

rationals
scale

RI reference matrix
n RI
1 0
2 0
3 0.58
4 0.9
5 1.12
6 1.24
7 1.32
8 1.41
9 1.45
10 1.49
11 1.51
mental Scale for Pairwise Comparisons
Explanation

Element a and b contribute equally to the objective

Experience and judgment slightly favor element a

over b

Experience and judgment strongly favor element a

over b
Element a is favored very strongly over b; its
dominance is demonstrated in practice
The evidence favoring element over a over b is of
the highest possible order of affirmation

When compromise is needed. For example, 4 can be

used for the intermediate value between 3 and 5

he above numbers assigned to it when compared with b. Then b

al value when compared with a.

If consistency were to be forced by obtainin n

numerical values to span the matrix.
Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Criteria and Consistency Metrics
Metrics
Table 1 Pairwise Comparison Matrix for the Criteria
Expert 1
Criteria F1 F2 F3 F4
F1 1 3 5.0000 6.0000
F2 0.333333333 1 2 3
F3 0.2 0.5 1 2
F4 0.166666667 0.333333333 0.5 1
F5 0.142857143 0.2 0.25 0.333333333

Table 2 Geometric Mean for the Pairwise Comparison Matrix

PRODUCT F1 F2 F3 F4
F1 1 6 25 36
F2 0.066666667 1 4 9
F3 0.04 0.25 1 8
F4 0.027777778 0.1111111111 0.125 1
F5 0.023809524 0.028571429 0.0625 0.1111111111

POWER F1 F2 F3 F4
F1 1 2.449489743 5 6
F2 0.25819889 1 2 3
F3 0.2 0.5 1 2.828427125
F4 0.166666667 0.333333333 0.353553391 1
F5 0.15430335 0.169030851 0.25 0.333333333
SUM 1.779168906 4.451853927 8.603553391 13.16176046
Normalisation 0.562060182 0.550217905 0.581155224 0.455866069
0.145123315 0.224625519 0.23246209 0.227933034
0.112412036 0.11231276 0.116231045 0.214897326
0.093676697 0.074875173 0.04109388 0.075977678
0.086727769 0.037968643 0.029057761 0.025325893

Consistency F1 F2 F3 F4
F1 1 2.449489743 5 6
F2 0.25819889 1 2 3
F3 0.2 0.5 1 2.828427125
F4 0.166666667 0.333333333 0.353553391 1
F5 0.15430335 0.169030851 0.25 0.333333333
# of Criteria 5

CI = 0.03844928
RI = 1.12
CR = 0.034329715 < 0.1 consistent
The consistency index (ci) measures the degree of logical consistency among pair-wise comparison
average CI value of randomly-generated comparison matrices using Saaty’s preference scale sorted
considered.

Consistency ratio (cr) indicates the amount of allowed inconsistency (0.10 or 10%). Higher numbe
consistent. Smaller numbers mean comparisons are more consistent. CRs above 0.1 means the pair
or revised.

0.493406454 0.224038615 0.150392433 0.086541035

F1 F2 F3 F4
Karnatka 0.5 0.3 0.35 0.7
Jharkhand 0.3 0.35 0.3 0.2
Telangana 0.2 0.35 0.3 0.1
 Expert 2
F5 Criteria F1 F2 F3
7.0000 F1 1 5 5.0000
5 F2 0.2 1 2
4 F3 0.2 0.5 1
3 F4 0.166666667 0.333333333 0.25
1 F5 0.166666667 0.142857143 0.25

F5
42
35
16
9
1

F5
6.480740698
5.916079783
4
3
1
20.39682048 Weight
0.317732889 2.4670322699 0.493406454 1) Normalize the column entries by dividing each ent
0.290049118 1.1201930761 0.224038615 2) Take the overall row averages.
0.196108997 0.7519621634 0.150392433
0.147081748 0.4327051758 0.086541035
0.049027249 0.2281073148 0.045621463
5
F5 MMULT
6.480740698 0.493406454 2.60905599 5.287843256
5.916079783 0.2240386152 1.181743799 5.274732654
4 0.1503924327 0.788353894 5.24197847
3 0.0865410352 0.433491126 5.00908182
1 0.045621463 0.226070289 4.955349406
avg 5.153797121
ency among pair-wise comparisons. The random index (ri) is the
ng Saaty’s preference scale sorted by the number of items being

ncy (0.10 or 10%). Higher numbers mean the comparisons are less
ent. CRs above 0.1 means the pair-wise comparison should be revisited

0.045621463
F5 Global weight Rank
0.2 0.4362551802 1
0.1 0.2934235347 2
0.7 0.2628016635 3
 F4 F5
6.0000 6.0000
3 7
4 4
1 3
0.333333333 1

column entries by dividing each entry by the sum of the column.

ll row averages.
Data
Athnes Brussels Lisban
Fixed cost 30000 60000 110000
Variable cost 75 45 25

Volume(optional) 2000

Results
Breakeven points Units Dollars
Athnes vs. Brussels 1000 105000
Athnes vs. Lisban 1600 150000
Brussels vs. Lisban 2500 172500

Volume analysis @2000 units

Athnes Brussels Lisban
Total cost $ 180,000.00 $ 150,000.00 $ 160,000.00

Graph
Units Athnes Brussels Lisban
0 30000 60000 110000
5000 405000 285000 235000
 Cost-volume analysis
450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
$

200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Units

Athnes Brus s el s Li s ba n
5000 6000
 Coordinates
$/Ton Mile (Cn) Tons (Dn)
xn yn
Gurgaon 0.9 500 700 1200
Sources Faridabad 0.95 300 250 600
Manesar 0.85 700 225 825
Bhopal 2.5 225 600 500
Nashik 1.5 150 1050 1200
Markets Bengaluru 3.5 250 800 300
Chennai 2.5 175 925 975
Nagpur 1.5 300 1000 1080

Facility Location
x= 670
y= 706
TC 1642481
dn
495
433
460
217
623
426
371
499