MASTER IN BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

COURSE: QUANTITATIVE METHODS ( MBA 505)

Topic: The use of the analytıcal hıerarchy process method to select The Best
country for work location.

Fınal Project

Submıtted By: Fathia Ali Ahmed

Student ID: 21316925019

Project Advisor: Dr. Turan Erman Erkan

Fall Semester 2022-2023

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS..............................................................................................................1

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................2

1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................3

2. LITERATURE REVIEW.........................................................................................................4

3. METHODOLOGY....................................................................................................................5

3.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process Method...............................................................................6

3.2 AHP Hypothesis...................................................................................................................6

3.3. APPLICATION OF ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS..................................7

4.1 Method of consistency check.............................................................................................15

5. AHP RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................18

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................18

REFERENCE...............................................................................................................................19

1
 ABSTRACT

In recent years, one of the most significant problems facing planners is the best country selection

procedure. Numerous location-allocation models have been created using a multi-criteria choice

method. In order to determine the best location for the project, a variety of techniques were used,

including weight product method, multi-choice objective programming, and others, to solve a

multicriteria decision-making issue. Three famous nations were evaluated to determine which

country would be ideal for work location. This research defined criteria for those sites, including

cost of living, quality of life, work satisfaction, and cultural variety in the suggested areas. Using

the analytical hierarchy process approach as a tool, we rated those criteria in this study according

to how important they were in concerning to each other for the locations that were offered.

Results revealed that by assigning weights to each criterion and producing pairwise comparison

matrices, the analytical hierarchy approach is utilized to evaluate the importance. As it is shown

in the mathematical computation of the consistency results the degree of consistency of AHP

Results is which fits in the required range of consistency level variation.

2
 1. INTRODUCTION

A successful career journey involves more than just the geographical location; it also involves

balancing personal objectives, lifestyle choices, and professional aspirations. Many phenomena

in global careers have been studied using modern career paradigms. Their organizational

conditions have been primarily examined when work location has been addressed within the

context of the social environments of a person and their cultural embeddedness (Gunz et al.,

2007). In addition, a prime workplace location may have an impact on the overall amount of

available space, so limiting the dimensions and design of your workspace. This could boost

possibilities for networking and personnel access (Heizer & Associates 2017).

The most crucial step in completing the greatest job location is choosing the right nation. The

elements that affect this might differ according on the type of job being done, the industry, and

personal preferences. This is evident in the way that environmental change and the monitoring

and assessment of development initiatives in a nation are related to approving the prerequisites

for talent access, professional aspirations, and organizational operations in the environment (Dey

& Ramcharan, 2008).

Depending on the various criteria and the goal of the project, a variety of multicriteria decision-

making techniques are employed in various projects. Some of these techniques are qualitative,

while others are quantitative, and each has advantages and disadvantages that vary depending on

the project in which it is used ( lalic, 2009). The analytical hierarchy process approach, and other

comparable techniques such as QM for Windows program and Microsoft Excel.

3
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW

According to Zimmerman (1991) asserts that the strict mathematical rules of AHP theory aid in

the understanding of complicated occurrences. This theory is an essential tool for quantifying

human-related uncertainty occurrences. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a popular

technique for making decisions that Saaty enhanced in 1980. As to Kuo (1999), the

methodology involves three distinct categories for decision-making, including hierarchy

formation, superiority determination, and logical and numerical consistency provision. The

criteria are organized hierarchically for computation, separated into importance levels, and

ultimately ranked by best analytical findings based on importance weights. In addition, the

analytical hierarchy process was ranked higher among all of the methods found for resolving

multicriteria decision-making issues pertaining country selection for work location. In the study

by Ocak &Top (2019), these techniques employ a pairwise comparison matrix to ascertain the

suitability of two characteristics. Moreover, as reiterated by another researcher, the AHP is a

straightforward technique with numerous associated advantages that can be integrated with a

variety of factors, including qualitative, subjective, and other factors with a high degree of

judgement of the decision to predict using numerous analysts and identify the consistency of

these analyses. In this work, a two-step multicriteria model with a case study was done to

determine the most significant factors influencing the country selection for location to work.

Determining the influencing factors for choosing the ideal country is the first step done by the

Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the second phase choices were ranked (Radović et al.,

2018). These techniques can vary based on the type of solution found and the approach taken

because, when there are numerous criteria, the multi-criteria decision-making problem is solved

4
to determine the best choice based on the specified criteria. To address these issues and get to a

suitable conclusion, it is necessary to consider many criteria (Badi & Abdulshahed, 2019).

3. METHODOLOGY

The choice of a work location is complex and needs careful consideration. A successful career

path includes more than simply location; it also entails striking a balance between one's personal

goals, lifestyle preferences, and professional ambitions. By applying the analytical hierarchy

process approach (AHP) to identify and choose a suitable nation for my project, the study aims

to address the challenge of selecting the best country for location. Our investigation will be

concentrated on three notable and significant countries: the United States, Germany, and

Canada. The aim of this research is to determine which country is the most suitable for

employment by utilizing the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) method. The decision to

mitigate the risks will be based on four criteria that will be used to choose the location of my

villa construction project. These criteria are as follows:

 Job satisfaction

 Quality of life

 Cost of living

 Cultural diversity

5
3.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process Method

The analytical hierarchy process is the most often utilized MCDM technique (Badi et al., 2021).

It is also the most popular technique. According to Eshtaiwi et al (2018), established it in order

to offer a straightforward and compliant method of analyzing complex situations. By segmenting

a complex problem into levels or a hierarchy, it evaluates possible pairs in order to assign weight

to each element and provide a consistency ratio. By using a tree structure, the AHP breaks down

difficult issues into simpler, more manageable sub problems that are simple to scrutinize. The

four primary phases of the procedure are as follows:

• Putting up a tree structure with a single objective, the criteria, and several possible answers.

• Assessing options in light of each criterion.

•Comparing options based on each criterion.

• Calculus of weight computation using subjective computation utilizing paired comparisons.

3.2 AHP Hypothesis

6
The general purpose is to select the most suitable nation for the work site by considering four

distinct objectives and selecting the best option from the three suggested countries. Here, we

clarified this hypothesis model.

Best country
Selection

Job satisfaction Quality of life Cost of living Cultural diversity

United States Germany Canada

3.3. APPLICATION OF ANALYTICAL HIERARCHY PROCESS

7
Step 1: The pairwise comparison matrix for each decision alternative on each
criterion.

Job satisfaction Quality of Life

Country A B C Country A B C

United 1 3 4 United 1 7 2
States States

Germany 1/3 1 1/6 Germany 1/7 1 1/9

Canada 1/4 6 1 Canada 1/2 9 1

Cultural diversity

Country A B C
Cost of living
United 1 9 2
Country A B C States

8
 United 1 1/3 1/5
States

Germany 3 1 1/2 Germany 1/9 1 1/4

Canada 5 2 1 Canada 1/2 4 1

Step2: Synthetization

Job Satisfaction
Quality of life
Country A B B
Country A B B

United 1 3 4
stated United 1 7 2
stated

German 1/ 1 1/
y 3 6 German 1/7 1 1/9
y
Canada 1/ 6 1
4 Canada 1/2 9 1

19 1 31 23 17 28
12 0 6 14 9

9
 Cultural diversity
Cost of living
Country A B B
Country A B B

United 1 9 2
United 1 1/ 1/ stated
stated 3 5

German 1/ 1 1/
German 3 1 1/ y 9 4
y 2
Canada 1/ 4 1
Canada 5 2 1 2

9 10 17 29 1 13
3 10 18 4 4

Step 3 : Divide each value in each column of the pairwise comparison matrices by the
corresponding column summation to create normalized matrices.

 Job satisfaction
A B C
United stated 0,6316 0,3 0,7742
Germany 0,2105 0,1 0,0322
Canada 0,1579 0,6 0,1935

 Quality of Life
A B C
United stated 0,6087 0,4118 0,6429

10
Germany 0,0869 0,0588 0,0357
Canada 0,3043 0,5294 0,3214

 Cost of living
A B C
United stated 0,1111 0,1 0,1176
Germany 0,3333 0,3 0,2941
Canada 0,5555 0,6 0,5882

 Cultural diversity
A B C
United stated 0,6207 0,6428 0,6153
Germany 0,0689 0,0714 0,0769
Canada 0,3104 0,2857 0,3076

Step 4 : Calculate the average values in each row of the normalized matrices this
will give us the preference vectors.

 Job satisfaction
A B C Row Average
United stated 0,6316 0,3 0,7742 0,5686
Germany 0,2105 0,1 0,0322 0,1143
Canada 0,1579 0,6 0,1935 0,3171

 Quality of living

11
 A B C Row Average
United stated 0,6087 0,4118 0,6429 0,5545
Germany 0,0869 0,0588 0,0357 0,0604
Canada 0,3043 0,5294 0,3214 0,3851

 Cost of living
A B C Row Average
United stated 0,1111 0,1 0,1176 0,1096
Germany 0,3333 0,3 0,2941 0,3092
Canada 0,5555 0,6 0,5882 0,5812

 Cultural diversity
A B C Row Average
United stated 0,6207 0,6428 0,6153 0,6263
Germany 0,0689 0,0714 0,0769 0,0724
Canada 0,3104 0,2857 0,3076 0,3013

 Summarized Single preference Matrix

Job satisfaction Quality of Cost of living Cultural

living diversity

United States 0,5686 0,5545 0,1096 0,6263

0,1143 0,0604 0,3092 0,0724

Germany
0,3171 0,3851 0,5812 0,3013
Canada

12
Step 5 : Ranking the criteria

Criteria Job satisfaction Quality of life Cost of living Cultural

diversity

Job satisfaction 1 3 7 9

Quality of 1/3 1 5 7
living

Cost of living 1/7 1/5 1 3

Cultural 1/9 1/7 1/3 1

diversity

 Preference vector with the row averages for normalized matrix.

Criteria Job Quality of Cost of Cultural Row

satisfactio living living diversity Average
n

Job 0,6301 0,6907 0,5250 0,450 0,5740

satisfactio
n

Quality of 0,2100 0,2302 0,3750 0,350 0,2913

living

Cost of 0,0900 0,0460 0,0750 0,150 0,0902

living

Cultural 0,0700 0,0328 0,0250 0,050 0,0445

diversity 1 0000

13
The criteria preference vector:

Job satisfaction 0.5740

Quality of living 0.2913

Cost of living 0.0902

Cultural diversity 0.0445

Step 6 : Compute the overall score for each decision alternative by multiplying the criteria
preference vector.

0, 5686 0,5545 0,1096 0,6263 0,5740

0, 1143 0,0604 0,3092 0,0724 0,2913
0, 3171 0,3851 0,5812 0,3013 0,0902
0,0445

Overall Score

Country A Score= 0,5740(0,5686)

+0,2913(0,5545)+0,0902(0,1096)+0,0445(0,6263)=0,5256

Country B Score =0,5740(0,1143)+0,2913(0,0604)+0,0902(0,3092)+0,0445(0,0724)=0,1143

Country C Score =0,5740(0,3171)+0,2913(0,3851)+0,0902(0,5812)+0,0445(0,3031)=0,3601

14
 Overall Ranking

Country scores
United States 0,5256

Canada 0,3601 1

0,1143
Germany

4. AHP Consistency Check

This will be shown by the result's consistency level. We need to have faith in the conclusions

drawn from the pairwise comparison and analytical hierarchy process to depend on those

findings when making a pick.

4.1 Method of consistency check

 Step 1: Consistency Index (CI): To check for consistency and validity of pairwise

comparisons of the 4 country selection criteria

1 3 7 9 0,5740
15
1/3 1 5 7 0,29013

1/7 1/5 1 3 0,09002

  1(0,5740)+3(0,2913)+7(0,0902)+9(0,0445)= 2,4798

 1/3(0,5740)+1(0,29013)+5 (0,0902)+7(0,0445)= 1,2451

 1/7(0,5740)+1/5(0,2913)+1(0,0902)+3(0,0445)= 0,3639

 1/9(0,5740)+1/7(0,2913)+1/3(0,0902)+1(0,0445)= 0,1799

 Step 2: Divide each value by the corresponding weight from the preference vector

and show their average.

 2,4798/0,5740=4,3202 Average = 16,6713/ 4

 1,2451/0,2913=4,2742 Average = 4,1678

 0,3639/0,0902=4,0343

 0,1799/0,0445=4,0426

16
  Step 3: calculate the consistency index (CI)

CI= (average-n)/n-1, where n is the number of items compared, this project n=5

CI = (4, 1678-4) / (4-1) = 0, 0559

CI = 0, 0559

If CI =0, 10 it shows the perfect consistency

 Step4: compute the ratio CI/RI to check the degree of consistency using the RI of 4
criteria

N 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0,58 0,90 1,12 1,24 1,32 1,41 1,45 1,51

CI/RI: 0, 0,559/0, 90= 0,0621

Degree of consistency CI/RI < 0.10, and 0,0621 is less than 0.10 which means my result is

consistent.

17
 5. AHP RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

This project examines the three nations using four criteria. By assigning weights to each criterion

and producing pairwise comparison matrices, the analytical hierarchy approach is utilized to

evaluate the importance. Following the review procedure, it was determined that the United

States had the highest priority, with a score of 0.5256. It was followed by Canada, which came in

second with 0,3601 points, and Germany, which came in last with 0, 1143 points. As it is shown

in the mathematical computation of the consistency results the degree of consistency of AHP

Results is 0, 0621 which fits in the required range of consistency level variation.

CONCLUSION

After comparing the priority scores of these three nations, it is easy to determine which one

offers more employment chances and a successful career path. As a result, the conclusion about

18
the greatest countries to work in right now is evident. The AHP Method, which was used to

analyse the data, validates the selection of the United States as the best destination for

employment.

19
 REFERENCE

Abdullah, L., Adawiyah, C., & Kamal, C. (2018). A decision making method based on
interval type-2 fuzzy sets: an approach for ambulance location preference.
Applied computing and informatics, 14(1), 65-72.

Badi, I., & Abdulshahed, A. (2019). Ranking the Libyan airlines by using full consistency
method (FUCOM) and analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Operational Research
in Engineering Sciences: Theory and Applications, 2(1), 1-14.

Badi, I., Pamucar, D., Gigović, L., & Tatomirović, S. (2021). Optimal site selection for
sitting a solar park using a novel GIS-SWA’TEL model: A case study in Libya.
International Journal of Green Energy, 18(4), 336-350.

Dey, P. K., & Ramcharan, E. K. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process helps select sites for
limestone quarry expansion in Barbados. Journal of Environmental Management,
88(4), 1384-1395.

Eshtaiwi, M., Badi, I., Abdulshahed, A., & Erkan, T. E. (2018). Determination of key
performance indicators for measuring airport success: A case study in Libya.
Journal of Air Transport Management, 68, 28-34.

Gunz, H., Peiperl, M. and Tzabbar, D. (2007), “Boundaries in the Study of Careers”, in H.
Gunz and M. Peiperl, (Eds), Handbook of Career Studies, Sage, Thousand Oaks,
pp. 471- 493.

Heizer, J., Render, B., Munson, C., Sachan, A.: Operations Management: Sustainability and
Supply Chain Management, 12th edn. (2017)

Kuo, R.J., Chi, S.C., Kao, S.S.: A decision support system for locating convenience store
through fuzzy AHP. Comput. Ind. Eng. 37(1–2), 323–326 (1999)

Lalic, B. (2009). Analytical Hierarchy Process as a tool for selecting and evaluating projects.

Ocak, S., & Top, M. (2019). Analytic hierarchy process for hospital site selection. Health
Policy and Technology,

20
Radović, D., Stević, Ž., Pamučar, D., Zavadskas, E., Badi, I., Antuchevičiene, J., & Turskis,
Z. (2018). Measuring performance in transportation companies in developing
countries: a novel rough ARAS model. Symmetry, 10(10), 434

Saaty, T.: The Analytical Hierarchical Process. New York (1980)

Zimmermann, H.J.: Fuzzy Set Theory and Its Applications, 2nd edn. Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Boston (1991)

21