AHP

Step 1: Defining a research problem and goals. Building a hierarchy

structure of the AHP model.
Buying a Mobile

Cost Storage Space Camera Quality Looks

Mobile 1 Mobile 2 Mobile 3

Step 2: Pair-wise comparison matrix (criteria)
C1 C2 ... Cn
C1  x11 x12  x1n 
  1
A  C2  x21 x22  x2 n  , where xij 
x ji
     
 
Cn  xn1 xn2  xnn 

Table 1: Saaty’s comparison scale.

Verbal judgments of preferences Numerical rating
Equally preferred 1
Equally to moderately 2
Moderately preferred 3
Moderately to strongly 4
Strongly preferred 5
Strongly to very strongly 6
Very strongly preferred 7
Very strongly to extremely 8
Extremely preferred 9
Values for inverse comparison 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8, 1/9
 Pair-wise comparison matrix (criteria)

Cost (C1) Storage Camera Looks

Space (C2) Quality (C3) (C4)

Cost (C1) 1 5x/x = 5 4 7

Storage x/5x = 1/5 1 1/2 = 0.5 3

Space (C2) = 0.2

Camera 1/4 = 0.25 2 1 3

Quality (C3)

Looks (C4) 1/7 = 0.14 1/3 = 0.33 1/3 = 0.33 1

Step 3: Colum sum
C1 C2 ... Cn
C1  x11 x12  x1n 
 
A  C2  x21 x22  x2 n 
      
 
Cn  xn1 xn 2  xnn 
n n n

x x
i 1
i1
i 1
i2  x i 1
in

Cost Storage Camera Looks

Space Quality
Cost 1 5 4 7
Storage 0.2 1 0.5 3
Space
Camera 0.25 2 1 3
Quality
Looks 0.14 0.33 0.33 1
Sum 1.59 8.33 5.83 14
 C1 C2 ... Cn
 x11 x12 x1n 
C1  n n  n 
  xi1 x i2  xin  C1 C2 ... Cn
 i 1 i 1 i 1 
 x21 x22 x2 n  C1  y11 y12  y1n 
 n n  n C   x
A  C2  y21 y22  y2 n  ,Where ykj  kj n
  xi1 x i2  xin 
2

   xij
 i 1 i 1 i 1     
      C   i 1

  n  yn1 yn 2  ynn 
  xn1 n xn 2

xnn 
 n n

Cn 


i 1
xi1 x
i 1
i2  i 1
xin 


Cost Storage Camera Looks

Space Quality
Cost 1/1.59 5/8.33 4/5.83 7/5.83
Storage 0.2/1.59 1/8.33 0.5/5.83 3/5.83
Space
Camera 0.25/1.59 2/8.33 1/5.83 3/5.83
Quality
Looks 0.14/1.59 0.33/8.33 0.33/5.83 1/5.83
Sum 1.59 8.33 5.83 14
 C1 C 2 ... C n

C1  y11 y12  y1n  n

   y1i
  i1
  n
  n
A  C 2  y 21

y 22  y2n 
 y 2i
 i1
  n
      
   n
 
Cn  y
 n1 yn2  y n n   i1
y ni
n

Cost Storage Camera Looks Criteria Priority

Space Quality Value (PV)
Cost 0.6289 0.6002 0.6861 0.5 0.6038
Storage
Space 0.1258 0.12 0.0858 0.2143 0.1365
Camera
Quality 0.1572 0.2401 0.1715 0.2143 0.1958
Looks 0.0881 0.0396 0.0566 0.0714 0.0639
 Step 3: Consistency Ratio (CR)
 m ax  4.088
 m ax  n
consistency index  CI  
n 1
4.088  4

4 1
 0.0293
CI
consistency ra tio  C R  
R andom Ind e x  R I 
0.0293

0.90
 0.0325 < 0.1
Table 2: Random index (RI)
Matrix order (n) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
Step 4: For Alternative Level
Cost Mobile 1 (A1) Mobile 2 (A2) Mobile 3 (A3) PV of
Indicators
Mobile 1 (A1) 1 4 1/4 0.229
Mobile 2 (A2) 1/4 1 1/7 0.075
Mobile 3 (A3) 4 7 1 0.696
CR=0.080<0.1

Storage Mobile 1 Mobile 2 Mobile 3 PV of

Space Indicators
Mobile 1 1 1 4 0.458
Mobile 2 1 1 3 0.416
Mobile 3 1/4 1/3 1 0.126
CR=0.010<0.1
 Camera Mobile 1 Mobile 2 Mobile 3 PV of
Quality Indicators
Mobile 1 1 3 1/2 0.309
Mobile 2 1/3 1 1/5 0.109
Mobile 3 2 5 1 0.582
CR=0.004<0.1

Looks Mobile 1 Mobile 2 Mobile 3 PV of

Indicators
Mobile 1 1 5 4 0.333
Mobile 2 1/5 1 2 0.570
Mobile 3 1/4 1/2 1 0.097
CR=0.098<0.1
 Step 5: Final Aggregration

 0.6038 
 0.229 0.458 0.309 0.333   
  0.1365  
0.283  M obile 1
 
 0.075 0.416 0.109 0.570       0.160  M obile 2
   0.1958  
 0.696 0.126 0.582 0.097   0.558  M obile 3
   0.0639 
 

Indicators Rank
Mobile 1 2
Mobile 2 1
Mobile 3 3