Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Infrastructure Transportation
location A B C location A B C
A 1 1/3 1 A 1 1/3 1/2
B 3 1 7 B 3 1 4
C 1 1/7 1 C 2 1/4 1
Developing Preferences within Criteria
• Prioritize the decision Market
alternatives within each location A B C
criterion A 1 3 2
Transportatio
infrastructure
importance or weight of
Income
Market
n
the criteria Criteria
– which one is the most
important and which one is
the least important one Market 1 1/5 3 4
• Accomplished the same
Income 5 1 9 7
way we ranked the
locations within each infrastructure 1/3 1/9 1 2
criterion, using pairwise
Transportation 1/4 1/7 1/2 1
comparison
Normalizing
Transportation
Infrastructure
Average
Income
Market
Criteria
Income Level
Infrastructure
Transportatio
Location
Market
Average
n
Criteria
Transportatio
infrastructure
comparisons for the 4 criteria
Income
Market
n
Criteria
• Multiply the Pairwise Preference
Comparison Matrix by the Vector
0.58
0.90
1.12
1.24
1.32
1.41
1.45
1.51
• Determined by comparing CI
to a Random Index (RI)
• RI values depend on n
• Degree of consistency =CI/RI
• IF CI/RI <0.1, the degree of
consistency is acceptable
• Otherwise AHP is not
meaningful
• CI/RI=0.0521/0.90=0.0580<0.1
Scoring Model
• Similar to AHP, but mathematically simpler
• Decision criteria are weighted in terms of their
relative importance
• Each decision alternative is graded in terms of
how well it satisfies the criteria using S i=Σgijwj,
where
– Wj=a weight between 0 and 1.00 assigned to criterion
j indicating its relative importance
– gij=a grade between 0 and 100 indicating how well the
decision alternative i satisfies criterion j
– Si=the total score for decision alternative i
Example
Decision Alternatives
Decision Criteria Weight Alt.1 Alt.2 Alt.3 Alt.4
Criterion 1 0.30 40 60 90 60
Criterion 2 0.25 75 80 65 90
Criterion 3 0.25 60 90 79 85
Criterion 4 0.10 90 100 80 90
Criterion 5 0.10 80 30 50 70
C 1 2 1
I-Price
Criteria Price Gear Weight
Bike A B C
Price 1 3 5
A 1 3 6
B 1/3 1 2 Gear 1/3 1 2
C 1/6 2 1 Weight 1/5 1/2 1