The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) remains a popular multi-criteria decision method. The author has implemented a free, web-based AHP online system with noteworthy features, allowing for the detailed analysis of decision problems. Besides standard functions, like flexible decision hierarchies, support to improve inconsistent judgments, and alternative evaluation and sensitivity analysis, the software can handle group input, calculate group consensus based on Shannon ? and ?-entropy and estimate weight uncertainties based on randomized small variations of input judgments. In addition, different AHP judgment scales can be applied a posteriori and alternative evaluation can be done using the weighted sum (WSM) or weighted product model (WPM). This flexibility opens up opportunities to study decision projects under various parameters. The author’s intention was to provide a complete and free software tool for educational and research purposes where calculations and algorithms are well documented and all input data and results can be exported in an open format for further processing or presentation. The article describes the basic concept and structure of the software and the underlying mathematical algorithms and methods. Challenges and practical experiences during the implementation, validation and productive phase of the software are highlighted.
How to Cite
multi-criteria decision making, Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP software, AHP online, AHP group decision making
Bridgman, P.W. (1922). Dimensional Analysis. (Revised edition). New Haven, CT, U.S.A.: Yale University Press.
Goepel, K. D. (2013). Implementing the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a standard method for Multi-Criteria Decision Making in corporate enterprises – A new AHP Excel template with multiple inputs. Proceedings of the International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process for Multicriteria Decision Making, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Goepel, K. D. (2019). Comparison of judgment scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process - A new approach. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making Vol.17(2019). DOI: 10.1142/S0219622019500044
Grošelj, P. Stirn, L. Z., Ayrilmis, N., Kuzman, M. K. (2015). Comparison of some aggregation techniques using group Analytic Hierarchy Process. Expert Systems with Applications, 42, 2198–2204. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2014.09.060
Harker, P., Vargas, L. (1987). The theory of ratio scale estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process. Management Science, 33(11), 1383–1403. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.33.11.1383
Ishizaka,A., Labib, A. (2009). Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice: Benefits and limitations. OR Insight, 22(4), 201–220. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1057/ori.2009.10
Ishizaka, A., Balkenborg, D., Kaplan, T. (2010). Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP. Journal of the Operational Research Society 62, 700–710. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1527520
Larsen, R. (2013). Elementary linear algebra. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Lootsma, F. (2008). Conflict resolution via pairwise comparison of concessions. European Journal of Operational Research, 40,109–116. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(89)90278-6
Ma, D., & Zheng, X. (1991). 9/9–9/1 scale method of AHP. 2nd International Symposium on AHP, 1, 197–202.
Miller, D.W., Starr, M.K. (1960). Executive decisions and operations research. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, U.S.A.: Prentice-Hall Inc.
Ossadnik, W., Kaspar, R. (2013). Evaluation of AHP software from a management accounting perspective. Journal of Modelling in Management, 8(3), 305-319. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/JM2-01-2011-0007
Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(82)90022-4
Saaty, T.L. (2003). Decision-making with the AHP: Why is the principal eigenvector necessary. European Journal of Operational Research, 145, 85–91. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00227-8
Salo, A., Hämäläinen, R. (1997). On the measurement of preferences in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 309–319. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199711)6:6%3C309::AID-MCDA163%3E3.0.CO;2-2
Siraj, S., Mikhailov, L., Keane, J. A., (2015). An interactive decision support tool to estimate priorities from pairwise comparison judgments (PriEsT). International Transactions in Operational Research, 22(2), 217–235. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12054
Triantaphyllou, E., Sánchez, A. (1997). Sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods. Decision Sciences, 28(1), 151-194. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01306.x
Wen-Hsiang Wu, Chang-tzu Chiang, Chin-tsai Lin (2008). Comparing the aggregation methods in the Analytic Hierarchy Process when uniform distribution. WSEAS Transactions On Business And Economics, 5(3), 82 – 87.
Copyright of all articles published in IJAHP is transferred to Creative Decisions Foundation (CDF). However, the author(s) reserve the following:
- All proprietary rights other than copyright, such as patent rights.
- The right to grant or refuse permission to third parties to republish all or part of the article or translations thereof. In case of whole articles, such third parties must obtain permission from CDF as well. However, CDF may grant rights with respect to journal issues as a whole.
- The right to use all or parts of this article in future works of their own, such as lectures, press releases, reviews, textbooks, or reprint books.
- The authors affirm that the article has been neither copyrighted nor published, that it is not being submitted for publication elsewhere, and that if the work is officially sponsored, it has been released for open publication.
The only exception to the statements in the paragraph above is the following: If an article published in IJAHP contains copyrighted material, such as a teaching case, as an appendix, then the copyright (and all commercial rights) of such material remains with the original copyright holder.
CDF will receive permission for publication of copyrighted material in IJAHP. This permission is not transferable to third parties. Permission to make electronic and paper copies of part or all of the articles, including all computer files that are linked to the articles, for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage.
This permission does not apply to previously copyrighted material, such as teaching cases. In paper copies of the article, the copyright notice and the title of the publication and its date should be visible. To copy otherwise is permitted provided that a per-copy fee is paid.
To republish, to post on servers, or redistribute to lists requires that you post a link to the IJAHP article, which is available in open access delivery mode. Do not upload the article itself.
Authors are permitted to present a talk, based on a paper submitted to or accepted by IJAHP, at a conference where the paper would not be published in a copyrighted publication either before or after the conference and where the author did not assign copyright to the conference or related publisher.