Procedure AHP

AHP is one method to help prepare a priority of the various options using several criteria (multi-criteria). Because of its multi-criteria, AHP enough widely used in the preparation of priority. For example, for set priorities for research, management research institute often using several criteria such as the impact of research, costs, human resource capacity, and also possible execution time.

In addition to the multi-criteria, AHP is also based on a structured and logical process. Selection or preparation of priority done with a logical and structured procedure. Activity was conducted by experts associated with the representative alternatives will be drawn up priorities (Bougeois, 2005).

Broadly speaking, there are three stages in the preparation AHP priorities, namely:

1. Decomposition of the problem

In setting priorities, then the problem of prioritization should be able to be decomposed into the goal (goal) of an activity, identification of options, and the formulation of criteria to choose a priority (Figure 1). The first step is formulate the goal of drafting a priority. in OPEC strategy formulation case, the goal of OPEC is to improve the welfare of members of OPEC and increase OPEC's social and political role in the international forum. For the case of election supplier, the purpose of the activities is to choose the best supplier.

In the case of the selection of research proposals, the purpose of the activities may look for topic / best research proposal. Once the destination can be determined, the next step is determining the criteria of that goal. For the case of OPEC, criteria objectives are (i) the stabilization of revenues; (ii) conservation of oil deposits; and (iii) an increase in OPEC's political role in the international forum. For selection of suppliers, the indicators used include (i) logistics capabilities; (ii) production capability; and (iii) the ability commercial / finance.

Based on the objectives and criteria, several options need to be identified. Such options should be the choices potential, so the number is not too much choice. For case OPEC, the choice of strategy is (i) the stability of production and price; (ii) production and export quotas; (iii) fluctuations (shock) production;and (iv) maintain the current policy is applied. For supplier selection case, the options available are 3suppliers namely (i) Kirsehir; (ii) Bastas; and (iii) AKYUS. For preparation of research priorities, the possible choices is the title / topic research proposed by researchers.

2. Assessment for comparing elements results decomposition

Once the problem is decomposed, then there are two stages of assessment or comparing between elements of comparison between criteria and the comparison between options for each criterion. Comparison among the criteria intended to determine weights for each criteria. On the other hand, the comparison between options for each criterion. In other words, this judgment is intended to see how important a choice seen from certain criteria.

In conducting the assessment / comparison, experts who developed AHP uses a scale of 1/9 to 9. If option A and B being equal (indifferent), then A and B were each given If for example the value 1. A better / more preferably from B, then A given grades 3 and B rated 1/3. If A is much preferred to B, then A eg rated 7 and B rated 1/7. This assessment will not be used in this article because of the lack of a logical manner.As an example, if A and B are worth 7 1/7, then the difference between A and B is almost close to 700%.

An alternate assessment that is used by Bourgeois (2005) who wore a scale between 0.1 to 1.9 is considered more logical as presented in Table 1. If A slightly better / preferred from B, then A and B rated 1.3 rated 0.7, indicating a distance of about 30% of the value of 1. If A is much preferred by B, then the value of A becomes B 1.6 to 0.4. The way such assessments will be used in this paper.

Assessment	Value A	Value B
A very much preferred than B	1.9	0.1
A far more preferable than B	1.6	0.4
A slightly more preferred than B	1.3	0.7
A equals B	1.0	1.0
A slightly less preferred than B	0.7	1.3
A far less favored than B	0.4	1.6
A very much less favored than B	0.1	1.9

Scale Ratings

By using assessments such as Table 1, then comparison between the criteria would result in Table 2 below. For facilitate, in the table assumed there were only four criteria. From The table can be summarized as follows:

• Cij is the result of assessment / comparison between criteria i to j
• Ci. is owned criteria sale value to i
• C is the sum of all values Ci.
• Weight  criteria to Iobtained by dividing the value of Ci. with C.

Criteria	CR1	CR2	CR3	CR4	Total	Weight
CR1	-	c12	c13	c14	c1.	bc1= c1./c
CR2	c21	-	c23	c24	c2.	bc2=c2./c
CR3	c31	c32	-	c34	c3.	bc3=c3./c
CR4	c41	c42	c43	-	c4.	bc4=c4./c
Total					C

Comparison between Criteria

 

Using the same procedure, it is performed comparison between options (OP) for each criterion. table 3 The following illustrates the comparison between options (4 choices) to criterion 1 (C1) with the following explanation:

• Oij an assessment / comparison between the choice i with k for criteria to j
• Oi. is the sum value of the owned options to i
• O is the sum of all values oi.
• BOij an option value to i for criteria to j

The choice between the assessment process continues for all criteria. For the record, the assessment should be done by experts and major stakeholders. Typically, the number of experts vary depending the availability of resources. Assessment can be done with distributing questionnaires to each expert or by conduct a meeting of experts to conduct an assessment The. For this case study, the assessment carried out by gather experts.



C1	OP1	OP2	OP3	OP4	Total	Weight
OP1	-	o12	o13	o14	o1.	bo11=o1./o
OP2	o21	-	o23	o24	o2.	bo21=o2./o
OP3	o31	o32	-	o34	o3.	bo31=o3./o
OP4	o41	o42	o43	-	o4.	bo41=o4./o
Total					O

Comparisons between options for Criterion C1

 

3. Synthesis of priorities
Synthesis of the assessment results is the final stage of AHP. on Essentially, this synthesis is the sum of the weights obtained by each option on each criterion after a given weight of these criteria. In general, the value of an option is as follows :
 

ibop	=	ijboΣ	jbc*	............................................. (1)
		i=1
bopi = value / weights for selection to i

The formula can also be presented in tabular form. For simplicity, it is assumed there are four criteria with four options as Table 4 below. As an example of the value of the priority / weight of option 1 (OP1) obtained by multiplying the weight value on the criteria the value associated with the criteria for option 1 as following:

bopi = bo11* bc1+ bo12* bc2 + bo13* bc3+ bo14* bc4 ................. (2)

 It is synonymous done to option 2, 3 and 4. With  comparing the values obtained by each option, the priority  can be prepared based on the magnitude of that value. The higher the value  an option, the higher the priority, and vice versa.

 

	CR1	CR2	CR3	CR4	Prioritas
	bc1	bc2	bc3	bc4	bopi
OP1	bo11	bo12	bo13	bo14	bop1
OP2	bo21	bo22	bo23	bo23	bop2
OP3	bo31	bo32	bo33	bo34	bop3
OP4	bo41	bo42	bo43	bo44	bop4

Synthesis Assessment

Related Posts:

Tweet