|
|
| (148 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | | + | delete please |
| − | The MCDM-APH (Multi-Criteria Decision Making - Analytic Hierarchy Process) is a tool that makes complex decisions. MCDM is a systematic approach that evaluate conflicting criterias in decision making, one of these approaches is APH which uses a mathematic method to derive a relative importance of criteria in a decision problem.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | The method was developed in the 1970s by Thomas Saaty <ref name="Saaty">Saaty, T. L. How to make a decision: The analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26, 1990. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/037722179090057I </ref>, AHP is a mathematical method that is used to derive the relative importance of criteria in a decision problem. The idea behind the method is that a decision problem can be represented as a hierarchical structure, with the most important criteria at the top followed by the lesser important criteria at the bottom.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Decision-making is at the core of project management and yet it can be a daunting task, especially when the projects are complex and multi-facted projects. The pressure of making decisions in a timely and informed manner can be compounded when the criteria for success is not defined clearly, At time like this it not unusual that project managers may feel overwhelmed and unable to determine the most important factors to consider. This is where the APH-decision-making method provides a systematic approach to this challenge. This approach is addressing the complexity of decision making by Segmenting the process into manageable chunks. By following these steps the project manager can get a obtain a holistic view of the project's key performance indicators and success factors.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == The analytic hierarchy process ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | {| class="wikitable" style="vertical-align:middle;"
| + | |
| − | |- style="font-weight:bold; text-align:center;"
| + | |
| − | ! colspan="3" | Fundamental scale
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | Intensity of importance
| + | |
| − | | Definition
| + | |
| − | | Explanation
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 1
| + | |
| − | | Equal importance
| + | |
| − | | Two activities contribute equally to the objective
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 2
| + | |
| − | | Weak or slightly
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 3
| + | |
| − | | Moderate importance
| + | |
| − | | Experience and judgment slightly favor one activity over another
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 4
| + | |
| − | | Moderate plus
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 5
| + | |
| − | | Strong importance
| + | |
| − | | Experience and judgment strongly favor one activity over another
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 6
| + | |
| − | | Strong plus
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 7
| + | |
| − | | Very strong
| + | |
| − | | An activity is favored very strongly over another, its dominance demonstrated in practice
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 8
| + | |
| − | | Very, very strong
| + | |
| − | |
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | 9
| + | |
| − | | Extreme importance
| + | |
| − | | The evidence favoring one activity over another is of the highest possible order of affirmation
| + | |
| − | |-
| + | |
| − | | colspan="3" | '''Table 1:''' ''Fundamental scale. This scale rank the criteria’s level of importance compared to the other criteria on a scale from 1-9. Where 1 is equally importance and 9 is that the criteria considered extremely important''
| + | |
| − | |}
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | <ref name="The AHP process">Saaty, Int. J. Services Sciences, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2008 https://www.rafikulislam.com/uploads/resourses/197245512559a37aadea6d.pdf </ref>
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==3.3.==
| + | |
| − | == 3 ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == References ==
| + | |
| − | <references/>
| + | |
