## Weight Uncertainties in AHP-OS

It is now possible, to analyse the weight uncertainties in your AHP-OS projects. When you view the results (View Result from the Project Administration Menu), you see the drop-down list for different AHP scales and a tick box var is shown.

Tick var and click on Scale. All priority vectors of your project will display the weight uncertainties with (+) and (-).

For example, “Capital” has a priority of 15.0% with an uncertainty 0f +1.7% and -2.1%.

The diagram for the total result will show in green the calculated priorities, in dark and light grey the possible plus and minus variations.

Calculation is based on a randomised variation of all judgment inputs by +/- 0.5 on the 1 – 9 judgment scale. For more than 1 participant the variation is reduced by the square root of the number  of participants.

## Why the AHP Balanced Scale is not balanced

As part of my current work about AHP scales, here an important finding for the balanced scale:

Salo and Hamalainen [1] pointed out that the integers from 1 to 9 yield local weights, which are not equally dispersed. Based on this observation, they proposed a balanced scale, where local weights are evenly dispersed over the weight range [0.1, 0.9]. They state that for a given set of priority vectors the corresponding ratios can be computed from the inverse relationship

r = w / (1 – w)      (1a)

The priorities 0.1, 0.15, 0.2, … 0.8, 0.9 lead, for example, to the scale 1, 1.22, 1.5, 1.86, 2.33, 3.00, 4.00, 5.67 and 9.00. This scale can be computed by

wbal = 0.45 + 0.05 x     (1b)

with x = 1 … 9 and

(1c)

c ( resp. 1/c) are the entry values in the decision matrix, and x the pairwise comparison judgment on the scale 1 to 9.

In fact, eq. 1a or its inverse are the special case for one selected pairwise comparison of two criteria. If we take into account the complete n x n decision matrix for n criteria, the resulting weights for one criterion, judged as x-times more important than all others, can be calculated as:

(2)

Eq. 2 simplifies to eq. 1a for n=2.

With eq. 2 we can formulate the general case for the balanced scale, resulting in evenly dispersed weights for n criteria and a judgment x with x from 1 to M:

(3)

with

(3a)

(3b)

(3c)

We get the general balanced scale (balanced-n) as

(4)

With n=2 and M=9 it represents the classical balanced scale as given in eq. 1b and 1c. Fig. 1 shows the weights as a function of judgements derived from a case with 7 criteria using the fundamental AHP, balanced and general balanced (bal-n) scale. It can be seen that, for example, a single judgement “5 – strong more important” yields to a weight of 45% on the AHP scale, 28% on the balanced scale and 37% on the balanced-n scale.

`Figure 1. Weights as function of judgment for the AHP scale, the balanced scale and the corrected balanced scale for 7 decision criteria.`

A “strong” criterion is underweighted using the classical balanced scale, and overweighted using the standard AHP scale, compared to the general balanced-n scale. Weights of the balanced-n scale are distributed evenly over the judgment range, and only for n = 2 the original proposed balanced scale yields evenly distributed weights.

You can download my complete working paper “Comparison of Judgment Scales of the Analytical Hierarchy Process – A New Approach” submitted for publication from researchgate.net or  here

#### References

[4] Salo, A.,Hämäläinen, R., On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of multi-critria decision analysis,Vol. 6, 309 – 319, (1997).

## AHP Judgment Scales

The original AHP uses ratio scales. To derive priorities, verbal statements (comparisons) are converted into integers from 1 to 9. This “fundamental AHP scale” has been discussed, as there is no thoretical reason to be restricted to these numbers and verbal gradations. In the past several other numerical scales have been proposed [1],[3]. AHP-OS now supports nine different scales:

1. Standard AHP linear scale
2. Logarithmic scale
3. Root square scale
4. Inverse linear scale
5. Balanced scale
6. Balanced-n scale
8. Power scale
9. Geometric scale

Fig. 1 Mapping of the 1 to 9 input values to the elements of the decision matrix.

Power scale and geometric scale extend the values of matrix elements from 9 to 81 resp. 256. Root square and logarithmic scale reduce the values from 9 down to 3 resp 3.2. Inverse linear and balanced scale keep the values in the original range, but change the weight dispersion. The balanced-n scale is a corrected version of the original balanced scale. The adaptive-bal scale scales the values depending on the number of criteria: for n = 2 criteria it represents the balanced scale, for n = 10 criteria it represents a balanced power scale.

As a result, priority discrimination will be improved using the geometric or power scale, but at the same time the consistency ratio will go up. For the  logarithmic, root square, and inverse linear scales it is the opposite, priorities are more compressed or “equalised” across the criteria, see Fig. 2. At the same time CR improves.

Only the balanced-n scale and adaptive-bal scale will improve (or at least keep) the consistency ratio in a reasonable range and at the same time minimise weight uncertainties and weight dispersion.

Fig. 2 Change of priorities for different scales for an example with eight criteria.

The choice of the appropriate scale is difficult and an often discussed problem. Until today there is no published guideline, when to select which scale. A study on the impact on priorities and consistency ratio (CR) is published in [2]. I have just recently submitted a paper, providing a guideline on the selection of different AHP scales.

#### How to select different scales in AHP-OS

Open a project with completed judments (participants) from your project list. In the Project menu click on View Result. By default the results are then shown calculated based on the standard AHP 1 to 9 scale. To recalculate for different scales, select the scale in the Group Result menu from the scroll down list and click on Scale.

#### References

`[1] Ishizaka A., Labib A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications, 38(11), 14336 - 14345, (2011)`

`[2] Jiří Franeka, Aleš Krestaa. Judgment scales and consistency measure in AHP, Procedia Economics and Finance, 12, 164 - 173 (2014)`

`[3] W.W. Kozckodaj. Pairwise Comparison Rating Scale Paradoxon, Cornell University Library, (2015) https://arXiv.org/abs/1511.07540`

#### Incoming search terms:

• x rite singapore loc:SG

Most data generated with AHP-OS can be downloaded as csv files for import into a spreadsheet program and further analysis:

• From the Hierarchy Input Menu – decision hierarchy and local & global priorities
• From the Group Result Menu – Priorities by node and consolidated decision matrix
• From the Project Data Menu – Decision matrices from each participant

For each download you can select “.” or “,” as decimal separator. The downloaded csv (text) file is coded in UTF-8 and supports multi-language characters like Chinese, Korean, Japanese and of course a variety of Western languages.

### How to import into excel?

Open Excel, click on “File” -> “New” to have a blank worksheet. Click on “Data“. On the left top you will find the “Get External Data” box.

Click on From Text to select the downloaded cvs file for import. The Text Import Wizzard will open.

Now it is important to select 65001 : Unicode (UTF-8) under File origin.

Then, depending on your decimal separator, select Comma or Semicolon as Delimiters:

When the import is done, your text characters should be displayed correctly.  Save the file “Save as” as Excel workbook (*.xlsx).

## AHP-OS – Editing saved projects

In the project menu of the latest AHP-OS version (2017-05-25), I added a button to edit saved projects. As long as there are no participants’ inputs (completed pairwise comparisons), any saved project’s hierarchy, alternatives or description can be modified.

Open a project from your project list, and click on Edit Project. The project hierarchy page will open with a message on top , indicating that you are modifying an existong project. You can now change the hierarchy, for example add criteria or alternatives. A click on Save/Update in the Hierarchy Input Menu

will overwrite the data of the original project under the same session code. You will see it in a message . Before you click on Go to save,  you  can also update the project short description:

#### Difference between Use Hierarchy and Edit Project

With Use Hierarchy in the project administration menu, the hierarchy window will open, and you can also modify the hierarchy or alternatives. But in contrast to Edit the modified project will be saved as a new project under a new project session code.

## AHP-OS New Release with simplified project administration

Based on feedback from users, I just released a major update of BPMSG’s AHP online software AHP-OS with simplified menu structure and additional functionality.  Starting the program as registered and logged-in user, the project session  table is displayed, showing your projects.

You can open one of your projects, either using a click on the session code in the project table, or selecting the session code from the session administration menu:

This will bring you to the project summary page, showing

• Project data
• Alternatives (if any)
• Participants (if any)
• Project Hierarchy and hiearchy definiton (text)

From here you can:

• View Result: View the project group result (if there are already participants)
• Group Input: Start pairwise comparisons
• Use/Modify Hierarchy: use and modify the project’s hierarchy for a new project
• Delete selected Participants (a request from many users)
• Delete the whole project
• Close the project to go back to the project session table

Due to this new Project Administration menu some of the other menus are simplified. Let me know your experience with the new structure or if you find any bugs. The manual will be updated within the next days.

#### Deleting participants

On the project summary page select the participants, you want to delete, and click on refresh.

You will then see a message Selected participant(s): Werner. Click on the button to delete the selected user(s). Careful: once deleted, they cannot be recovered and their pairwise comparison data will be lost.

#### Incoming search terms:

• paperuri:(2f2ca361a5da31c6a7d3bc7b374f9304)

## AHP Group Consensus Indicator – how to understand and interpret?

BPMSG’s AHP excel template and AHP online software AHP-OS can be used for group decision making by asking several participants to give their inputs to a project in form of pairwise comparisons. Aggregation of individual judgments (AIJ) is done by calculating the geometric mean of the elements of all decision matrices using this consolidated decision matrix to derive the group priorities.

#### AHP consensus indicator

In [1] I proposed an AHP group consensus indicator to quantify the consensus of the group, i.e. to have an estimate of the agreement on the outcoming priorities between participants. This indicator ranges from 0% to 100%. Zero percent corresponds to no consensus at all, 100% to full consensus. This indicator is derived from the concept of diversity based on Shannon alpha and beta entropy, as described in [2].  It is a measure of homogeneity of priorities between the participants and can also be interpreted as a measure of overlap between priorities of the group members.

#### How to interpret?

If we would categorise group consensus in the three categories low, moderate and high, I would assign the following percentages to these categories:

• low consensus: below 65%
• moderate consensus: 65% to 75%
• high consensus: above 75%

Values below 50% indicate that there is practically no consensus  within the group and a high diversity of judgments. Values in the 80% – 90% range indicate a high overlap of priorites and excellent agreement of judgments from the group members.

#### AHP Consensus indicator and AHP Consistency Ratio CR

AHP allows for (logical) inconsistencies in judgments; the AHP consistency ratio CR is an indicator for this, and – as a rule of thumb – CR  should not exceed 10% significantly. Please read my posts here and here.

It can be shown that,  given a sufficiently large group size, consistency of the aggregate comparison matrix is guaranteed, regardless of the consistency measures of the individual comparison matrices, if the geometric mean (AIJ) is used to aggregate [3] . In other words, if the group of participants is large enough, the consistency ratio of the consolidated group matrix CR will decrease below 10% and is no longer an issue.

Consensus has to be strictly distinguished from consistency. The consensus is derived from the outcoming priorities and has nothing to do with the consistency ratio. Whether you have a small or a large group, in both cases consensus could be high or low, reflecting the “agreement” between group members. Even if you ask a million people, there could be no agreement (consensus) on a certain topic: half of them have the exact opposite judgment as the other half. As a result, the consensus indicator would be zero: there is no overlap, the total group is divided into two sub-groups having opposite opinions.

#### Analyzing group consensus – groups and sub-groups

The beauty of the proposed AHP consensus indicator based on Shannon entropy is the possibility to analyse further, and to find out, whether there are  sub-groups (cluster) of participants with high consensus among themself, but with low consensus to other sub-groups. This can be done using the concept of alpha and beta diversity [2]. I have published an excel template to to analyze similarities between the samples based on partitioning diversity in alpha and beta diversity. It can be also be used for your AHP results to analyse group consensus.

#### References

`[1] Klaus D. Goepel, (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, Kuala Lumpur 2013`

```[2] Lou Jost, (2006). Entropy and Diversity, OIKOS Vol. 113, Issue 2, pg. 363-375, May 2006 ```

`[3] Aull-Hyde, Erdoğan, Duke (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research 171(1):290-295 · February 2006`

## Welcome to BPMSG – Feb 2017

### Concepts, Methods and Tools to manage Business Performance

Dear friends, dear visitors,

Using Google search for my own website, I could see a message like Your website is not mobile friendy. It was really time to update my website theme in order to make it better readable for visitors using their smart phone or tablet.

Now you see the new design using the standard wordpress theme from 2015. I simplified the menu structure to the categories:

• AHP Articles – Material and Information about the Analytic Hierarchy Process
• Tools – Links to my online tools, like the AHP online system and excel templates
• Other – Posts related to other topics
• Feedback – A place where you can leave your feedback as comments
• Contact – A web form to contact me personally via e-mail

I hope with these changes navigation on the site is much easier, and you can find required information in shorter time.

Again, a big Thank You to all donors! Please note that the website is a non-commercial website for educational purposes. Your donation is used to cover running costs like web hosting, antispam services etc. PLEASE, help to support this website with a small donation. I spend a lot of time, sharing my knowledge for free. Thank you in advance!

Klaus D. Goepel,

Singapore, Februar 2017

BPMSG stands for Business Performance Management Singapore. As of now, it is a non-commercial website, and information is shared for educational purposes. Please see licensing conditions and terms of use.

Please give credit or a link to my site, if you use parts in your work, or make a small donation to support my effort to maintain this website.

• AHP 20 ESSA

## AHP-OS and Farsi

Thanks to the feedback of a user from Iran, I found out that AHP-OS is working with RTL fonts like Farsi. It is important to add the semicolon to the right end of a node definition, and use latin punctuation marks, for example:

کاربری: مسکونی , تجاری , اداری ;

A simple decision hierarchy example looks like here:

Unfortunately, I am not able to check for a hierarchy with more than one level. If anyone could provide a 2 level hierarchy, I would appreciate. Arabic fonts should work too; kindly contact me, if you have an example.

## Group Decision Making with AHP-OS

My AHP free online software AHP-OS has a feature to involve a group of decision makers to give their inputs to a decision problem. In contrast to my AHP Excel template, in AHP-OS the number of participants is practically unlimited. As of now, I see users having up to 100 participants in one project.

### How to use AHP-OS for Group Decision Making?

As registered user you need to start with a new project by defining your decision hierarchy. In the Project Administration Menu click on New, define your hierarchy, Submit and Save as project. You have the possibility to give a short project description, explaining the project, before it is saved.

Once saved, you will be automatically brought back to your project page, and the project will be shown on top of your project list.

The session code is a unique code identifying the project. When you click on the session code link, the Group Session Input screen will open, and you see a message like “Hierarchy evaluation. Session code EvUhUn Session Chair: Klaus. Project has 0 participants’ inputs. You are participating as Klaus.” Now you can either participate yourself as a decision maker in the project, or get a link to provide to your participants for their inputs.

### Participating by yourself as a member of the group

Simply click on the AHP button to start the pairwise comparisons, and – once completed – click on Submit for group eval to submit your inputs.

### Provide a link to let others participate as members of the group

In the group input menu click on Leave group input mode and confirm ok to leave the input mode without submitting your pairwise comparisons in the pop-up window.

Now you will see the link that you can copy/paste and send to your group members for their participation in the project.

Click on Done in the Active session menu to go back to your project list.

### Participants input

Your participants don’t need to be registered users. If you want to test by yourself, you need to logout from AHP-OS, before you open the group link.

When your participants open the link, they will be asked for their name, before they can start their pairwise comparisons. They will then see the decision hierarchy with a red lined AHP button and  a message “Click on AHP to complete pairwise comparisons. Click on Submit for group eval once completed.”

Now they can start their pairwise comparisons. When completed, all AHP buttons and priorities will be marked green.

After a click on Submit for group eval the AHP button disappears and a message “Ok. Data were submitted. Thank You for your participation!” is displayed.

### Group results

Once you have participants submitted data, a click on the session code link in your project list will automatically bring you to the group result page. As a participant you will get a button View group result in the Group input menu.

The group result page gives you on top the project data and list of all participants. Individual participants can be selected or deselected to analyze the group results in further details.

The next sections of the group result page shows the decision hierarchy with consolidated priorities, a breakdown by nodes (categories) with priorities for the node and the consolidated (aggregated) decision matrix. It also shows the AHP consensus indicator as a measure of group consensus.

Input data for each participant is available under View Input Data in the group result menu:

For you as chair of the group session, it is also possible to download data as csv text file for further processing in a spreadsheet program. With Use consol. priorities you now can define Alternatives with the consolidated priorities of selected participants.