# Feedback

Thanks for visiting. Please leave your comments, suggestions or feedback here! Scroll down to the comment form

## 324 thoughts on “Feedback”

1. Mavis says:

Hi, I am manually using the excel sheet to enter one participant’s rating at a time. Hence, the ‘summary tab’ and the ‘ln1’ tab should reflect just that one participant’s information, am i right?

However, I realise that sometimes, the CR in the ‘ln1’ tab is different from the CR in the summary tab. It varies quite significantly -30% and 58.1% in the ‘ln1’ tab and ‘summary tab respectively. Is there a reason for the difference? Thank you!

For more information, n=5, N=1, p= 1, and consensus is participant 1.

1. Calculations on the input sheets are done using the row geometric mean method (RGMM). Only the summary sheet shows the final result using the eigenvector method. That’s also the reason why CR shown on the input sheets can be different. For smaller CR the difference is less significant.

2. Tolga says:

Dear Klaus,
First of all thank you for your excellent study. I use excel 2016.
When i enter the Excel sheet and enable the protected view the consolidated results in the summary sheet gives error (#REF! error). But when i enter particapant 1 or 2 (p=1 or 2) it works. Can you help me on this. Best..

3. Craig says:

Hi, i am looking at using your excel template on diversity indices.
I notice that the cells (C47, D47, E47 etc) uses the subtotal command (=SUBTOTAL(109,calc!\$C\$26:\$C\$46). When entering my own data these rows do not automatically update as i imagine they should. Can i just replace the formula with =SUBTOTAL(109, C27:C46) or will this mess something else up?
Thanks

1. Don’t know, why it is not updating, but yes, just replace. You could also simply replace with SUM(C27:C46).

1. Craig says:

Thanks, i tried again and realized something went wrong when i copied the excel sheet. when i went back to the original it started updating.
Thanks for getting back to me.
Regards

4. Md Ashraf Uddin says:

Dear Klaus
Thank you very much for making so nice online tools for multi-criteria decision making using AHP. It is a very useful tool.

5. Raghavan Rangarajan says:

I just downloaded your AHP Excel template. Also, I paid (donated) per your suggestion via PayPal. I will familiarize with the tool during the next few days. I am doing some research on Credit Risk Analytics. I am familiar with traditional AHP methodology. I may want to try Fuzzy AHP process in my research. Any suggestions from you as to how to use your template or any good reference on fuzzy AHP would be appreciated. Thanks in advance for your assistance. Best Regards.

6. Diriba Tegegne says:

I want to thank you for developing this template,and I currently doing my MSC.thesis and use AHP process and I have 6 main criteria to evaluate 4 alternatives.I like if you comment on the value of RI(random index for randomly generated matrix)
Thank you very much.

1. Hi Diriba, in my excel template and in my online software I don’t use RI, but the linear fit proposed by Alonso and Lamata (2006) to calculate the consistency ratio CR. Please see my working paper about the software implementation eq. 2.5. The Alonso & Lamata reference is given under references in the paper.

7. Martin says:

Hello Klaus,

thank you for the nice Excel tool!
I am writing my master thesis and a survey based on the AHP is part of it. I used a balanced scale for the survey and in the tool, but I cannot fully retrace the results of the Evaluation Matrix.
I guess the tool assumes the scale to have 9 points on each side and the values are distributed based on a quadratic (?) formula. Could you help me with some more information about the theoretical background of your tool ?

Best regards,

Martin

1. Martin says:

Hello Klaus,

fortunately I found it myself but I want to post to answer to my own question, if someone has the same question:

The background information to the scales can be found on page 7 in:

Goepel, K. D. (2017). Implementation of an Online Software Tool for the Analytic Hierarchy Process – Challenges and Practical Experiences. Working paper prepared for publication, Singapore July 2017

Thanks,

Martin

8. Frank says:

Dear Klaus,

First, I like to thank you for making this wonderful tool. It is really helpful, either for companies, students, individuals etc. However, I maybe have some feedback to even more improve this tool. My suggestion is: adding a sensitivity calculation based on the scale (9-1/9). This will result that the ranking scores can be checked. With this sensitivity calculation, the weight of the alternatives will differ. Therefore, another addition could be that the differentiation of the ‘new’ calculated ranking scores can be compared to the original.

Greetings, Frank

1. Hi Frank,
thanks for your feedback. Sensitivity calculation is implemented, see para 6 and 8 of my working paper about the software implementation.
ahp-software
On the result page click on “var” and “refresh” to get the results.
Regards, Klaus

9. Mas says:

Hi Klaus

Can you help me? How to use your template if my number of criteria more than 10. total i have 20 criteria. i already key in 10 criteria, another 10, i don’t know how to key in..can you advise me on this matter? thank you

1. Hi Mas, the template cannot handle more than 10 criteria. Use my AHP online SW AHP-OS

10. Warwick Wainwright says:

Hi Klaus,

Is the online version constrained to a number of criteria and alternatives that you can use? I have some 11 criteria but 11 alternatives.

Thanks,
Warwick

1. Hi Warwick, you can define up to 20 criteria and up to 12 alternatives.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.