See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269762472

USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS

FOR CHOOSING A BEST SMARTPHONE

Conference Paper May 2014

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.3788.7040

CITATION READS

1 510

1 author:

Udeh Tochukwu
Ecole Internationale des Sciences du Traitement de lInformation
20 PUBLICATIONS 1 CITATION

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Udeh Tochukwu on 20 December 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 USING THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS
FOR CHOOSING A BEST SMARTPHONE
Udeh Tochukwu L.

Department of Computer Science

Ternopil National Technical University
Ternopil, Ukraine, 2014

Abstract- Many Business decision making process are composed of a multi-criteria or objective. This process may become a very
difficult one when the criteria are expressed in different units or the important data are difficult to be quantified. The Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP) is an effective approach in dealing with this kind of decision problems. This research paper examines
some of the practical application and computational processes involved when the AHP method is used in business and the best
alternatives.

Significance- In many business and economic applications the final decision depends on the evaluation of a set of alternatives in
terms of a number of decision criteria. This may be a difficult task and the Analytic Hierarchy Process seems to provide an
effective way for properly quantifying the pertinent data. However, there are many critical issues that a decision maker needs to be
aware of.
Key words: Multi-Criteria Decision-Making, Analytic Hierarchy Process, Pairwise Comparisons.

1. INTRODUCTION

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision-making approach and was introduced by Saaty (1977 and
1994). The AHP has attracted the interest of many researchers mainly due to the nice mathematical properties of the method and
the fact that the required input data are rather easy to obtain. The AHP is a decision support tool which can be used to solve
complex decision problems. It uses a multi-level hierarchical structure of objectives, criteria, sub criteria, and alternatives. The
pertinent data are derived by using a set of pairwise comparisons. These comparisons are used to obtain the weights of importance
of the decision criteria, and the relative performance measures of the alternatives in terms of each individual decision criterion. If
the comparisons are not perfectly consistent, then it provides a mechanism for improving consistency.
Some of the industrial engineering applications of the AHP include its use in integrated manufacturing (Putrus, 1990), in the
evaluation of technology investment decisions (Boucher and McStravic, 1991), in flexible manufacturing systems (Wabalickis,
1988), layout design (Cambron and Evans, 1991), and also in other engineering problems (Wang and Raz, 1991).
As an illustrative application consider the case in which one wishes to upgrade the computer system of a computer integrated
manufacturing (CIM) facility. There is a number of different configurations available to choose from. The different systems are
the alternatives. A decision should also consider issues such as: cost, performance characteristics (i.e., CPU speed, memory
capacity, RAM, etc.), availability of software, maintenance, expendability, etc. These may be some of the decision criteria for this
problem. In the above problem we are interested in determining the best alternative (i.e., computer system). In some other
situations, however, one may be interested in determining the relative importance of all the alternatives under consideration. For
instance, if one is interested in funding a set of competing projects (which now are the alternatives), then the relative importance
of these projects is required (so the budget can be distributed proportionally to their relative importance).
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) plays a critical role in many real life problems. It is not an exaggeration to argue that
almost any local or federal government, industry, or business activity involves, in one way or the other, the evaluation of a set of
alternatives in terms of a set of decision criteria. Very often these criteria are conflicting with each other. Even more often the
pertinent data are very expensive to collect.

2. STRUCTURE OF THE DECISION PROBLEM UNDER CONSIDERATION

The structure of the typical decision problem considered in this paper consists of a number, say M, of alternatives and a number,
say N, of decision criteria. Each alternative can be evaluated in terms of the decision criteria and the relative importance (or
weight) of each criterion can be estimated as well. Let aij (i=1,2,3,...,M, and N=1,2,3,...,N) denote the performance value of the i-
th alternative (i.e., Ai) in terms of the j-th criterion (i.e., Cj). Also denote as Wj the weight of the criterion Cj. Then, the core of the
typical MCDM problem can be represented by the following decision matrix. This is shown in the table below:
 Fig 1.0

Given the above decision matrix, the decision problem considered in this study is how to determine which the best alternative is.
A slightly different problem is to determine the relative significance of the M alternatives when they are examined in terms of the
N decision criteria combined.
In a simple MCDM situation, all the criteria are expressed in terms of the same unit (e.g., dollars). However, in many real life
MCDM problems different criteria may be expressed in different dimensions. Examples of such dimensions include dollar figures,
weight, time, political impact, environmental impact, etc. It is this issue of multiple dimensions which makes the typical MCDM
problem to be a complex one and the AHP, or its variants, may offer a great assistance in solving this type of problems.

Table of Scale of Relative Importance

Fig 1.1

One of the most crucial steps in many decision-making methods is the accurate estimation of the pertinent data. This is a problem
not bound in the AHP method only, but it is crucial in many other methods which need to elicit qualitative information from the
decision-maker. Very often qualitative data cannot be known in terms of absolute values. For instance, "what is the worth of a
specific computer software in terms of a user adaptivity criterion?" Although information about questions like the previous one
are vital in making the correct decision, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify them correctly. Therefore, many decision-
making methods attempt to determine the relative importance, or weight, of the alternatives in terms of each criterion involved in
a given decision-making problem.
However, perfect consistency rarely occurs in practice. In the AHP the pairwise comparisons in a judgment matrix are considered
to be adequately consistent if the corresponding consistency ratio (CR) is less than 10% (Saaty, 1980). The CR coefficient is
calculated as follows. First the consistency index (CI) needs to be estimated. This is done by adding the columns in the judgment
matrix and multiply the resulting vector by the vector of priorities (i.e., the approximated eigenvector) obtained earlier. This yields
an approximation of the maximum eigenvalue, denoted by 8max. Then, the CI value is calculated by using the formula: CI() =
(lmax - n)/ (n - 1). Next the consistency ratio CR is obtained by dividing CI value by the Random Consistency index (RCI) as
given below. If the CR value is greater than 0.10, then it is a good idea to study the problem further and re-evaluate the pairwise
comparisons.
Random Index (RI) Table.
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
RI 0 0 0.58 0.89 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45

Fig 1.2

3. RESULT OF FINDING

This project was analyzed with the use of the following software:

A. Mathcad- PTC Mathcad is the single solution for solving, analyzing, and sharing your most vital engineering
calculations. Presented within an easy-to-use interface, its live mathematical notation, units intelligence, and powerful calculation
capabilities allows engineers and design teams to capture and communicate their critical design and engineering knowledge. It
brings powerful calculation capabilities into human-readable form. It integrates these readable, live calculations with plots,
graphs, text, and images into a single, interactive, and professionally presented document. This ease and familiarity of an
engineering notebook enables design exploration, validation and verification, and the clear communication of critical engineering
information. Some of the features includes:

Comprehensive documentation

Excel components

Templates

3D Plots

Advanced Numeric and Custom Functions

Solve Blocks

Programming

X Y Plots

Symbolics

B. SmartDraw- This is a software used to draw flow charts, organizational charts and other block or network diagrams. It
can Transfer your visuals into Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook or PDF with just a click. SmartDraw also works with
Google DocsTM, Project, Visio, WordPerfect, etc. This software is a Graphical software for designing and also representing
engineering or network architecture.
 4. CALCULATIONS

2.0 Table of comparison for Objective (Smartphone)

Smartphone Operating systems Screen Size Camera

Operating systems 1 4 2
Screen Size 1 1/3
Camera 3 1

Eigen-vector and Eigen-value calculation

1 4 2

1 1 1 3.018
M1 4 3 3
I

0.018 RI 0.52
el eigenvals ( M1) 9.147 10 0.235i
1 RI
2 3 1 3
9.147 10 0.235i
0.853
max max(Re(el )) 3.018 n 3 eigenvec ( M1max) 0.186

( max n) 3
0.488
9.147 10
n 1

2.1 Table of comparison for criteria (Operating Systems)

Operating System Android IOS Symbian

Android 1 1/5 4
IOS 5 1 8
Symbian 1/8 1

Eigen-vector and Eigen-value calculation

1 1
4


5
3.094
M2 5 1 8
el eigenvals ( M2) 0.047 0.537i
1
1 0.047 0.537i
4 1
8

max max(Re(el )) 3.094 n 3

( max n)
0.047
n 1

RI 0.52
0.261
eigenvec ( M2max) 0.961
I 0.09
RI 0.089
 2.2 Table of comparison for criteria (Screen Size)

Screen Size 3.2 4.3 5.2

3.2 1 1/3 1/4
4.3 3 1 1/2
5.2 4 2 1

1 1 1
3 4


M3 1
3 1
2
4
2 1
3.018
3

el eigenvals ( M3) 9.147 10 0.235i
3
9.147 10 0.235i
max max(Re(el )) 3.018
n 3
( max n) 3
9.147 10
n 1
RI 0.52
0.186
eigenvec ( M3max) 0.488
I 0.018
RI 0.853

2.3 Table of comparison for criteria (Camera)

Camera 5MP 8MP 11MP

5MP 1 1/4 1/7
8MP 4 1 1/3
11MP 7 3 1

1 1 1
4 7


M4 1 3.032

el eigenvals ( M4) 0.016 0.313i
4 1
3
7
3 1 0.016 0.313i

max max(Re(el )) 3.032 n 3

( max n)
0.016
n 1

RI 0.52 0.11
eigenvec ( M4max) 0.368
I

0.031
RI 0.923
 2.4 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (Android)

Android Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 1/5 4
HTC 5 1 3 5
Apple 2 1/3 1 6
Nokia 1/5 1/6 1

1 1 1
4
5 2

5 1 3 5

M5 1
2 3
1 6


1 1 1
1
4 5 6 4.238
0.106 0.995i
el eigenvals ( M5)
0.106 0.995i

0.026
max max(Re(el )) 4.238

n 4

( max n)
0.079
n 1
0.232

RI 0.89
eigenvec ( M5 max) 0.879
0.406
0.093
I 0.089
RI

2.5 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (IOS)

IOS Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 1/6 1/8 5
HTC 6 1 1/4 7
Apple 8 1/4 1 9
Nokia 1/5 1/7 1/9 1

1 1 1
5

6 8

1
6 1 7
4 3.963
M6
el eigenvals ( M6)
0.351 1.089i
8 1
9
4
1
0.351 1.089i
1
1 1 0.74
5 1
7 9

max max(Re(el )) 3.963

n 4

( max n)
0.012
n 1

RI 0.89 0.186

eigenvec ( M6 max) 0.608
I 0.014 0.768
RI 0.071

2.6 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (Symbian)

Symbian Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 3 1/2 1/8
HTC 1/3 1 1/4 1/7
Apple 2 4 1 1/6
Nokia 8 7 6 1

1 3
1 1
2 8

1 1
1 1
M7 3 4 7
1 4.216
2 4 1 0.076
el eigenvals ( M7)
6

8 7 6 1 0.07 0.946i
0.07 0.946i

max max(Re(el )) 4.216

n 4

( max n)
0.072
n 1

RI 0.89 0.144
eigenvec ( M7 max)
0.076

I

0.081
0.233
0.959
RI

2.7 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (3.2)

3.2 Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 5 2 4
HTC 1/5 1 1/4 3
Apple 1/2 4 1 5
Nokia 1/4 1/3 1/5 1
 1 5 2 4
1 1
1 3
5 4
M8 1 4.229
2 4 1 5
0.043 0.977i
el eigenvals ( M8)
0.043 0.977i
1 1 1
1
4 3 5 0.143

max max(Re(el )) 4.229

( max n)
n 4 0.076
n 1

0.799
RI 0.89
eigenvec ( M8 max) 0.201

0.554
I 0.086 0.117
RI
2.8 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (4.3)

4.3 Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 3 2 4
HTC 1/3 1 1/4 3
Apple 1/2 5 1 5
Nokia 1/5 1/3 1/5 1

1 3 2 4
1 1
1 3
3 4
M9 1
5 1 5
2
4.225
1 1 1
1
el eigenvals ( M9)
0.04 0.941i
5 3 5 0.04 0.941i
0.144

max max(Re(el )) 4.225

n 4

( max n)
0.075
n 1

RI 0.89 0.735
eigenvec ( M9 max)
0.225

0.631
I 0.084 0.108
RI
 2.9 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (5.2)

5.2 Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 1/2 2 3
HTC 2 1 5 4
Apple 1/2 1/5 1 4
Nokia 1/3 1/4 1/4 1

1 1
2 3
2

2 1 5 4

M10 1 1
1 4
2

5
4.245
1 1 1
1 el eigenvals ( M10)
0.037
3 4 4 0.141 1.016i
0.141 1.016i

max max(Re(el )) 4.245

( max n)
0.082
n 4 n 1

RI 0.89
0.424

I

0.092 eigenvec ( M10max) 0.852
RI 0.279
0.131

3.0 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (5MP)

5MP Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 1/2 2 2
HTC 2 1 4 4
Apple 1/2 1/4 1 3
Nokia 1/2 1/3 1/4 1

1 1
2 2
2

2 1 4 4
4.225
M11 1 el eigenvals ( M11)
1 0
1 3
2 4 0.113 0.925i
0.113 0.925i
1
1
1 1
( max n)
2 3 4 0.075
n 1

max max(Re(el )) 4.225 RI 0.89

0.42

n 4 eigenvec ( M11max) 0.841

0.293 I 0.084
RI
0.175

 3.1 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (8MP)

8MP Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 1/5 1/2 3
HTC 5 1 2 5
Apple 2 1/2 1 6
Nokia 1/3 1/5 1/6 1

1 1 1
3
5 2
4.129
5 1 2 5
0.065 0.727i
M12 1 el eigenvals ( M12)
2 1 6
0.065 0.727i

2

0
1 1 1
1
3 5 6

max max(Re(el )) 4.129

n 4 ( max n)
0.043
n 1

RI 0.89

0.23

I

0.048 eigenvec ( M12max) 0.84
RI 0.48
0.104

3.2 Table of comparison for sub-criteria (11MP)

11MP Sony HTC Apple Nokia

Sony 1 5 4 2
HTC 1/5 1 1/4 2
Apple 1/4 4 1 5
Nokia 1/2 1/5 1

1 5 4 2
1 1
1 2 4.255
5
4
0.06 1.252i
M13 1 el eigenvals ( M13)
4 4 1 5
0.06 1.252i
0.136

1 1 1
1
4 2 5

0.871
max max(Re(el )) 4.255
eigenvec ( M13max)
0.161
( max n)
0.085 0.448
n 1
n 4 0.119

RI 0.89 I 0.096
RI
 4.1 MAKING THE DECISION

1. Comparing the matrix of the sub-criteria (Android, IOS, and Symbian) with respect to the main criteria (Operating System).

0.232 0.186 0.144

0.261 0.252
E11 0.961
A11
0.879 0.608 0.076
0.406 0.82
0.768 0.233 0.089
B11 A11 E11
0.093 0.865
0.071 0.959 0.178

2. Comparing the matrix of the sub-criteria (3.2, 4.3, 5.2) with respect to the main criteria (Screen Size).

0.799 0.735 0.424

0.186 0.869

A12
0.225 0.852
E12 0.488
0.201
0.554 0.874
0.631 0.279 B12 A12 E12
0.117 0.853 0.649
0.108 0.131 0.186

3. Comparing the matrix of the sub-criteria (5MP, 8MP, 11MP) with respect to the main criteria (Camera).

0.42 0.23 0.871 0.935

0.11
A13
0.84 0.161 0.55
E13 0.368
0.841
B13 A13 E13
0.293 0.48 0.448 0.622
0.175 0.923 0.167
0.104 0.119

4. And in the final stage we compare the results (E11, E12 and E13) with that of the initial alternative (Smartphones).

0.252 0.869 0.935 0.833

0.853
A1
0.874 0.55 1.13
E1 0.186
0.82
B1 A1 E1
0.865 0.649 0.622 1.162
0.178 0.488 0.268
0.186 0.167

5. CONCLUSION

Using AHP in making a multi criteria decision is quite effective because it is a method to derive ratio scales from paired
comparisons. The ratio scales are derived from the principal Eigen Vector and the consistency index is derived from the principal
Eigen Value. The table below shows that APPLE phone is the best alternative which is the best decision literally in owning a
Smartphone based on the highest ranked.

SONY HTC APPLE NOKIA

0.833 1.13 1.162 0.268

And finally, the Analytical Hierarchy process provides a logical framework to determine the benefits of each alternative.
The AHP provides a convenient approach for solving complex MCDM problems in engineering. It should be noted that there is a
software package, called Expert Choice (1990), which has significantly contributed to the wide acceptance of the AHP
methodology. In matter of fact, the closer the final priority values are with each other, the more careful the user should be. The
above observations suggest that MCDM methods should be used as decision support tools and not as the means for deriving the
final answer. To find the truly best solution to a MCDM problem may never be humanly possible. The conclusions of the solution
should be taken lightly and used only as indications to what may be the best answer. Although the search for finding the best
MCDM method may never end, research in this area of decision-making is still critical and very valuable in many business,
scientific and engineering domains
 AHP TREE DIAGRAM OF THE CHOSEN SMARTPHONES

REFERENCES

1. Belton, V. and Gear, T. (1983). On a Short-coming of Saaty's Method of Analytic Hierarchies. Omega, 228-230.
2. Boucher, T.O. and McStravic, E.L. (1991). Multi-attribute Evaluation Within a Present Value Framework and
3. its Relation to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. The Engineering Economist, 37: 55-71.
4. Cambron, K.E. and Evans, G.W., (1991). Layout Design Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Computers & IE, 20:
221-229.
5. Expert Choice Software, (1990). Produced by Expert Choice, Inc., 4922 Ellsworth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA.
6. Dyer, J.S., and Wendell, R.E. (1985). A Critique of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Working Paper, 84/85-4-24,
7. Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
8. Dyer, J.S. (1990). Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science, 36: 249-258.
9. Fishburn, P.C. (1967). Additive Utilities with Incomplete Product Set: Applications to Priorities and Assignments.
10. American Society of Operations Research (ORSA), Baltimore, MD, U.S.A..
11. Miller, D.W., and Starr, M.K. (1969). Executive Decisions and Operations Research. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, U.S.A.
12. Miller, G.A. (1956). The Magical Number Seven Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing
Information. Psychological Review, 63: 81-97.
13. Putrus, P. (1990). Accounting for Intangibles in Integrated Manufacturing (nonfinancial justification based on the
Analytical Hierarchy Process). Information Strategy, 6: 25-30.
14. Saaty, T.L. (1977). A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures, Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15:
57-68.
15. Saaty, T.L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill International, New York, NY, U.S.A.
16. Saaty, T.L. (1983). Axiomatic Foundations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science, 32: 841-855.
17. Saaty, T.L. (1990). An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper 'Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process',
Management Science, 36: 259-268.
18. Saaty, T.L. (1994). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory with the AHP. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh,
PA, U.S.A.

View publication stats