Database Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLE 3.5
AHP Pairwise Comparisons
Comparative
Importance
Definition
Explanation
1
Equally important
Two decision elements (e.g.,
indicators) equally influence the
parent decision element.
3
Moderately more
important
One decision element is moderately
more influential than the other.
5
Strongly more important
One decision element has stronger
influence than the other.
7
Very strongly more
important
One decision element has significantly
more influence over the other.
9
Extremely more important
The difference between influences of
the two decision elements is
extremely significant.
2, 4, 6, 8
Intermediate judgment
values
Judgment values between equally,
moderately, strongly, very strongly,
and extremely.
Reciprocals
If
v
is the judgment value when
i
is
compared to
j
, then 1/
v
is the
judgment value when
j
is compared
to
i
.
Participants, moderated by a facilitator, brainstorm a set of possible
metrics, and the most important metrics are selected. Using a written
survey, each participant is asked to compare all possible pairs of metrics
in each of the four errors as to their relative importance using a scale as
shown in Table 3.5.
From the survey responses, the facilitator computes the decision model
for each participant that reflects the relative importance of each metric.
Each participant is then supplied with the decision models of all other
participants and asked to rethink their original metric choices. The group
meets again to determine the final set of metrics for the scorecard. The
beauty of this process is that it makes readily apparent any inconsisten-
cies in making paired comparisons and prevents metrics from being dis-
carded prematurely.
Clinton, Weber, and Hassell (2002) provide an example of using AHP
to determine how to weight the relative importance of the categories and
metrics. A group of participants meet to compare the relative importance
of the four balanced-scorecard categories in the first level of the AHP
Search WWH ::
Custom Search