We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

7,000
Open access books available
186,000
International authors and editors
200M Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Analytical Hierarchy Process

Problem Solution
Hatice Esen

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision-making methods have been developed to help people or

managers in the decision-making process and make the right decision. The Analytical
Hierarchy Process (AHP) method is one of the most frequently used multi-criteria
decision-making methods and is used in situations where the decision-makers’ objec-
tive and subjective decisions need to be evaluated together. This study explains the
application of the AHP method in personnel selection in Excel. AHP is an easily
applicable method for solving complex problems. In this study, the problem of
decision-making of nurses who apply to the intensive care nursing certificate program
is handled. The AHP method was used in the solution to the problem. The three nurses
have been selected by considering the criteria determined by the training officer who
organized the certificate program among the nurses who applied to the program by
ranking. The use of AHP in addition to the traditional method at every stage of human
resources planning will contribute to the personnel selection process and the effi-
ciency of health service delivery.

Keywords: AHP, multi-criteria decision-making, decision, problem solving,

decision-making

1. Introduction

Decision-making is one of the most important activities performed by managers

and is also known as the core of management. The decision-making process can be
defined as the activity that leads to the solution of a decision-making problem involv-
ing at least two alternatives, and the chosen one gives the best result according to the
determined goal. The decision-making process is carried out by managers intuitively
or using decision-making methods [1]. The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a
frequently used multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method, which is a mathe-
matical approach. AHP is a widely used method to provide solutions to multi-objective
decision-making problems, developed by Thomas L. Saaty (1970) and was brought to
the agenda by Myers and Alpert (1968) [2]. It is a method [3] using the decision-
makers experience, knowledge, and intuition [4] to make objective and subjective
decisions [5]. In other words, AHP is a method that aims for people to make their own
decisions instead of obliging how to make decisions [6].

1
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

AHP has a decision hierarchy with some characteristic features applied to various
problems. This hierarchy includes decision objectives, criteria, sub-criteria, and alter-
natives [7]. After determining the hierarchical structure, AHP determines the relative
priorities of the alternatives according to the decision-makers preference. At each
level of the hierarchy, the decision-maker needs to make two-way comparisons using
the alternatives and the importance of the criteria [8, 9].
In addition to its ease of use, AHP is an easy and successful application for solving
complex problems that contain objective and subjective judgments [10]. The method
is used when there is more than one decision-maker among many conflicting alterna-
tives under certainty and uncertainty [11]. In other words, the AHP methodology
allows us to determine which alternative best fits our criteria and the level of impor-
tance we attach to them [12].
It is a well-known and widely used multi-criteria decision-making method in
various fields, such as machine selection, supplier selection, ambulance allocation, and
prioritization of nurses and other resources in health services [6]. For example, for the
global forecast of diabetes patients for 2011–2030 [13], to evaluate the performance of
hospitals in Taiwan [14], to determine the most appropriate treatment for rectal
cancer treatment [15], to compare pregnant women’s recommended delivery [16], to
determine efficacy in colorectal cancer treatment [17], to determine dental treatment
priorities [18], to determine the criteria to be used in the decision to admit COVID-19
patients to intensive care units [19], and to design and build a decision support system
application [20].
AHP attempts to determine the relative importance of each element of a decision
by comparing each pair of alternatives at each hierarchy level. Thus, the technique
examines multiple alternatives and provides the decision-maker with the relative
priorities of the various alternatives under consideration. When applying AHP to a
real-life problem, a decision-maker can convert his subjective view to an objective
one, which gives the decision-maker confidence that their intuition and experience
are not overlooked when arriving at the final ranking of alternatives. The technique’s
simple nature and low mathematical complexity make it the most preferred in various
industries, including engineering, healthcare, finance, public policy, and business
environments [6].
This study consisted of multi-criteria decision-making AHP, AHP implementation
steps, and sample AHP works sections in the introduction of the study. The study
consisted of five sections. In the first part, general information about multi-criteria
decision-making and AHP is given. In the second part, the strengths and weaknesses
of AHP were explained. In the third part, AHP steps are mentioned. In the fourth
chapter, the solution to the personnel selection problem with AHP is explained and in
the last part, the study was evaluated and recommendations made for future studies.

2. Strengths and weaknesses of the AHP method

The strengths and weaknesses of the AHP method are presented below.

2.1 Strengths and weaknesses of AHP

The strengths of AHP are described below [21–23].

• It makes the content of the problem easier to understand.

2
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

• It arranges complex and multi-criteria problems hierarchically.

• Quantitative variables quantify the quantitative and qualitative criteria, allowing

them to be evaluated together.

• It evaluates the consistency of the objective and subjective judgments of the

decision-maker.

• It provides a flexible model used in complex and large-scale problems.

• The ease of reaching a consensus allows for new insights to emerge, and results
are more reliable.

• It has ease of application in almost every field.

2.2 Weaknesses of AHP

The weaknesses of AHP are described below [21–23].

In cases where the number of alternatives and criteria is high, it can be challenging
to create pairwise comparison matrices.

• Problems can arise when the criteria are not very clearly defined.

• There is no independent method that validates the results as it is based on and

guided by the personal judgments of the decision-makers.

• When criteria are added to the analysis later, the whole process may need to be
repeated from the beginning.

• The comparison process may take a long time if the decision-maker is not a single
person but a group.

3. Stages of the analytical hierarchy process

In the first stage of AHP, the problem is clearly defined, and alternatives are
determined. Then, the hierarchical structure for solving the problem consists of
determining the advantages according to the degree of importance [4] and determin-
ing the alternatives if the consistency ratio is acceptable [9].
The stages of the problem-solving process with the AHP method are shown in
Figure 1.

3.1 Creating the hierarchical structure

The first step in AHP analysis is clearly defining the purpose [1] and what is called
decision modeling is to create a hierarchy [12]. At the top of the hierarchy, the
decision-maker has the ultimate goal to be achieved. With this structure, comparisons
can be made easily between the criteria and alternatives determined to achieve the
goal [25]. The points to be considered in the design of the hierarchy were explained by
Saaty (1990) as follows:
3
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

Figure 1.
AHP solution process. Source: Ref. [24].

Figure 2.
AHP hierarchical structure. Source: Ref. [5].

• The problem should be explained clearly and precisely.

• The problem should cover all factors.

• All information that will affect the result should be considered [26].

The hierarchical structure of the AHP method is shown in Figure 2.

3.2 Creating the binary comparison matrix and determining the weights

After the hierarchical structure is established in AHP, the criteria are compared
relative to the importance of determining the priorities [25, 27]. The person or persons
who are experts on the subject determine the degree of importance by comparing the
criteria at each level in pairs [1]. The comparison matrix for the determining criteria is
shown in Table 1. In a matrix with n elements, n (n-1)/2 comparisons are made [21].
For example, comparing criteria 2 and 3 should be evaluated as “which of these two
criteria is more important and how important is it to achieve the goal” [22]. Since
the relevant factor is compared with itself, the diagonal of the matrix takes the value
of 1 [21].

4
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria … criteria j

Criteria 1 W1/W1 W1/W2 … W1/Wj

Criteria 2 W2/W1 W1/W1 … W2/Wj

Criteria … … … … …

Criteria j Wj/W1 Wj/W2 … Wj/Wj

Table 1.
Pairwise comparison matrix.

Importance Definition Explanation

1 Equally important Compared alternatives contribute equally to the defined criteria.

3 Moderately important The first factor is moderately important compared to the other to
achieve the goal.

5 Quite important The first factor is quite important compared to the other to achieve
the goal.

7 Much more important Factor 1 is very strongly important over the other.

9 Extremely important The first factor is extremely important compared to the other.

2,4,6,8 Intermediate values Used when compromise is needed.

Mutual If the value of “x” is compared with the value of “i” and “j”; j will be (1/x) when comparing
Values with i.
Source: Refs. [5, 29].

Table 2.
Comparison scale.

After the hierarchy is established, it is necessary to calculate how important the

criteria are to each other, which is their relative importance. The decision-maker
determines the degree of importance between the criteria based on the 1–9 scale [28].
The comparison scale developed by Saaty is explained in Table 2.
Since not all criteria are of equal importance, relative priorities (weights) are
obtained [12]. According to the AHP method, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the
comparison matrix help determine the priority order. The eigenvector corresponding
to the largest eigenvalue determines the priorities. The largest eigenvalue of the
matrix A is λ enb taken as the W priority vector; (A-λ enb I) W = 0 is obtained by
solving the system of equations [30].

3.3 Calculation of eigenvector

For each element in the pairwise comparison matrix, the column vector is
calculated with the help of Eq. 1, and the C matrix is created as in Eq. 2 [31, 32].
aij
bij ¼ Pn (1)
i¼1 aij

5
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

c11 c12 … c1n

2 3
6c
6 21 c22 … c2n 7
7
6 : : 7
6 7
C¼6
6 :
7 (2)
6 : 77
4 : : 5
6 7

cn1 cn2 … cnn

The priority vector showing the importance levels of the factors is obtained, as
shown in Eq. 3.
Pn
j¼1 cij
wi ¼ (3)
n

3.4 Calculating consistency ratio

In the AHP method, it is checked whether the comparisons are consistent after the
establishment of pairwise comparison matrices and synthesis. For this, the inconsis-
tency rate is calculated in each pairwise comparison matrix, which should be 10%
[28]. If the consistency rate is above 10%, the decisions are assumed to be inconsis-
tent, and it is necessary to review the decisions to find the cause of the inconsistency
and correct it [12, 31]. If the degree of consistency is acceptable, the process is
continued, and the steps are completed. The steps to be followed in calculating the
compliance ratio are as follows [33].

• The weighted sums of the elements in the columns are calculated for each row of
the comparison matrix.

• The normal matrix is obtained by dividing the element in each row of the
comparison matrix by the total column weight obtained.

• A vector of priorities is formed by averaging each row of the normal matrix.

• Column vector D is obtained from the matrix multiplication of the comparison

matrix A and the priority vector w.

a11 a12 … a1n w1

2 3 2 3
6a
6 21 a22 … 7 6 w2 7
a2n 7 6 7
6 : : 7 6 : 7
6 7 6 7
D¼6
6 :
7x6 7 (4)
6 : 7 6 : 7
7 6 7
4 : : 5 4 : 5
6 7 6 7

an1 an2 … ann wn

In order to determine the consistent rate of the evaluations made, the compliance
rate (consistency) ratio = CR) is calculated. The following formulas are used to
calculate this ratio.

CI ¼ Concordance Index

6
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

N one 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Random Index (RI) 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.90 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49

Table 3.
Random value index.

RI ¼ Random Value Index

λmax = It is the average of the values obtained by dividing the elements of the all
priorities matrix by the priorities vector [34].

λ n
CI ¼ (5)
n 1
CR ¼ CI=RI: (6)

A hierarchical structure is created if the compliance rate is within acceptable

values. Random index (RI) is the mean value of randomly derived pairwise compari-
son matrices based on n number [21, 35]. The random value indices determined
according to the number of criteria are shown in Table 3 [7].

3.5 Determining the ranking of alternatives

At this stage, alternatives are determined following the purpose. Obtained alterna-
tive evaluations express the importance of subjective perceptions in the decision-
makers alternative selection. The sum of the values of the alternatives is 1, and the
most suitable alternative with the highest numerical value is [21].

4. AHP application in personnel selection

Human resource management and personnel selection are very important in health
service delivery. Traditional methods or managerial insights are used in determining
the clinics where nurses will be employed in public hospitals and/or the nurses who
will participate in certification training. One of the most important resources in
hospitals is the personnel and personnel selection is one of the situation in which
multi-criteria decision-making methods are most used. In particular, the qualifications
of health service personnel may increase service quality, patient satisfaction, and
quality of care.
In this study, the solution to the problem by using the AHP method with a scien-
tific approach as well as the traditional method in the selection of nurses to participate
in a training and research hospital intensive care certificate program is discussed.
Thus, the applicability of multi-criteria decision-making methods in hospitals and the
selection of appropriate personnel according to the determined criteria were provided.
After the problem was defined, the criteria were determined by the program manager,
well-experienced and have been running the program for many years, and is a training
nurse working in the training unit. For this study, only the decisions of the program
manager were included and the opinion of another expert was not sought. Before the
AHP method, personnel selection was generated on limited parameters such as
7
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

education status and working status in the intensive care unit. By using this method,
the selection of personnel who can provide the best contribution to the institution
would be made.

4.1 Step-by-step procedure of AHP

In the case study, we will analyze a personnel selection example with six criteria
and six alternatives in Excel. With the application, we will choose three nurses
among six, for the intensive care certification program. The nurse criteria to be
selected for the certificate program were determined together with the course super-
visor (Figure 3). The determined criteria are shown in Figure 4.

Figure 3.
AHP implementation steps. Source: Ref. [18].

Figure 4.
Criteria for a nurse to be selected for the certificate program.

8
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

Figure 5.
Personnel selection hierarchy structure.

Personnel selection is among the problems in which multi-criteria decision-making

methods are applied. Personnel selection criteria were determined by the program
manager by taking into account the requirements of the certificate program guide and
the needs of the institution.
The personnel selection hierarchy has been established (Figure 5).
In the AHP method, the criteria are first compared among themselves. Then,
considering each criterion, the alternatives are compared. The comparison of the
criteria is as follows. Since C1 criteria will not have superiority over C1 criteria, this
will be 1. This is why the vertices are made up of 1. When we compare the C1 criteria
with the C2 criteria, it is determined how important it is according to the degree of
importance table. If the C1 advantage over C2 is 9, which is more important, then the
value of C2 over C1 in the same matrix will be the opposite, 1/9.
If opinions are taken from experts in more than one field, a comparison of the
binary matrix is taken from each of them separately. Opinions from all experts are
collected in a single matrix by taking the geometric mean. The comparison matrix is
an n  n square matrix. The matrix components on the diagonal of this matrix take the
value 1. In the first stage, the importance level of the pairwise comparison matrix was
determined by considering the formulation below (Table 4).

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

C1 1 3 5 2 6 5

C2 1/3 1 2 3 3 5

C3 1/5 ½ 1 2 4 5

C4 1/2 1/3 1/2 1 3 3

C5 1/6 1/3 1/4 1/3 1 3

C6 1/5 1/5 1/5 1/3 1/3 1

Table 4.
Determining the significance of the pairwise comparison matrix.

9
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

a11 a12 … a1n

2 3
6a
6 21 a22 … a2n 7
7
6 : : 7
6 7
A¼6
6 :
7
6 : 77
4 : : 5
6 7

an1 an2 … ann

The normalization of the pairwise comparison matrix obtained in the second step
was made. The following formula was used for normalization.

aij
bij ¼ Pn : (7)
i¼1 aij

For the normalization process, the sum of each column is calculated. The
elements of each column are obtained by dividing the column-by-column sum
(Tables 5 and 6).
This matrix was also the normalized matrix.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

C1 1/2.40 3 / (5.37) 5/ (8.95) 2 / (8.67) 6 / (17.33) 5/ (22.00)

C2 (1/3) /(2,40) 1 / (5.37) 2 /(8.95) 3 /(8.67) 3 / (17.33) 5/ (22.00)

C3 (1/5)/ (2.40) (1/2) / (5.37) 1 / (8.95) 2 / (8.67) 4 / (17.33) 5/ (22.00)

C4 (1/2) /(2.40) (1/3) / (5.37) (1/2) / (8.95) 1 / (8.67) 3 / (17.33) 3 / (22.00)

C5 (1/6) /(2.40) (1/3) / (5.37) (1/3) /(8.95) (1/3) / (8.67) 1 / (17.33) 3 / (22.00)

C6 (1/5) / (2.40) (1/5) / (5.37) (1/3) / (8.95) (1/3) / (8.67) (1/3) / (17.33) 1 / (22.00)

TOTAL 2.40 5.37 8.95 (8.67) / (8.67) 17.33 22.00

Total value refers to the total of each column.

Table 5.
Normalization steps.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

C1 0.417 0.559 0.559 0.231 0.346 0.227

C2 0.139 0.186 0.223 0.346 0.173 0.227

C3 0.083 0.093 0.112 0.231 0.231 0.227

C4 0.208 0.062 0.056 0.115 0.173 0.136

C5 0.069 0.062 0.028 0.038 0.058 0.136

C6 0.083 0.037 0.022 0.038 0.019 0.045

Table 6.
Normalization matrix.

10
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

c11 c12 … c1n

2 3
6c
6 21 c22 … c2n 7
7
6 : : 7
6 7
C¼6
6 :
7 (8)
6 : 77
4 : : 5
6 7

cn1 cn2 … cnn

In calculating the priority vector, the arithmetic average of each row is taken. The
formula is shown below (Table 7).
Pn
j¼1 cij
wi ¼ (9)
n
The data obtained in the priority vector is also used as weights in the AHP matrix.
After this stage, it is checked whether the answers are consistent.
The necessary parameters to perform the consistency tests are shown below.

• Compliance Index (CI)

• Random Value Index (RI)

• Compliance Rate (CR)

For CI we need lambda value. The lambda value is calculated according to the
formula below. In other words, the lambda value is obtained by multiplying the
priority vector (w) that we have obtained with the columns of the first pairwise
comparison matrix. At the same time, vector D is obtained.

a11 a12 … a1n w1

2 3 2 3
6a
6 21 a22 … a2n 7
7 6 w2 7
6 7
6 : : 7 6 : 7
6 7 6 7
D¼6
6 :
7x6 7 (10)
6 : 77 6 : 7
6 7
4 : : 5 4 : 5
6 7 6 7

an1 an2 … ann wn

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Priority vector (w)

C1 0.417 0.559 0.559 0.231 0.346 0.227 0.390

C2 0.139 0.186 0.223 0.346 0.173 0.227 0.216

C3 0.083 0.093 0.112 0.231 0.231 0.227 0.163

C4 0.208 0.062 0.056 0.115 0.173 0.136 0.125

C5 0.069 0.062 0.028 0.038 0.058 0.136 0.065

C6 0.083 0.037 0.022 0.038 0.019 0.045 0.041

Table 7.
Priority vector.

11
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

After obtaining the D column vector, the lambda value is obtained with the
following formula. Each row of the binary comparison matrix is multiplied by the
priority vector (Table 8). (= DMULT formula is used).
In order to perform consistency tests;
Compliance Index (CI).
Random Index (RI).
Compliance Ratio (CR) values are required.
Lambda (λ) values are calculated by taking the arithmetic average of the values
resulting from multiplying the comparison matrices by their weights and dividing the
matrices again by their weight values. The EI value is calculated by dividing the D
column vector/priority vector.

Priority vector D columns vector EI values

0.390 2699 6925

0.216 1448 6708

0.163 1066 6543

0.125 0.792 6330

0.065 0.408 6241

0.041 0.258 6296

Six values are averaged to calculate the lambda value (λmax).

λmax ¼ ð6925 þ 6708 þ 6543 þ 6330 þ 6241 þ 6296Þ=6 ¼ 6507 (11)

The lambda (λ) value is subtracted from the number of matrix dimensions and
divided by one less than the number of matrix dimensions, and the consistency index
is calculated. The consistency ratio is calculated by dividing the consistency index by
the randomness value according to the number of matrix dimensions.

λ n
CI ¼ (12)
n 1
CI ¼ ð6:507–6Þ=ð6–1Þ ¼ 0:101: (13)

Now, we can calculate the CR value. The required RI value is given in Table 3.
Since the number of decision alternatives is six, the RI value is 1.24.

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Priority vector D columns vector

C1 0.417 0.559 0.559 0.231 0.346 0.227 0.390 2699

C2 0.139 0.186 0.223 0.346 0.173 0.227 0.216 1448

C3 0.083 0.093 0.112 0.231 0.231 0.227 0.163 1066

C4 0.208 0.062 0.056 0.115 0.173 0.136 0.125 0.792

C5 0.069 0.062 0.028 0.038 0.058 0.136 0.065 0.408

C6 0.083 0.037 0.022 0.038 0.019 0.045 0.041 0.258

Table 8.
D column vector.

12
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

CR ¼ CI=RI (14)
CR ¼ ð0:101=ð1:24Þ ¼ 0:08 ð8%Þ (15)

The result is within the compliance rate limits, below 10%, so the inconsistency is
acceptable.

4.2 Identifying alternatives

All alternatives are compared for each criterion. The value of comparing alterna-
tives with each other is 1. Experts are asked to compare the alternatives, and the final
value is obtained by taking the geometric mean. After comparing all the alternatives
for the criteria, the priority vectors are placed in the matrix in which the alternatives
and criteria are compared. The final AHP matrix is then obtained (Table 9).
Then, the weight values are multiplied by the value in each row. Then, the row
values are summed to get the total value of the alternative. After this step, we can
perform the sorting. The ranking is done in Excel with the = rank formula (Table 10).
According to the results, the first three nurses with the highest score will be
accepted to the intensive care certification program.

Weights 0.4199 0.1905 0.1662 0.1097 0.0716 0.0421

Alternatives C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

Nurse 1 0.352 0.327 0.402 0.469 0.613 2909

Nurse 2 0.248 0.238 0.261 0.258 0.418 3024

Nurse 3 0.159 0.172 0.181 0.284 0.323 1909

Nurse 4 0.093 0.108 0.120 0.156 0.200 0.580

Nurse 5 0.084 0.089 0.098 0.090 0.085 0.602

Nurse 6 0.064 0.066 0.049 0.046 0.041 0.261

Table 9.
Final AHP matrix.

Weights 0.4199 0.1905 0.1662 0.1097 0.0716 0.0421 Decision

Alternatives C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 Total Rank

Nurse1 0.352 0.062 0.067 0.469 0.044 0.122 1117 1 Selected

Nurse2 0.248 0.045 0.043 0.258 0.030 0.127 0.752 2 Selected

Nurse3 0.159 0.033 0.030 0.284 0.023 0.080 0.609 3 Selected

Nurse4 0.093 0.021 0.020 0.156 0.014 0.024 0.328 4 Not Selected

Nurse5 0.084 0.017 0.016 0.090 0.006 0.025 0.239 5 Not Selected

Nurse6 0.064 0.013 0.008 0.046 0.003 0.011 0.145 6 Not Selected

Table 10.
Personnel selection and ranking.

13
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

5. Conclusion

As a result, AHP is a very simple, easy-to-use, multi-criteria decision-making

method widely used in solving complex probes, and it can be easily applied in the
Excel program without the need for any program.
In this study, the problem of nurse selection for an intensive care certificate program in
a hospital, the criteria affecting the selection, and which of the criteria are more important
in the selection of nurses were determined. According to the results of this research study,
the C1 criterion is more important than the other criteria. In the final part, the top three
candidates with the highest scores were accepted to the certificate program.
Personnel selection is a process that needs to be done carefully and consists of some
steps. In this process, the criteria to be sought by the personnel to be selected should
be determined in advance. The degree of importance of the criteria and the charac-
teristics of the job applicants may differ from each other. In this case, multi-criteria
decision-making techniques that allow those who decide on personnel selection to
make an objective evaluation play an important role. AHP offers the opportunity to
evaluate quantitative and qualitative criteria simultaneously. This method is a useful
tool, especially when it is necessary to decide on the selection of more than one
candidate. In addition to AHP, it is recommended to use other multi-criteria decision-
making methods such as Promethee in personnel selection and in all processes that
need to be decided (such as material procurement and purchasing).

Conflict of interest

None.

A. Appendix

Binary comparison matrix.

After completing the entry in Excel, the dark-marked areas are obtained by
dividing the elements by 1.

14
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

Normalization process, column totals are calculated.

After calculating the column totals, each column element is divided by the
corresponding column total. The F4 key is used for fixing in Excel (the $ sign that
appears in the formula). With this process, the normalization process is done.

It is calculated by taking the average of the elements in the row to determine the
priority vector. Priority vector values are also weight (w) values.

15
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

For the discrepancy operation, the swarm vector d and the EI values (for the
lambda value) are calculated.

Each row of the binary comparison matrix is multiplied by the priority vector.
(=Dmult).

λ max = (6925 + 6708 + 6543 + 6330 + 6241 + 6296) /6 = 6507

λ n
CI ¼
n 1
CI = (6.507–6)/ (6–1) = 0.101.
CR = CI/RI.
CR = (0.101/(1.24) = 0.08 (8% ≤ 10%- acceptable value).
16
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

Author details

Hatice Esen
Antalya Training and Research Hospital, Antalya, Turkey

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

© 2023 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of
the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided
the original work is properly cited.
17
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

References

[1] Siekelova A, Podhorska I, Imppola JJ. [8] Lee SK, Mogi G, Shin SC, Kim JW. An
Analytic hierarchy process in multiple- AHP/DEA hybrid model for measuring
criteria decision-making: A model the relative efficiency of energy
example. In: proceedings of International efficiency technologies. In: IEEM 2007
Conference on Entrepreneurial 2007 IEEE Int. Conf. Ind. Eng. Eng.
Competencies in aChanging World Manag. Singapore: IEEE; 2007. pp. 55-59.
(ECCW 2020). SHS Web of DOI: 10.1109/IEEM.2007.4419150
Conferences 90 ECCW 2020. 2021.
p. 01019. DOI: 10.1051/shsconf/ [9] An SH, Kim GH, Gwang K, K-In. A
20219001019 case-based reasoning cost estimating
model using experience by analytic
[2] Feng YJ, Lu H, Bi K. An AHP/DEA hierarchy process. Building and
method for measurement of the Environment. 2007;42:2573-2579.
efficiency of R& D management DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2006.06.007
activities in universities. International
Transactions in Operational Research. [10] Onder G, Onder E. Multi-criteria
2004;11(2):181-191 decision making methods. In: Fatih B,
editor. Yıldırım, Emrah Önder. Bursa:
[3] Badri MA. Combining the analytic Dora Basım 3. Press; 2018
hierarchy process and goal programming
for global facility location-allocation [11] Saat M. An approach to multi-
problem. International Journal of criteria decision making: Analytical
Production Economics. 1999;62(3): hierarchy method. Journal of Gazi
237-248 University Faculty of Economics and
Administrative Sciences. 2000;2:149-162
[4] Vargas GL. An overview of the
analytical hierarchy process and
[12] Mu E, Pereyra-Rojas M. Practical
its applications. European Journal
Decision Making Using Super Decisions
of Operational Research. 1990;48:2-4
v3. USA: Springer; 2018
[5] Saaty TL. How to make decision: The
[13] Whiting DR, Guariguata L, Weil C,
Analystical hierarchy process. European
Journal of Operation Research. 1990;48: Shaw J. IDF diabetes atlas: Global
9-26 estimates of the prevalence of diabetes
for 2011 and 2030. Diabetes Research
[6] Thakkar JJ. Analytic hierarchy
and Clinical Practice. 2011;94(3):
process (AHP). In: Kacprzyk J, 311-321. DOI: 10.1016/j.
editor. Multi-Criteria Decision diabres.2011.10.029
Making. Vol. 336. Singapore: Springer;
2021. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-33- [14] Tsai HY, Chang CW, Lin HL. Fuzzy
4745-8_3 hierarchy sensitive with Delphi method
to evaluate hospital organization
[7] Gul M, Guneri AF. Hospital location performance. Expert Systems with
selection: A systematic literature review Applications. 2010;37(8):5533-5541.
on methodologies and applications. DOI: 10.1016/j.eswa.2010.02.099
Hindawi Mathematics Problems in
Engineering. 2021;2021:6682958. [15] Suner A, Çelikoğlu CC, Dicle O,
DOI: 10.1155/2021/6682958 Sökmen S. Sequential decision tree using
18
Analytical Hierarchy Process Problem Solution
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1001072

the analytic hierarchy process for [21] Subasi H. Comparison of TOPSIS

decision support in rectal cancer. and AHP Methods Used in Multi Criteria
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine. 2012; Decision Process and An Application
56(1):59-68. DOI: 10.1016/j.artmed. [Thesis]. Istanbul: Marmara University,
2012.05.003 Institute of Social Sciences, Department
of Business Administration; 2011
[16] Sharma PS, Eden KB, Guise JM,
Jimison HB, Dolan JG. Subjective risk vs. [22] Aktaş R, Doğanay MM, Gökmen Y,
objective risk can lead to different post- Gazibey Y, Türen U. Numerical Decision
cesarean birth decisions based on Making Methods. 1st ed. İstanbul: Beta
multiattribute modeling. Journal of Edition; 2015
Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(1):
67-78. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010. [23] Timor M. Analytical Hierarchy
02.011 Process. İstanbul: Türkmenevi
Bookstore; 2011
[17] Wu CL, Ke TW, Meen TH.
Evaluation of intensified colorectal [24] Celikbilek Y. Multi-Criteria Decision
cancer treatment using model based on Making Methods with Annotated and
Delphi method, fuzzy logic, and Comparative Health Sciences
analytical hierarchy process (DFAHP). Applications. 1st ed. Ankara: Nobel
Sensors and Materials. 2021;33(10): Academic Publishing; 2018.
3499-3512. DOI: 10.18494/ DOI: 10.11611/JMER214
SAM.2021.3538
[25] Omurbek A, Simsek N. Selection of
online shopping site based on analytic
[18] Khan AMR, Prasad PN,
hierarchy process and analytic network
Rajamanoharane SW. Service quality
process methods. Journal of
performance measurement Management
Management and economics research.
in Corporate Hospitals Using Analytical
2014;22:306-327
Hierarchy Process. International Journal
of Manufacturing Technology and
[26] Kazancoglu Y. Performing Supplier
Management. 2012;26(1/2/3/4):196-212. Selection and Performance Evaluation
DOI: 10.1504/IJMTM.2012.051434
with Operations Research Techniques in
the Logistics Management Process: AHP
[19] Ozkan B, Özceylan EE, Kabak M, and DEA [Thesis]. İzmir: Ege University
Dikmen AU. Evaluation of criteria and Institute of Social Sciences; 2008
COVID-19 patients for intensive care
unit admission in the era of pandemic: A [27] Kargı AVS. Analytical Hierarchy
multi-criteria decision making approach. Process Model in the Subcontractor
Computer Methods and Programs in Selection Decision of Managers. Bursa:
Biomedicine. 2021;209:106348. Ekin Printing Home; 2015
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2021.106348
[28] Saaty TL. Deriving the AHP 1–9
[20] Harjanto S, Setiyowati S, Scale from First Principle. Switzerland:
Vulandari RT, Surakarta SN. Application Berne; 2001
of analytic hierarchy process and
weighted product methods in [29] Young KD, Younos T, Dymond RL,
determining the best employees. Kibler DF, Lee DH. Application of the
Indonesia Journal of Applied Statistics. analytic hierarchy process for selecting
2021;4(2):103-112 and modeling Stormwater best
19
Analytic Hierarchy Process – Models, Methods, Concepts, and Applications

management practices. Journal of

Contemporary Water Research and
Education. 2010;146(1):50-63.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1936-704X.2010.00391.x

[30] Dagdeviren M, Akay D, Kurt M.

Analytical hierarchy process for job
evaluation and application. Journal of the
Faculty of Engineering and Architecture
of Gazi University. 2004;19(2):131-138

[31] Tas C, Bedir N, Eren T, Alagas HM,

Cetin S. Policlinic evaluation with
integrating AHP-TOPSIS methods: An
Applicatıon in Ankara. Journal of Health
Management. 2018;2(1):1-17

[32] Kayhan G. Generation a Hybrid

System Using Fuzzy Ahp/Fuzzy Topsis
in Human Resource Performance
Evaluatıon and an Applicatıon [Thesis].
Turkiye: Erciyes University, Graduate
School of Natural and Applied Sciences;
2010

[33] Sevinc T, Eren A. Sorting the

KOSGEB support models for SMEs by
multicriteria decision making methods.
International Journal of Engineering
Research and Development. 2019;11(1):
409-425

[34] Wu CR, Lin CT, Chen HC. Optimal

selection of location for Taiwanese
nursing home to ensure a competitive
advantage by using the analytic
hierarchy process. Building and
Environment. ScienceDirect Elsevier.
2007;42:1431-1444. DOI: 10.1016/j.
buildenv.2005.12.016

[35] Paksoy S. Current Approaches to

Multi-Criteria Decision Making. Adana:
Karahan Bookstore; 2017

20