Available online at www.sciencedirect.
com
ScienceDirect
Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4029–4035 www.materialstoday.com/proceedings
ICMPC 2017
A State of the Art Review of Analytical Hierarchy Process
Ashish Khairaa , R.K.Dwivedib,*
a
Research Scholar, Mechanical Engineering Department, MANIT Bhopal, India
b
Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, MANIT Bhopal, India
Abstract
In today’s competitive world most of the problems composes multiple conflicting criteria’s. Therefore, it is necessary to use
suitable multi criteria decision making (MCDM). Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) is one of the most widely used MCDM
technique by researchers from around the globe due to its simplicity and versatility with higher accuracy. In order to systematize
available information, this paper is an attempt to review the work conducted by various researchers in applications and
improvement areas of AHP.
© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of 7th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization.
Keywords: MCDM; Decision Making; AHP; Material Selection; Maintenance.
1. Introduction
Rapid technological and economic growth over the last fifty years has changed human lives and made modern
society to face complex decision making problems that [ 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5] are not easy to solve because they involve
many criteria, sub criteria and alternatives. Therefore, to conduct a natural choice would be almost impossible
without the help of mathematical science which formalizes the way we think in order to take better decisions and
also assures the transparency of all its aspects.
Multiple-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) [5, 6 and 7] is useful when alternative with best values is not
available as each alternative scores has multiple conflicting criteria’s. The motivation behind development of
MCDM methods has been not only by a variety of real-life problems requiring the consideration of multiple criteria,
but also by practitioners’ desire to propose enhanced decision making techniques using recent advancements in
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91-8458811110; fax: +91-755 2670562.
E-mail address:
[email protected]2214-7853© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of 7th International Conference of Materials Processing and Characterization.
4030 Aashish Khaira et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4029–4035
mathematical optimization, scientific computing, and computer technology. There are two possible ways to do such
a decision making process:
• Individual Decision Making – It involves only one specialist which gives the ranking to alternatives on the basis
of criteria’s.
• Group Decision Making -It involves a certain number of specialists and considers weightages of each individual
decision maker to rank alternatives on the basis of criteria’s.
MCDM methods [8, 9] have two categories: discrete MADM (Multi-attribute Decision Making) and continuous
MODM (Multi-Objective Decision Making) methods (Figure 1).
Fig.1. Types of MCDM Methods
The association of MADM is with problems where alternatives are predetermined and when the model cannot be
stated in mathematical equations. The association of MODM methods is with problems where alternatives are non-
predetermined and the aim of the problem is to identify the best alternative by considering a set of well-defined
criteria’s. However, the use of terms MADM and MCDM are to indicate the identical class of models and are
confused in practice.
2. Literature Review
The objective [1, 5, 10, and 11] of using an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is to reduce complex decision
problems in a systematic and analytic manner by addressing each aspect of the failure in the hierarchy for helping
the analysts to identify the preferred alternative.
Generally, a typical AHP [3, 4, 5, 10, 12, and 13] problem starts by defining the problem proceeded by
identifying the goal to achieve, pair wise comparison of components with respect to criteria’s and at last structure
them as a hierarchy that resembles with family tree which is viewed as a logical and organized form in representing
the problem. The best part in this type of analysis is that multiple criteria give a balanced view of the problem. It
looks at the problem in totality by incorporating all the relevant criteria.
• Goal - A goal is needed in order to determine the criteria.
• Criteria–These are used to evaluate a predetermined number of alternatives.
• Alternatives- Alternatives to choose from in order to achieve the goal.
Aashish Khaira et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4029–4035 4031
Fig.2. AHP Process
The use of AHP instead of another multi criteria technique is due to the following reasons [3, 5, 10, 11, and 14]:
• Inclusion of quantitative and subjective criteria in the priority-setting process as shown in above Fig 2.
• This is the only MCDM technique which has an effective mechanism for checking the consistency of
weightage defined by decision maker thus it does not require the decision maker to be artificially consistent.
• AHP can synthesize an alternative score on diverse criteria having heterogeneous measurement units by
normalizing the values of criteria’s.
• AHP compares two decision elements (criteria/alternatives) at a time. In this way, the decision maker
becomes more focused and consequently we get improved accuracy and reliability of the results.
• Generally we take up to 9 criteria’s with AHP, but we can include more criteria’s by dividing criteria’s into
sub criteria’s [12].
M.C. Carnero [3] proposed a model for decision making using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and
factor analysis (FA) for the selection of the diagnostic techniques and instrumentation in the predictive
maintenance programs. The prepared model has been tested for different technological levels in screw
compressors located in petrochemical plant while lubricant and vibration analyses are integrated. This work
could facilitate the decision making of the planner of the predictive maintenance program, as well as favor the
development of the integration of predictive techniques.
Rakesh Kumar Singh et al. [4] used AHP to rank the power plant equipments of a coal based power plant on
the basis of selected multiple criterion and rank them accordingly. The paper quantified the environmental
impact data by using expert judgment as it is difficult to get quantitative data of these criteria.
Gabriel Iulian Fântână et al. [5] performed modeling of best choice for HVAC equipment in a building using
AHP. This case study is conducted to achieve two main objectives: first to determine key factors that will be
used as objectives for these simulations and second to provide a solution in choosing HVAC equipment.
Abbas Toloie-Eshlaghy et al. [6] has presented a review of fundamental theories, methodologies and
applications of MCDM consisting of 628 papers from 20 scholarly journals. The categorization of MCDM
papers were based on methods, application and non-application areas.
4032 Aashish Khaira et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4029–4035
Devarun Ghosh et al. [7] performed transition from the systemic level to the equipment level by risk based
criticality analysis (based on the worst-case failure mode) to identify critical equipment in a chemical process plant
then they apply Goal Programming and fuzzy AHP to identify suitable maintenance strategies for that equipment.
The incorporation of Goal Programming (GP) was to optimize multiple objectives such as risk reduction and cost
minimization that are subject to resource constraints. A base simulation as well as a sensitivity analysis was
performed using the proposed model. Apart from this author also suggested that to consider only the main criteria
(i.e., without sub-criteria) to apply a simpler two-stage AHP (criteria-alternatives) instead of three stage AHP
(criteria-sub criteria-alternatives).
Payman Dehghanian et al. [10] used fuzzy-AHP instead of AHP to translate uncertainty into some fuzzy numbers
with triangular membership functions, in order to find out the key factors associated with the critical component
identification in power distribution systems and later determine the most important component types in the light of
the proposed criteria. Overcoming the conventional AHP shortcomings, this approach systematically formulates
expert’s knowledge about equipments prioritizing to efficiently allocate available resources.
Anwar Meddaoui [11] covered analytical hierarchy process (AHP) for selecting a suitable maintenance strategy
for heavy industry based in Morocco and subsequently a second part concerns the cost-benefit chapter which was
approached by time-driven activity based costing (TDABC). This paper is one of the few papers on maintenance,
proposing a set of improvement actions accompanied with their weight and their estimated gain.
M. Yavuz [12] covered the loader selection for Aegean Lignite Colliery was made by using both the analytic
hierarchy process and Yager’s method. The author highlights the fact that AHP can be applied for not more than 9
criteria’s. For cases where criteria’s are more than 9, the author proposes to divide them in sub-criteria’s viz goal,
criteria, sub criteria and then the alternatives. The AHP and Yager’s method models, which contain deve;opement of
four main criteria and 21 sub-criteria.
Anish Sachdeva [13] proposed an AHP-based multi-criteria failure mode analysis to decide most appropriate
maintenance strategy for a paper mill by integrating the criticality of various factors, viz. performances, safety and
society related to failure and repair of a component/subsystem as an alternative to the traditional approach of Failure
Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA).
3. Results and Discussions
The below table 1 is an attempt to represent observations obtained from reviewing literature. The below table is
very beneficial for researchers for identifying most appropriate criteria’s to apply AHP. To make this representation
easily graspable the observations are divided into following criteria’s-
• Area – This shows the broad vicinity for the application of MCDM techniques.
• Application – This covers the section of broader vicinity.
• Criteria – This covers criteria’s used for applying AHP.
• Author (Year) – This shows the name of the researcher with year of publication.
• Decision Making Approach – This section shows whether only AHP or some combination applied.
Table1. AHP Applications
Area Application Criteria’s Author (Year) DM
Material Selection Screw Carbon Foot Print, Water Eutrofication, Chee Kiong Sia Analytic hierarchy process
manufacturing Air Acidification, Total Energy (2013), A (AHP)
Consumed
Hybrid natural and Performance, Weight, Cost M.R. Mansor Analytic hierarchy process
glass fibers (2013), B (AHP)
reinforced polymer
composites material
for automotive
brake lever design
Aashish Khaira et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4029–4035 4033
Table1 continued
Penstock material Yield Strength, Life, Thickness, Cost, Ravi Kumar Analytic hierarchy process
selection in small Maintenance Cost (2016), C (AHP), order preference by
hydropower plants similarity to ideal solution
(TOPSIS) and Modified
TOPSIS
Phase change Phase change temperature (PCT), latent Lavinia Socaciu Analytic hierarchy process
materials to heat of fusion (LHF), specific heat (2016), D (AHP)
maintain thermal capacity (SHC), thermal conductivity
comfort of the (TC), density for solid (DS) and for
vehicle occupants liquid (DL), respectively maximum
operation temperature (MOT)
Machine Identification of the Diagnostic quality, Quantity of failures, M.C. Carnero Analytic hierarchy process
Maintenance most suitable Cost of diagnostic technique, (2005), 3 (AHP) and Factor analysis
diagnostic Supportability of the diagnostic (FA)
techniques technique
Cost, feasibility, safety and added-value Anwar Meddaoui Analytic Hierarchy Process
(2014), 11 (AHP), time-driven activity
based costing (TDABC)
Identification of Environmental Impact , Customer Rakesh Kumar Analytic hierarchy process
critical machinery Inconvenience, Singh et al. (AHP)
Maintenance Cost (2013), 4
Total number of components, Total Payman Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy
number of component failures, Dehghanian et al. Process (FAHP)
Component repair duration, Component (2012), 10
investment cost, Component repair and
maintenance cost
Identification of Safety, maintenance investment, Devarun Ghosh Goal Programming and
suitable business interruption loss, maintenance et al. (2010), 7 fuzzy AHP
maintenance technique feasibility
strategy
Identification of Chance of failure (occurrence), chance Anish Sachdeva Analytic hierarchy process
critical component of non-detection, reliability importance (2008), 13 (AHP)
measure, maintainability, lead time for
spare parts, economic safety factor and
Taguchi Loss function
Construction Identification of Price, indoor air quality, noise produced Fântână et al. Analytic hierarchy process
best equipment (2013), 5 (AHP)
Mining Identification of Economic, Operational, Technical, M. Yavuz AHP and Yager’s method
best equipment Warranty (2015), 12
Most of the researcher’s show an article time distribution in the literature reviews so that other researchers can
easily find the years those covered the said techniques more frequently. Apart from this, such graph is also
beneficial to check whether the coverage of said technique was recent or not. From figure 3, it is evident that most
of the work lies in region 2013-16 which shows the increasing interest of researchers from around the globe in AHP.
4034 Aashish Khaira et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4029–4035
9
No. of Research Papers 8
7
6
5
4 No of Research Papers
3
2
1
0
2001-04 2005-08 2009-12 2013-16
Year
Fig.3. Article Time Distribution
The figure 4 covers the vicinity vise distribution of research papers. From this graph it is evident that frequently
covered areas are diagnostic techniques identification, critical machinery identification and Best Equipment
Identification.
Best Equipment Identification
Critical Component Identification
Maintenance Strategy Selection
Critical Machinery Identification
Domain
Diagnostic Techniques Identification
Phase Change Materials
Hydropower Plants
Automotive Brake Lever Design
Screw Manufacturing
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
No of Research Papers
Fig 4. Domain Wise Distribution
4. Conclusion
In this paper, we have reviewed the work conducted by various researchers in applications and improvement
areas of AHP to systematize available information. The following are the conclusions-
• From table 1 and figure 3, it is evident that most of the work lies in region 2013-16 which shows the increasing
interest of researchers from around the globe in AHP.
Aashish Khaira et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 4029–4035 4035
• From figure 4, it is evident that frequently covered areas are diagnostic techniques identification, critical
machinery identification and Best Equipment Identification.
• From table 1 and figure 4, it is evident that least covered areas are screw manufacturing, automotive brake lever
design, hydropower plants, phase change materials, maintenance strategy selection and critical component
identification.
Acknowledgements
We are thankful to the department of Mechanical Engineering of MANIT Bhopal,
India for providing the required facilities needed for the successful completion of this paper.
References
[1]. Saaty, T. L., Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process, International journal of services sciences. 1(2008) 83-98
[2] Saaty, Thomas L, Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP), Journal of systems science and systems
engineering. 13(2004)1-35.
[3] Carnero, M. Carmen, Selection of diagnostic techniques and instrumentation in a predictive maintenance program. A case study, Decision
support systems. 38(2005)539-555.
[4]. Singh, Rakesh Kumar, and Makarand S. Kulkarni, Criticality Analysis of power-plant equipments using the Analytic Hierarchy
process, International Journal of Industrial Engineering & Technology (IJIET). 3(2013).
[5]. Fântână, Gabriel Iulian, Stefan Adrian Oae, and Andrei Marian Gurau, Decision making using the analytic hierarchy process, International
Conferice on MEQAPS. 13(2013)119-124.
[6]. Toloie-Eshlaghy, Abbas, and Mahdi Homayonfar, MCDM methodologies and applications: a literature review from 1999 to 2009, Research
Journal of International Studies. 21(2011)86-137.
[7]. Ghosh, Devarun, and Sandip Roy, A decision-making framework for process plant maintenance, European Journal of Industrial Engineering.
4(2009)78-98.
[8]. Zavadskas, Edmundas Kazimieras, Zenonas Turskis, and Simona Kildienė, State of art surveys of overviews on MCDM/MADM methods,
Technological and economic development of economy. 20(2014)165-179
[9]. Yavuz, M, Equipment selection based on the AHP and Yager's method, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy. 115 (2015)425-433.
[10]. Dehghanian, Payman, et al., Critical component identification in reliability centered asset management of power distribution systems via
fuzzy AHP, IEEE Systems Journal. 6 (2012)593-602.
[11]. Meddaoui, Anwar, and Driss Bouami, Decision making in maintenance using analytical hierarchy process and time-driven activity based
costing, International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management. 13 (2014) 450-470.
[12]. Yavuz, M., Equipment selection based on the AHP and Yager's method, Journal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and
Metallurgy. 115 (2015) 425-433.
[13]. Sachdeva, Anish, Dinesh Kumar, and Pradeep Kumar, A methodology to determine maintenance criticality using AHP, International
Journal of Productivity and Quality Management. 3 (2008)396-412.
[14]. Islam, R., & bin Mohd Rasad, S., Employee performance evaluation by the AHP: A case study, Asia Pacific Management Review. 11(2006)
163-176.
[15]. Kiong, S. C., Lee, L. Y., Chong, S. H., Azlan, M. A., Nor, M., & Hisyamudin, N, Decision making with the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) for material selection in screw manufacturing for minimizing environmental impacts, Applied Mechanics and Materials. 315 (2013)
57-62.
[16].Mansor, M. R., Sapuan, S. M., Zainudin, E. S., Nuraini, A. A., & Hambali, A., Hybrid natural and glass fibers reinforced polymer
composites material selection using Analytical Hierarchy Process for automotive brake lever design, Materials & Design. 51(2013) 484-492.
[17].Kumar, R., & Singal, S. K., Penstock material selection in small hydropower plants using MADM methods. Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews. 52 (2015) 240-255.
[18].Socaciu, L., Giurgiu, O., Banyai, D., & Simion, M., PCM selection using AHP method to maintain thermal comfort of the vehicle
occupants, Energy Procedia. 85 (2016) 489-497.
