Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 9 views

    Developing Preferences Within Criteria: Normalized Matric

    Uploaded by

    Fajar
    This document summarizes an analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate potential development sites. It presents the results of pairwise comparisons of three sites - A, B, and C - based on four criteria: customer market, income level, infrastructure, and transportation. Site C received the highest score of 0.5314, followed by Site A at 0.3091 and Site B at 0.1595. Therefore, the recommended ranking of the alternatives is 1) Charlotte, 2) Atlanta, 3) Birmingham.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Developing Preferences Within Criteria: Normalized Matric

    Uploaded by

    Fajar
    9 views11 pages
    This document summarizes an analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate potential development sites. It presents the results of pairwise comparisons of three sites - A, B, and C - based on four criteria: customer market, income level, infrastructure, and transportation. Site C received the highest score of 0.5314, followed by Site A at 0.3091 and Site B at 0.1595. Therefore, the recommended ranking of the alternatives is 1) Charlotte, 2) Atlanta, 3) Birmingham.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    AHP_5213100052_5213100077_5213100134.xlsx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes an analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate potential development sites. It presents the results of pairwise comparisons of three sites - A, B, and C - based on four criteria: customer market, income level, infrastructure, and transportation. Site C received the highest score of 0.5314, followed by Site A at 0.3091 and Site B at 0.1595. Therefore, the recommended ranking of the alternatives is 1) Charlotte, 2) Atlanta, 3) Birmingham.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    9 views11 pages

    Developing Preferences Within Criteria: Normalized Matric

    Uploaded by

    Fajar
    This document summarizes an analysis using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to evaluate potential development sites. It presents the results of pairwise comparisons of three sites - A, B, and C - based on four criteria: customer market, income level, infrastructure, and transportation. Site C received the highest score of 0.5314, followed by Site A at 0.3091 and Site B at 0.1595. Therefore, the recommended ranking of the alternatives is 1) Charlotte, 2) Atlanta, 3) Birmingham.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as xlsx, pdf, or txt
    of 11

    AHP for SouthCorp Development Site Selection Example

    Developing Preferences Within Criteria


    Pairwise Comparison
    Customer Market Criterion
    Site
    A
    B
    C
    A
    1
    3
    2
    B
    1/3
    1/5
    1
    C
    1/2
    1
    5
    Column Sum
    1 5/6
    9
    3 1/5

    Site
    A
    B
    C
    Column Sum

    Income Level
    A
    B
    C
    1
    6
    1/3
    1/6
    1
    1/9
    3
    9
    1
    4 1/6
    16
    1 4/9

    Normalized Matric
    Site
    A
    B
    C

    Customer Market Criterion


    A
    B
    C
    0.5455
    0.3333
    0.6250
    0.1818
    0.1111
    0.0625
    0.2727
    0.5556
    0.3125

    Row Average
    0.5013
    0.1185
    0.3803
    1.0000

    Preference Criteria Matric


    Criterion
    Site
    A
    B
    C

    Infrastruct
    Market
    Income
    ure
    Transportation
    0.5013
    0.2819
    0.1790
    0.1560
    0.1185
    0.0598
    0.6851
    0.6196
    0.3803
    0.6583
    0.1360
    0.2243

    Ranking the Criteria


    Pairwise Comparison for criteria

    Site
    A
    B
    C

    A
    0.2400
    0.0400
    0.7200

    Income Level
    B
    C
    0.3750
    0.2308
    0.0625
    0.0769
    0.5625
    0.6923

    Criteria
    Market
    Income

    Market
    1
    5

    Infrastructure
    Transportation
    Column sum

    1/3
    1/4
    6 4/7

    Income
    1/5
    1
    1/9
    1/7
    1 4/9

    Infrastruct
    ure
    Transportation
    3
    4
    9
    7
    1
    1/2
    13 1/2

    2
    1
    14

    Normalized Matric
    Criteria
    Market
    Income
    Infrastructure
    Transportation

    Infrastruct
    Market
    Income
    ure
    Transportation Raw AVG
    0.1519
    0.1376
    0.2222
    0.2857
    0.1993
    0.7595
    0.6878
    0.6667
    0.5000
    0.6535
    0.0506
    0.0764
    0.0741
    0.1429
    0.0860
    0.0380
    0.0983
    0.0370
    0.0714
    0.0612
    1.0000

    Developing an Overall Ranking


    site A score = 0.1993(0.5012) + 0.6535(0.2819) + 0.0860(0.1790) + 0.0612(0.1561) = 0.3091
    site B score = 0.1993(0.1185) + 0.6535(0.0598) + 0.0860(0.6850) + 0.0612(0.6196) = 0.1595
    site C score = 0.1993(0.3803) + 0.6535(0.6583) + 0.0860(0.1360) + 0.0612(0.2243) = 0.5314

    Site
    A (Atlanta)
    B (Brimingham)
    C (Charlotte)

    Score
    0.3091
    0.1595
    0.5314
    1.0000

    Berdasarkan hasil perangkingan AHP di atas, maka

    Urutan rekomendasi alternatif keputusan adalah sebagai berikut


    1. Carlotte
    2. Atlanta
    3. Brimingham

    Site
    A
    B
    C
    Column Sum

    Row Average
    0.2819
    0.0598
    0.6583
    1.0000

    Site
    A
    B
    C

    A
    1
    3
    1
    5

    A
    0.2000
    0.6000
    0.2000

    Infrastructure
    B
    1/3
    1
    1/7
    1 1/2

    C
    1
    7
    1
    9

    Infrastructure
    B
    C
    0.2258
    0.1111
    0.6774
    0.7778
    0.0968
    0.1111

    AHP Consistency
    Pairwise Comparison for criteria

    Site
    A
    B
    C
    Column Sum

    Row Average
    0.1790
    0.6851
    0.1360
    1.0000

    Site
    A
    B
    C

    Transportation
    A
    1
    3
    2
    6

    Infrastructure
    A
    0.1667
    0.5000
    0.3333

    Criteria
    Market
    Income

    Market
    1
    5

    Income
    1/5
    1

    Infrastruct
    ure
    Transportation
    3
    4
    9
    7

    Criteria
    0.1993
    0.6535
    x

    Infrastructure
    Transportation

    1/3
    1/4

    1/9
    1/7

    1
    1/2

    2
    1

    0.0860
    0.0612

    membagi masing-masing nilai sesuai bobot dari vektor preferensi kriteria

    Market
    Income

    0.8327
    2.8524

    4.1773
    4.3649

    Infrastructure
    Transportation

    0.3474
    0.2474

    4.0397
    4.0436
    16.6255
    dibagi 4 krn ada 4 kriteria

    4.1564

    Transportation
    B
    C
    1/3
    1/2
    1
    4
    1/4
    1
    1 4/7
    5 1/2

    Infrastructure
    B
    C
    0.2105
    0.0909
    0.6316
    0.7273
    0.1579
    0.1818

    Row Average
    0.1560
    0.6196
    0.2243
    1.0000

    4 kriteria

    Scoring Model for the Sweats and Sweaters Store Location Example

    Decision Criteria
    School Proximity
    Median income
    Vehicle Traffic
    Mall Quality an Size
    Proximity of Other Shopping

    Weight (0 t0
    1.00)
    Mall 1
    0.3
    0.25
    0.25
    0.1
    0.1
    Score

    Grades for Alternative (0 to 10


    Mall 2
    40
    60
    75
    80
    60
    90
    90
    100
    80
    30
    62.75
    73.5

    for Alternative (0 to 100)


    Mall 3
    Mall 4
    90
    65
    79
    80
    50
    76

    60
    90
    85
    90
    70
    77.75

    You might also like