Acta Montanistica Slovaca year 14 ( 2009), number 1 103-112

Analysis of the AHP method and its potential use in logistics

Ivana Roháčová 1 and Zuzana Marková 2

The Analysis of AHP method and its potential use in logistics

Analytic Hierarchy process is a method for multicriteria decision making or evaluating. It was created by Thomas Saaty in the '70s and from that time the method was
greatly studied and developed. AHP was and is applied in many different areas but mostly in the economic field. Despite that it is simple to use this method it has few limitations
that make it more or less subjective. It is necessary to eliminate these limitations to make AHP method more objective. This paper is trying to point out to advantages and
disadvantages of using AHP method. Paper also describes the usage of this method in the field of logistics.

Key words: AHP method, criterion, multicriteria decision making, evaluation, logistics

introduction

A characteristic feature of the present time is the amount of quality and timely information that the individual and the team needs
to know in order to be able to respond to everyday situations that they encounter in private and professional life. The optimal response
is directly proportional to the decision we make and on which the further course of events depends.

For a quality decision (evaluation), we need a sufficient amount of true information about the objects that enter the
decision-making process. For this reason, our effort is to obtain information about the object about its essential properties,
which are important in terms of decision-making, respectively. evaluation, that is, we assess them according to certain
selected evaluation criteria. Correct information on the importance of evaluation criteria is essential in many multi-criteria
evaluation methods.

Multicriteria decision-making (evaluation) depends on the selection of an appropriate method, which influences the
information we currently have available and also its impact on the chosen method. The priority is the method, the output of
which is decision-making based on the quantified usefulness of objects entering the decision-making process. The resulting
decision affects the importance of the evaluation criteria, and therefore procedures need to be addressed that allow the
weights of the evaluation criteria to be determined responsibly and accurately. When making decisions, experience is
important, which helps to select evaluation criteria for monitoring the so-called informative features that provide the greatest
amount of real information for decision making. Decisions made on the basis of even the best decision-making methods
developed may not be correct,

One of the appropriate means of multicriteria decision-making, resp. evaluation is the method of Analytic Hierarchy
Process - AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process).
The aim of the paper is to point out the popularity of multicriteria decision-making, the advantages and disadvantages of the AHP
method and the resulting suitability for its use in logistics. To support it, some previous examples of the use of the method are given.

Approaches to multicriteria evaluation

Based on the nature and use of information from the evaluator, it is possible to divide the methods of multicriteria
evaluation into the following groups: axiomatic methods, direct methods, compromise methods, methods of comparability
thresholds (sensitivity), human-computer dialog methods (Ocelíková, 2004).

1 Ing. Ivana Roháčová, Department of Management and Economics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Technical University in Košice, Comenius Park

14, 043 84 Košice, phone: 055 602 3158 , ivana.rohacova@tuke.sk

2 Ing. Zuzana Marková, Department of Industrial and Transport Logistics, Faculty of BERG Technical University in Košice, Park Komenského 14, 043 84 Košice, tel .: 055 602 3158

, zuzana.markova@tuke.sk
(Reviewed and revised version delivered on July 2, 2009)

103
Ivana Roháčová and Zuzana Marková: Analysis of the AHP method and its potential use in logistics

Evidence that multicriteria methods are becoming a very popular tool for decision-making or evaluation is also the fact that
many experts in various fields are working on these methods. As each expert comes from a different environment and is engaged in
a different professional activity, their individual approaches to the issue of multicriteria methods also differ.

The most used approaches to multicriteria evaluation include:

• The simplest and so far the most used method of multicriteria evaluation is the evaluation using questionnaires, which is also
used by the creator of the AHP method Thomas L. Saaty (Saaty, Kearns,
1985). With this type of questionnaire, a pairwise comparison is performed. The questionnaire is filled in by the management, resp. experts
from the evaluated company. They will then determine the most important criterion on the basis of their assessments.

• Another approach is based on the analytical calculation of space, from two to n - dimensional (area, volume), where the number of criteria
expresses the number of dimensions of space. This way of defining the most important criterion is presented by Malindžák (from the
Institute of Logistics of Industry and Transport, F BERG, TU) (Malindžák, 2007).

• The approach based on mathematical-statistical methods according to has a quantitative character, without subjective
influences in the evaluation of probabilistic parameters of the assessed subjects. The calculation is based on a matrix that
contains basic information about the level of influence of parameters on individual monitored objects. The individual rows of the
matrix represent vectors (Verebová, Šebo, 2006).

AHP method

Author of the AHP method Thomas L. Saaty (* 1926, Iraq) is an American mathematician working as a university professor at the
University of Pittsburgh. He is the author, architect and founder of the theory of analytical hierarchical process (AHP),
large area decision-making, multicriteria decision
analysis, analytical network process and its generalization to decisions with dependency and feedback. He has published a large number of
articles and published more than 12 books on the subject (Pittbusiness, 2008).
Analytical hierarchical process is a structured technique designed to solve complex decisions. It is based on
mathematical procedure and human psychology. It has undergone several improvements since it was created in the 1970s
by Thomas L. Saaty. AHP provides a comprehensive and logical concept for structuring a problem, for quantifying its
elements that are related to the overall objectives, and for evaluating alternative solutions.

AHP can be used in several different areas. It is used all over the world in various decision-making situations, in fields
such as government, trade, industry, healthcare, education. It is a suitable method for evaluating companies, where several
criteria lead to objectification of their evaluation.
In 1982, the AHP method was introduced in China, and since then its use has visibly expanded in that country. Its approaches are
highly compatible with traditional Chinese decision-making practices. It has been used in many decisions in the fields of economics,
energy, management, environmental studies, transport, agriculture, industry and the military. Although AHP does not require any special
academic training, the subject is part of the teaching at the university level. The AHP method is also well applicable in the field of quality
management.

Nearly one hundred Chinese schools offer courses on AHP. More than 900 articles on this topic have been published in this country,
and at least one Chinese school magazine is published here, which deals exclusively with the AHP method (Wikipedia, 2007), (Wikipedia,
2008).
Among the factors that make the AHP method perhaps the most popular decision-making method in the world, it can be emphasized that it
adapts to fixed data, such as price, speed of delivery, as well as personal experience and, last but not least, intuition. Thus, it allows
mathematically to derive the weight of individual criteria, instead of the subjective choice of the weight of criteria, as used by other decision-making
methods.
In the first phase, before the actual application of the method, the evaluation body (company, enterprise, organization ...) must
define all the criteria and sub-criteria on the basis of which the evaluation will take place. The selection of individual criteria and
sub-criteria is made on the basis of the existing knowledge and experience of each evaluating entity. If this is the very first evaluation of
a certain subject, he must sort the criteria more or less according to his own intuition, resp. following the example of another evaluation
body.

104
 Acta Montanistica Slovaca year 14 ( 2009), number 1 103-112

Structure of the AHP method

The AHP method, as a flexible model for decision making, clarifies the problems that have several possible solutions. AHP is
performed by an expert and then mathematical method, which divides the main problem into smaller and more detailed elements.

Decision-making according to the AHP method can be divided into three different stages (Saaty, 1985):

• The hierarchy,
• priority
• consistency.

The hierarchy

Defining the hierarchy

Hierarchy is a system of classifying and organizing people, things, ideas, where every element of the system, except the
top one, is subordinated to one or more elements. Hierarchical diagrams are mostly pyramid-shaped, but this is not always
necessary. There are several types of hierarchies. The simplest are the so-called "Hierarchy of dominance", where, like an
inverted tree, the main parent attributes are at the top. These are further followed by successive stages with gradually lower and
lower dominance. "Holarchies" are essentially hierarchies of feedback dominance. "Chinese boxes" (or standard hierarchies)
grow gradually from the simplest elements or components (inner boxes) to larger and larger aggregates (outer boxes) (Saaty,
1985).

Human organizations are mostly structured as hierarchies, where a hierarchical system is used to assign
responsibilities, practice leadership, and facilitate communication. A common hierarchy of "things" is e.g. a "top" desktop
computer with its slave monitor, keyboard, and mouse.
Hierarchical structure is the basis of a person's way of thinking, to divide reality into groups and subgroups. In the
world of ideas, we use hierarchies to help gain knowledge of complex reality: we structure reality into smaller components,
and those into other smaller parts, moving down the hierarchy to as many levels as needed. At each step, we focus on
understanding one component of the whole, temporarily, regardless of the other components at this and other levels. In this
way, we increase our overall understanding of any problem studied. Using a hierarchy, we have the ability to rank a large
amount of information to understand a particular decision problem. By creating such an information structure, we form a
better and better picture of the problem as a whole.

Explanation of the AHP hierarchy

When creating a structured hierarchy in the AHP method, an optimization system is set up consisting of the main goal, the selected
group of factors or criteria and alternatives, arranged similarly to the pedigree. Where necessary, the criteria are further subdivided into
sub-criteria and subsequently into further sub-criteria, etc.,
up to as many levels as the problem requires.
Goal

The most used way to display the hierarchy in

Crit. 1 Crit. 2 Crit. 3 Crit. 4 this method is a diagram, with a goal at the top,
alternatives at the bottom and criteria filling the
space in the middle (Fig. 1). In such diagrams,
individual cells are called nodes. Cells coming out

from any node

are called children - daughter nodes and nodes from which
are based subsidiaries nodes,
alternative alternative are called parental. Applying this definition of terms
Fig. 1. Structure of the AHP method (Wikipedia, 2008). Fig. 1.
to the diagram in FIG. 1

Structure of AHP method (Wikipedia, 2008).

105
Ivana Roháčová and Zuzana Marková: Analysis of the AHP method and its potential use in logistics

means: Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4 are children of the Goal. The target is the parent of each of Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4. Alternative 1, 2 is the child of each
Criterion. Each Criterion is the parent of both Alternatives (Wikipedia, 2008).
The process of compiling a system hierarchy is not only done to help identify all the crucial elements more accurately,
but also to identify the links between them.
The main idea in the AHP model is therefore to divide the main problem into separate elements (subcriteria) and
compare them with each other. The division of properties into smaller subproperties (principle of elementary information
processes (Alexandrov, 1975)) that create them is very important for several reasons:

• evaluation of results according to individual sub-criteria is much easier,

• if these assessments raise any doubt, it is easier to verify them,
• individual sub-evaluation criteria have a more precise sensory content,

• when evaluating according to individual criteria, the agreement of experts' opinions is much greater than when evaluating the result as a whole
(Ocelíková, 2004).

Because each hierarchy creation process is unique, no procedure is specified for creating this arrangement.
Participants examine aspects of the problem from the basic to the most detailed level, which they then express in a multilevel
way that the AHP requires. According to current approaches, a suitable method for creating a hierarchy is e.g. brainstorming.

The following figure shows a simple example of the hierarchical structure of criteria used to evaluate production strategy
according to Outokumpu Jyväskylä's Plate Service Center at the University of Vaasa in Finland (Takala et al., 2007) (Fig. 2).

Measuring
satisfaction
Measurement -
based activities
Continuous reliability
improvement agreements
Awareness
Customer
quality
Product Support
orientation Manufacturing
to the Custom

Added Cost customer

strategy Prices
Warranty
Low Prices Value
service

production

Knowledge Low number

management factors in the
creativity disagreements Product
presentation

Continuous
Important
learning
quality reliability

Education environmental
ability Training /
Problem solving Research and
aspects
verification
development

Know-how

Wide range
products

speed reliability
Mixed changes
Flexibility supply agreements

The right
timeliness quality
Design change

Volume The right

change amount

Fig. 2. Example of a hierarchy of criteria in a production strategy according to Outokumpu Jyväskylä's Plate Service Center at the University of Vaasa in Finland (Takala et al., 2007).

Fig. 2. The example of criteria hierarchy in production strategy according to Outokumpu Jyväskylä's Plate Service Center at Universita Vaasa in Finland (Takala
et al., 2007).

106
 Acta Montanistica Slovaca year 14 ( 2009), number 1 103-112

The creation of any AHP structure will depend not only on the nature of the problem, but also on the knowledge, judgments, values,
opinions and needs of the participants in the decision-making process.

Priority

After sorting the own set of criteria and compiling a hierarchical structure, various alternatives or criteria that affect the
evaluation through verbal explanation and numerical values ​are compared with each other at all levels of evaluation (Table
1). The result is given by weight on a relative scale for alternatives and criteria.

Tab. 1. Basic scale of pairwise comparison in the AHP method (Saaty, Joyce, 1981). Tab. 1. The basic scale

of pair comparison for AHP method (Saaty, Joyce, 1981).

Intensity of importance definition explanation

Two elements are also involved in target intervention.

1 Equal importance.

Less importance of one element relative to another. Experiences and opinions gently prefer one attribute over
3
another.

Experience and opinions strongly prefer one attribute over

5 Substantial or strong importance.
another.

One attribute is highly preferred and its dominance is

7 Demonstrable importance.
demonstrated in practice.

The obvious favoring of one attribute over another is at the

9 Absolute importance. highest possible level of expression.

If a compromise is needed due to the ambiguity of the

Mean values ​between two contiguous assessments.
2, 4, 6, 8 assignment to the above definitions of importance.

Questionnaires are mostly used as a means of evaluation. Usually the questionnaire is numeric, it can also be verbal -
but for calculations, verbal results must be transformed to numerical. All criteria-level alternatives are compared on a pairwise
weighting basis. The use of a numerical questionnaire is a suitable solution if we have a large number of respondents.

In a pairwise comparison, the two criteria are placed at opposite ends of the row against each other and are compared, which is more
important. The number 1 is in the middle of the line, which means that the compared criteria are equally important. Along the line are
numbers from 1 to 9, where the number 9 means that the criterion at this respective end was more important than the criterion at the opposite
end. If n is the total number of elements that are compared, then the number of comparisons is (Saaty, 1985):

( - ⋅ nn ) 2/1. (1)
Data on the significance of the criteria, obtained on the basis of their pairwise comparisons, are the values ​of r ij, indicating the ratio of the significance of the

evaluation criterion k1 to the criterion k2, where i, j = 1,2, ..., m. It is required that the quantities r ij
meet for all i, j = 1,2, ..., m, where m is the number of evaluation criteria, the following conditions (Ocelíková,
2004):
-1
r ij > 0 . = ji ijrr , 1r
ii
= . (2)

Quantities r ij, relative significance of the criteria are arranged in a square matrix of relative significance R.

11 12
... rrr1 •

21 22
... rrr2 mm . (3)
R
...... .... ...
•=
••••• •••••
• 1mm 2
... rrrmm •
The basis of Saaty's method is the calculation of the maximum characteristic number λ of the matrix of relative significance R ( characteristic
numbers are the solution of the equation det (λ E - R) = 0), while it is assumed that the decision on the significance of the evaluated
criteria is consistent or close to consistent.

107
Ivana Roháčová and Zuzana Marková: Analysis of the AHP method and its potential use in logistics

In the event of greater inconsistency, Saaty recommends that the expert reconsider his assessment of the criteria and the matrix of relative
significance. R modified to increase its consistency (Saaty, 1985).

Allocation of weights:
Correct and responsible determination of the weights of individual partial evaluation criteria is one of the basic tasks in solving
multicriteria tasks. Therefore, it is necessary to know the issues addressed well and to know the meaning and impact of the criteria by which
we evaluate the achieved result. There are a number of methods that help to refine the weights of the criteria determined at the beginning by
experts, resp. a group of experts from the given area of ​the solved problem. Methods that make it possible to implement a quantitative (but
also qualitative) arrangement on a set of evaluation criteria are called expert methods. Expert methods are used not only in determining the
weights of criteria, but also in determining the weights of objectives, in arranging objectives, in determining the weights of decision criteria,
etc. These expert methods differ according to whether the awards are awarded on the basis of the opinions of one expert or a group of
experts. In practice, group awards prevail, but they are accompanied by additional problems, such as determining the size of the group of
experts, its composition, creating conditions ensuring objectified evaluation of experts, determining the progress of work, etc. These are
methods such as brainwriting, brainstorming, the Delphic method.

It is obvious that just as the determination of the weights of the criteria is burdened by the subjective factor, so is the selection of
experts. Sometimes the main criterion for the competence of experts is considered to be their professional knowledge, other times originality
and intuition are preferred. The coefficient of competence naturally also takes into account the level of education achieved, the experience
gained and the resources on the basis of which the expert carries out the assessment. The basic characteristic of experts is their objectivity.
This can be achieved by bringing together several specialists from areas that have a professional relationship to the problem. It is natural
that greater demands are placed on the selection of an expert in individual expertise.

consistency

Decision-making alternatives are ranked in order of evaluation. When using the AHP method for decision making, four
axioms must be met:
• Inverse axiom: if alternative A is n times preferred over B, then alternative B is 1 / n times preferred over A. This is a rule of
1
reciprocity, expressed by the relation: =ij .
rrji

• Homogeneous axiom: pairing comparisons are significant only if the elements are comparable.

• Dependent axiom: the comparison at a lower level (sub-criterion) depends on the element at a higher level (at a higher level). The rule of
transitivity therefore applies, which can be described by the relation: =and ij ⋅ rrr
kj
, where

i, as there are some alternatives from the matrix R.

• Consequential axiom: if a criterion in the hierarchy is changed, a new valuation for the new hierarchy is to be expected
(Saaty, Joyce, 1981).

By fulfilling all conditions, we obtain a complete matrix of pairwise comparison.

Example of using the AHP method to select the most important of the three attributes A, B, C:

The first step is to create a matrix. If we compare the three attributes, in our case A, B and C, we obtain a matrix of
dimensions 3x3. We enter nine inputs into this comparison matrix. As mentioned earlier, the general rule is that the number of
evaluations needed to enter the inputs into the matrix is ​n (n-1) / 2. In our case, these are three self-assessments.

The values ​on the main diagonal must be equal to 1, as the individual attributes are compared with each other. The other three
values ​above the main diagonal are determined by the decision-maker, ie in this case us. The assignment of ratings is usually done in
such a way that the element in the left column is always compared with the element in the top row and the value is given by comparing
the element in the column with the element in the row.

108
 Acta Montanistica Slovaca year 14 ( 2009), number 1 103-112

We chose that attribute A is twice as important as attribute B ( r 12 =

2 ) and that B is twice as important as C
( r
23 =
2 ) . Then, according to the transit rule, attribute A must be 4 times more important than C ( r 13 =
4 ).
This condition is respected in our case. The last three values ​are created automatically according to the rule of reciprocity, which must also
apply strictly when constructing the matrix. The reciprocal value is given by comparing the second element in the column with the first
element in the row. Therefore, if attribute A is twice as important as B (
r 12 =
2 ) . attribute B must be twice as important as A ( r 21 =
2/1) .
A comparison matrix is ​reciprocal if the elements in the part below the main diagonal are reciprocal with respect to the elements in
the part above it and all elements on the main diagonal are equal to 1. For this reason, transitivity testing is sufficient on one of the two
parts of the matrix:
=and ij⋅ rrr
kj
, where j> k> i. (4)

At this point, three evaluations are performed to complete the pairwise comparison matrix.

In the next step, we will synthesize our

evaluations. First it is necessary to add the values ​in
1 ABC each column, then divide each value in each column ABC
ABC • 4 •2 ABC •
7/4 7/4 7/4
•
by the sum of the given column, thus obtaining a
• 1 2/1 2 • • 7/2 7/2 7/2•
normalized matrix,
• • • •
2/1 4/1 1 which allows meaningful 7/1 7/1 7/1

comparison between elements.

Finally, we calculate the average values ​in the rows by adding the values ​in each row of the normalized matrix and dividing them
by the number of values ​in those rows. In this way, by means of the synthesis, we obtain a percentage evaluation of the overall relative
priorities or preferences (A-14%, B-29% and C-57%).
The answer in this case was very simple, because we compared only three attributes. However, with a larger number of alternatives between
which the subject decides and with a larger number of criteria according to which he decides, these calculations are considerably complicated and,
most importantly, very time consuming.

Advantages of the AHP method

• The use of paired verbal evaluation allows for easier judgment.

• The AHP requires that more comparisons be made than is necessary to determine the weights. This specification allows consistency
to be verified by the judgment of the decision-maker. For example, only n-1 comparisons are needed to compare the importance of n
attributes (only two comparisons are needed to compare attributes A, B and C, A with B and A with C), while the AHP method
requires n (n - 1) / 2 comparisons (requires three comparisons for A, B and C: A with B, A with C and B with C).

• Clarity is ensured by the formal structuring of the problem - it will probably become a feature of all analytical methods
(Malindžák, Takala, 2005).
• Exact determination of criteria weights and possibility of quantitative evaluation of decision quality.

Disadvantages of the AHP method

• If verbal evaluation is used, then the evaluation scale is created by the evaluator. For example, you may think that one
criterion is less important than the other, but the AHP method can do the opposite.

• The method of creating your own rating scale for assigning weights to one entity may not be acceptable to other
assessors.
• Creating a tree structure is burdened with a certain degree of subjectivity.

• Attempt to additionally modify the matrix R means a violation of the objectivity of the evaluation. Adding a new alternative to a decision
problem can lead to a change in the position of the original alternatives. However, proponents of this method argue that this is an
advantage of the method.

109
Ivana Roháčová and Zuzana Marková: Analysis of the AHP method and its potential use in logistics

• The number of comparisons that must be made can make the method time consuming if there are a large number of criteria or
alternatives to compare. (Malindžák, Takala, 2005)

• Limiting the validity of a method to cases of consistent evaluation only, with practical evaluation often being
inconsistent.

Despite its weaknesses, the analytical hierarchical process method is used because it is a relatively simple tool.
Creating a hierarchical structure is not that simple, but using this tool does not require any special knowledge on the part of
the company (respondents).

Considerations arising from the analysis of the AHP method

Although the AHP method is one of the most objective and effective methods of multicriteria decision making, it has
several shortcomings. As already mentioned, one
One of the most serious shortcomings of the method is the burden of some steps of its application with a certain degree of
subjectivity. It is necessary to objectify the construction of the tree structure and the allocation of weights to individual criteria, which
would ultimately lead to the overall objectification of this method. It is therefore necessary to create a tree structure as accurately as
possible in order to minimize the subjective influences of the evaluator. One of the possible solutions, which partially eliminates this
problem, is to perform the evaluation with the participation of a group evaluation body, ie several experts in the given field of
evaluation. In addition to assigning weights to criteria, the assignment of weights to individual evaluators increases the objectivity,
which expresses the degree of influence, resp. the importance of evaluating individual experts. In this allocation of weights, its position
in the organizational structure of the company, function, educational, resp. professional level, all depending on the level of
management at which the evaluation takes place.

From the examination of the AHP method and its detailed analysis, we came to the following conclusions: there is an intention to
use this method to process and evaluate the data obtained by the logistic audit. One of the co-authors deals with the development of the
logistics audit system in her dissertation (Marková, 2008). The aim of the dissertation is to determine the theoretical and scientific aspects
of logistics audit. The first step is to define a standard - a logistics model. The starting point is the company's logistics system, where it is
necessary to define the areas, processes and activities that will be evaluated - to determine the scope of the logistics audit. The
processing of the database of questions for the implementation of the logistics audit follows. Next, you need to choose options

their evaluation (multicriteria evaluation methods). Rating

represents a challenging step in the process of creating a logistics audit system. The choice of an appropriate method of evaluation depends
on several factors.
The logistics audit divides the entire evaluation of the company into ten areas, each of which contains ten sub-areas and each
sub-area consists of ten questions. For the highest possible objectivity, the logistics audit is carried out by several evaluation entities.
The output of the logistics audit is the evaluation of individual areas. This output is then the starting point for achieving other
subsequent predefined goals (eg a summary of the found "narrow" problem areas of the logistics system and proposals for their
elimination). The overall evaluation as well as the evaluation of individual areas is in a set scale (eg a scale from 1 to 100%), which
represents the level of development of the evaluated unit.

The mentioned features, especially the tree structure and the intention to achieve the evaluation of areas, prove that the use of the
method for multicriteria evaluation is a suitable means. However, an important fact is that the AHP method performs the entire evaluation
based on a comparison of at least two alternatives, where the resulting evaluations of individual alternatives are normalized (the sum of
evaluations is always equal to 1 and 100%, respectively). The final evaluation of areas, resp. sub-areas in the mentioned logistic audit is
based on a different principle. The evaluation of one area does not have a direct impact on the other area (as is strictly in the AHP
method according to the rule of reciprocity and transitivity) and the sum of individual evaluations is insignificant. Based on this
consideration, resp. evidence, it is not possible to use the classical method of applying the AHP method to evaluate the mentioned
logistic audit. It is necessary to make some modification to a given method while preserving its basic ideas so that it can be used to
evaluate certain aspects as mentioned above. Thus, the result will not be given by the ratio, the sum of which is 100%, but the result will
be the placement of the evaluation on a scale in the range from 1 to 100 and the individual evaluations of aspects will not be
interdependent.

110
 Acta Montanistica Slovaca year 14 ( 2009), number 1 103-112

The traditional way of using the method, ie to evaluate at least two alternatives, is suitable to apply in the field of logistics, for
example, to the selection of suppliers. Individual suppliers represent alternatives and, according to criteria important for the evaluating
entity, a percentage valuation is assigned to individual suppliers using the AHP method. As already mentioned, the sum of these
percentage ratings is 100%.
The analytical hierarchical process can be applied to decision-making or evaluation tasks in various areas, but subject
to the condition that the evaluation, resp. decision-making must be established between at least two alternatives. Whether
both alternatives will be realistic or one will represent the so-called ideal condition is still the subject of research.

conclusion

The article deals with a detailed analysis of the AHP method - analytical hierarchical process. Its origin, popularity,
previous use are described, as well as the advantages and disadvantages that the use of this method brings. The
procedure of using the AHP method on a simple decision example is also given. In an effort to apply this method in the field
of logistics, specifically for the evaluation of the logistics audit, facts have emerged that require some modification of the
method. As the method is based on the principle of comparing at least two alternatives, it is necessary to integrate the
so-called ideal enterprise (2nd alternative).

Literature - References

Alexandrov, EA: Osnovy teorii eurističeskich rešenij. Moscow, 1975.

Eränen, H., Haapanen, A., Hiippala, P., Kahilakoski, T., Lintala, J., Nikkanen, A., Rantakari, A: Case study
Oy Petsmo Product Ab. Vaasa, Finland: Strategic Corporate Planning TUO, 308, 2004.
Critical thinking.cz. [Online]. Prague: 2001. Updated 5-4-2006 [cited 2006-04-10]. Available on
internet: http://www.kritickemysleni.cz/klisty.php?co=klisty4_brainstorming .
Malindžák, D., Takala J .: Logistics Systems Design: Theory and Practice. Košice: EXPRES PUBLICIT
Ltd, 2005. 221 p. ISBN 88-8073-282-5 .
Malindžák, D .: The RAL - model quantification as the multi - focused. In: Managing Global Transition:
Globalization, Localization, Regionalism. 2007 Slovenia, ISBN: 978-961-6573-88-7, pp . : 1854-4312 .
Marková, Z .: Logistic audit of a company: Written part for the dissertation exam. F BERG TU Košice, 2008. 35 p.
Master of Business Administration-Stage 2: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Bristol: University of
England, 2005th
Ocelíková, E .: Multicriteria Decision Making. Second edition. Košice: elfa s ro, 2004. 87 p.
ISBN 80-89066-28-3 .
PITTBUSINESS. [Online]. University of Pittsburgh, UMC WebTeam: Copyright 2007. Updated 12-
3-2008 [cited 2008-13-3]. Available on the Internet: http://www.business.pitt.edu/faculty/saaty.html .
Saaty, TL - Joyce, AM: Thinking with models. First editioin. Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1981,
181 p. ISBN 0-08-026475-1 .
Saaty, TL– Kearns, KP: Analytical Planning. First edition. Great Britain: Pergamon Press, 1985. 208 p.
ISBN 0-08-032599-8 .
Takala, J. et al .: Analyzing competitiveness of manufacturing and service operations - global
benchmarking of cases from Slovenia and Slovakia. MIC'07 - Management International Conference
2007, 8th International Conference of the Faculty of Management Koper, University of Primorska, 20- 24 November 2007, Portorož,
Slovenia. p. 1397-1407. ISBN: 978-961-6573-88-7.
Verebová, H., Šebo, J .: Evaluation of aggregate influences of the working environment factors. In: Proceedings
radova: Proceedings: 31. savetovanje proizvodnog mašinstva Srbije i Cerne Gore sa medunarodnim učešcem: 31.
conference on production engineering of Serbia and Montenegro with foreign participants: Kragujevac, September 19-21,
2006. Kragujevac: University of Kragujevac, 2006. p. 678-681. ISBN 86-80581-92-5 .

Wikipedia. [Online]. 2001. Updated 11-3-2008 [cited 2008-12-3]. Available on the Internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_Hierarchy_Process .
Wikipedia. [Online]. 2001. Updated 20-12-2007 [cited 2008-25-2]. Available on the Internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_L._Saaty .

111
Ivana Roháčová and Zuzana Marková: Analysis of the AHP method and its potential use in logistics

Wikipedia. [Online]. 2001. Updated 2-3-2008 [cited 2008-10-3]. Available on the Internet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criterion .
Wikipedia. [Online]. 2001. Updated 15-6-2009 [cited 2009-1-7]. Available on the Internet:
http://sk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorming .

112