Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 69 views

    Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) (: Nisha S. Simon

    Uploaded by

    pavan
    The document describes Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP), which is a multi-criteria decision making technique that extends the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to allow for fuzzy comparisons. F-AHP uses fuzzy numbers for pairwise comparisons in building the hierarchy to determine fuzzy preference weights. This allows F-AHP to account for the inherent uncertainty and imprecision involved in human subjective assessments for multi-criteria decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) (: Nisha S. Simon

    Uploaded by

    pavan
    69 views15 pages
    The document describes Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP), which is a multi-criteria decision making technique that extends the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to allow for fuzzy comparisons. F-AHP uses fuzzy numbers for pairwise comparisons in building the hierarchy to determine fuzzy preference weights. This allows F-AHP to account for the inherent uncertainty and imprecision involved in human subjective assessments for multi-criteria decision making.

    Original Title

    F-AHP.pptx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document describes Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP), which is a multi-criteria decision making technique that extends the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to allow for fuzzy comparisons. F-AHP uses fuzzy numbers for pairwise comparisons in building the hierarchy to determine fuzzy preference weights. This allows F-AHP to account for the inherent uncertainty and imprecision involved in human subjective assessments for multi-criteria decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    69 views15 pages

    Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP) (: Nisha S. Simon

    Uploaded by

    pavan
    The document describes Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP), which is a multi-criteria decision making technique that extends the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to allow for fuzzy comparisons. F-AHP uses fuzzy numbers for pairwise comparisons in building the hierarchy to determine fuzzy preference weights. This allows F-AHP to account for the inherent uncertainty and imprecision involved in human subjective assessments for multi-criteria decision making.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 15

    Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (F-AHP)(Chang, 1996)

    • MCDM Technique embedding fuzzy theory to AHP

    • fuzzifies hierarchical analysis and allows fuzzy


    numbers for pairwise comparisons to find fuzzy
    preference weights.

    Nisha S. Simon
    Need ?
     Standard Questionnaire
     Relative Comparison among elements
     Attempt complex hierarchical models
     Consistency Measure
     Related to
    › Structural Equation Modeling – No Relative
    Comparison
    › Conjoint Analysis – Higher and complex
    combinations are difficult
    Process

     Input – Subjective Opinion, Actual Measurement (Price, Weights);


    provide judgments about the relative importance of each criterion and then
    specify a preference for each decision alternative on each criterion
     Output – Prioritized ranking indicating the overall preference
    for each of the decision alternatives, Consistency Index
     Process –
     Build hierarchical model (Criteria, Sub Criteria, Alternatives)
     Build pair wise comparison matrix for each expert
     Convert crisp numbers of each matrix to triangular fuzzy numbers and
    their reciprocals (linguistic scale)
     Consolidate matrices using geometric mean method
     Calculate Fuzzy synthetic extent for each factor
     Find the degree of possibility values
     Obtain priority weights for each factor
     Convert them into normalized priority weights
     Check consistency ratio
    Triangular Fuzzy Conversion Scale/ Linguistic Scale (Fuzzy Fundamental Scale 1 by Yazdani - Chamzini
    and Yakhchali 2012; Soroor et al. 2012)

    Linguistic Scale Crisp Number Triangular Fuzzy Reciprocal TFN


    Number (TFN)
    Equally Important 1 (1,1,1) (1,1,1)
    Intermediate Value 2 (1,2,3) (1/3,1/2,1)
    Weakly Important 3 (2,3,4) (1/4,1/3,1/2)
    Intermediate Value 4 (3,4,5) (1/5,1/4,1/3)
    Fairly Important 5 (4,5,6) (1/6,1/5,1/4)
    Intermediate Value 6 (5,6,7) (1/7,1/6,1/5)
    Strongly Important 7 (6,7,8) (1/8,1/7,1/6)
    Intermediate Value 8 (7,8,9) (1/9,1/8,1/7)
    Absolutely Important 9 (8,9,10) (1/10,1/9,1/8)
     Pair wise comparison matrix derived from
    Questionnaire
    Expert 1 Expert 2
    Criteria C1 C2 C3 Criteria C1 C2 C3
    C1 1 3 1 C1 1 3 1
    C2 1 1/3 C2 1 1
    C3 1 C3 1

    Expert 3 Expert 3
    Criteria C1 C2 C3 Criteria C1 C2 C3
    C1 1 1/3 1/3 C1 1 1 1
    C2 1 3 C2 1 1
    C3 1 C3 1
     Pair wise comparison matrix converted to TFN
    matrix(using fuzzy scale)
    Expert 1
    Criteria C1 C2 C3
    C1 1,1,1 2,3,4 1,1,1
    C2 1/4,1/3,1/2 1,1,1 1/4,1/3,1/2
    C3 1,1,1 2,3,4 1,1,1
    Expert 4
    Expert 2 Criteria C1 C2 C3
    Criteria C1 C2 C3 C1 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1
    C1 1,1,1 2,3,4 1,1,1 C2 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1
    C2 1/4,1/3,1/2 1,1,1 1,1,1 C3 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1
    C3 1,1,1 1,1,1 1,1,1

    Expert 3
    Criteria C1 C2 C3
    C1 1,1,1 1/4,1/3,1/2 1/4,1/3,1/2
    C2 2,3,4 1,1,1 2,3,4
    C3 2,3,4 1/4,1/3,1/2 1,1,1
     Consolidated Pair wise Comparison Matrix using
    Geometric Mean

    Above table is converted using geometric mean method of aggregation


    {ex: Value of C1C2 is derived as (GM of (2, 2,1/4,1), GM of (3,3,1/3,1),GM of(4,4,1/2,1)]
    Criteria C1 C2 C3

    C1 1,1,1 1,1.32,1.68 .71,.76,.84

    C2 .59,.76,1 1,1,1 .84,1,1.19

    C3 1.19,1.32,1.41 .84,1,1.19 1,1,1


     Fuzzy synthetic extent for each criterion (Si)
    Criteria C1 C2 C3 Sum*

    C1 1,1,1 1,1.32,1.68 .71,.76,.84 2.71,3.08,3.52

    C2 .59,.76,1 1,1,1 .84,1,1.19 2.43,2.76,3.19

    C3 1.19,1.32,1.41 .84,1,1.19 1,1,1 3.03,3.32,3.60

    Sum 8.17,9.16,10.31

    Inverse of sum and write in reverse order .10,.11,.12

    Sum Inverse Synthetic Extent

    S1 2.71,3.08,3.52 .10,.11,.12 .271, .338,.422

    S2 2.43,2.76,3.19 .10,.11,.12 .243,.303,.383

    S3 3.03,3.32,3.60 .10,.11,.12 .303,.365,.432


    Synthetic Extent Pairs Combinations
    S1≥S2* 1
    S1 .271, .338,.422 S1,S2
    S2≥S1 Formula
    S1≥S3 Formula
    S2 .243,.303,.383 S1,S3
    S3≥S1 1
    S2≥S3 Formula
    S3 .303,.365,.432 S2,S3
    S3≥S2 1

    l1-u2/[(m2-u2)-(m1-l1)] V
    S2≥S1 S2 .243,.303,.383
    l2 m2 u2 .271-.383/
    (.303-.383)-(.338-.271) 0.762
    S1 .271,.338,.422
    l1 m1 u1
    S1≥S3 S1 .271,.338,.422
    l2 m2 u2 .303-.422/ 0.815
    (.338-.422)-(.365-.303)
    S3 .303,.365,.432
    l1 m1 u1
    S2≥S3 S2 .243,.303,.383
    l2 m2 u2 .303-.383/ 0.563
    (.303-.383)-(.365-.303)
    S3 .303,.365,.432
    l1 m1 u1

    For a combination of S1and S2, check which is greater.


    If S1>S2, then value is 1. Then other pair becomes S2>S1for which value is derived by formula
    l1-u2/[(m2-u2)-(m1-l1)] where fuzzy matrices are of the form S2(l2,m2,u2), S1(l1,m1,u1)
    Degree of possibility values (V)
    Pairs Values Criterion Pairs Values Priorities of Priority Normalized
    weights d’C1= weights priority
    min (val1, val2) weights

    S1≥S2 1 S1≥S2
    C1 (1,.815) min(1,.815) 0.815 0.343
    S2≥S1 .762 S1≥S3

    S1≥S3 .815 S2≥S1


    C2 (.762,.563) min(.762,.563) 0.563 0.237
    S3≥S1 1 S2≥S3

    S2≥S3 .563 S3≥S1


    C3 (1,1) min(1,1) 1 0.420
    S3≥S2 1 S3≥S2

    Total 2.378 1
    Consistency Index (CI) and Ratio (CR)*

    Consistency Index = (λ max – n)/(n-1)


    Consistency is closely related to transitive property B>A; A>C = B>C
    Consistency Index is compared with random consistency index developed by
    Saaty.

    n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    R 0 0 .58 .9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.49
    I Ratio = CI/RI ; If CR is less than 10%, then the opinions are
    Consistent
    consistent.

    *Use template to calculate this


    Inference
     C3 is considered to be the most important criterion
    followed by C1 and C2
     Since consistency ratio is smaller than10%,
    evaluation is consistent.
    2 level Model – Calculate normalized priority weights for each criterion and sub
    criterion separately, multiply each sub criteria weights with respective criteria
    weights to derive global priorities
    What else?

    Compute AHP and FAHP scores, then


     RII (relative Imp Index)
     RMSE
     Agreement Analysis
     Rank ordering to see rank reversal

    You might also like