SlideShare a Scribd company logo

SuperDecision for AHP and ANP

E
Elena Rokou

This document provides a tutorial on using the SuperDecisions software for Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and Analytic Network Process (ANP) models. It outlines the basic process of creating clusters, nodes, links between nodes, making pairwise comparisons, and obtaining results. It demonstrates how to build a simple 3-level hierarchy to choose the best car based on criteria like prestige, price, and miles per gallon. It also discusses features like different comparison modes, improving inconsistency, sensitivity analysis, and building a ratings model instead of a relative model.

1 of 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Most read
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Most read
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Most read
74
TUTORIAL The SuperDecisions Software for AHP and ANP
SuperDecisions Software Tutorial Hyperlinked Index (must be in Slideshow mode for hyperlinks to work) • Outline of Process • Create a cluster • Create a node in a cluster • Create links between nodes (and hence clusters) • Make pairwise comparisons: Assess/Compare>node comparisons • Improving Consistency in making comparisons • Direct Data Entry • Building an AHP relative model to choose a car • The Three Types of Supermatrices • Getting Results • Doing Sensitivity Analysis • Relative vs. Ratings Models • Building an AHP Ratings model to choose a car • Moving to Network Models
Outline of AHP/ANP Relative 4. Synthesis-Supermatrix 1. Design unweighted, weighted, limit – Clusters 5. Sensitivity – Nodes 1. Links Ratings – Node to Nodes 1. Design: same as relative, but alternatives in 1. Judgments spreadsheet, not in hierarchy (comparisons) – 2. Spreadsheet: covering Matrix criteria; intensity categories – Verbal for each criterion and scale – Graphic from comparisons; rating the – Questionnaire alternatives one at a time
Download the file: SuperDecisionsSoftware_v1_6.exe from the Pitt Courseweb Week 1. Double-click on it to install it. This icon will appear on your desktop. Double-click on the icon on your desktop to run the software. You must enter a serial number the first time you run it. This one is valid through December 2007: WB43-AWVAY-PWPP
1. Design SuperDecisions Startup Screen
B A E D C Validation exercise: Pairwise compare these figures to determine their relative areas. That is, the percent each figure has of the area of all the figures put together.
Area Validation Exercise
Pairwise Compare the Areas
0.05 0.47 0.10 0.15 0.24
Pairwise Comparison Matrix • We will demonstrate how to use the software to create a simple pairwise comparison matrix for comparing three cars with respect to the property of prestige.
The Cars • Acura TL – Cost $30,000-$35,000 – Miles per Gallon 20/29 (City/Hwy) – Prestige is very good – Comfort is excellent • Toyoto Camry – Cost $22,000 - $28,000 – Miles per gallon 22/30 (City/Hwy) – Prestige is good – Comfort is good • Honda Civic – Cost $16,000 - $20,000 – Miles per gallon 29/38 (City/Hwy) – Prestige is medium to low – Comfort is medium to low
Create a Cluster Select Design>Cluster>New to create cluster Enter cluster name and description Save
Create a Node in the Cluster Right-click on cluster background to show dropdown menu (or use Design>Node command on main menu) Enter node name Prestige Click “Create Node” and description (optional) Save
Cluster with node in it Add another cluster with 3 nodes in it for the alternatives, the cars: 1. Acura TL (about $35,000) 2. Toyoto Camry (about $30,000) 3. Honda Civic (about $16,000)
Two clusters – not yet connected Connections icon close-up view Click at top of cluster and drag to move it Left-click around “connections” icon to Click on this depress it button and and enter drag to resize “make cluster connections” mode Double-click anywhere on a cluster to iconize/expand
2. Links Link the Prestige node to each of the car nodes 1 Left-click on “from” or parent node Make sure “connections” 2 Right-click icon is depressed successively on “to” or children nodes 3 Link then automatically appears between clusters You can also use the Design>Make Connexions command to make links!
3. Comparison Judgments Close-up of “Compare Left-click on “parent” node then left- nodes” icon click on “compare nodes” icon to launch comparison node selector with Prestige the “wrt” node Node Comparison Selector Box Click here to continue on into comparison mode
Pairwise comparison matrix for cars with respect to Prestige Select Misc.>Comparison Words and change comparison word from “important” to “preferable”
Enter pairwise comparisons for cars with respect to Prestige DOMINANCE STATEMENT FOR CURRENTLY SELECTED CELL (Civic vs Camry) Blue – left element is Inconsistency dominant ratio 0.0515<10% Red – top element so it is OK is dominant Double-click arrow to invert dominance Select Computations>Show new priorities
The Comparison Matrix • The Software View • The Theory View Acura Civic Camry Acura 1 8 4 Civic 1/8 1 1/4 Camry 1/3 4 1 Diagonal elements are always 1 and do not need to be displayed. The crossed out elements are always inverses of the Elements in red are actually judgment in the reciprocal cell and do not reciprocals. For example, 4.0 need to be displayed. stands for 1/4 aij = 1/ aji
Example A Three-Level Hierarchy Goal Buy Best Car Price MPG Prestige (Miles per Comfort gallon) Acura TL Toyota Camry Honda Civic
Improving Inconsistency • Inconsistency of < 10% is tolerable. However, the software can help improve it. • Inconsistency can be improved only in the Matrix mode Select Computations>Basic Inconsistency Report The most inconsistent judgment is listed first and identified as the AcuraTL versus Honda Civic judgment of 4. The blue color indicates row element (Acura) is dominant, red would indicate column element dominant. Click on either the Row or Column name to select the cell in question. You may type in the suggested value, a value of your own selection or go on to the next pair..
Inconsistency (cont’d) • The “best value” suggested for the (Acura,Civic) cell is 1.9988. This value will bring the inconsistency down the most. Enter it or some other value that best represents your feeling. • Entering 1.9988 gives an inconsistency of 0.0000. You do NOT have to use the suggested number. Choose the number that best represents your understanding. • Entering a 3 gives an inconsistency of 0.0176 – still an improvement on 0.0515. • If a number less than 1.0 is suggested, type the fraction in the appropriate cell. The software will automatically convert a fraction to a “red” number greater than 1.0 . It means the column element is dominant and the arrow points up. In the AHP literature this would be an inverse number with .33 would be a 1/3.
3 Other Comparison Modes Graphic Verbal Tracking  – shows which judgment you are on Questionnaire Click to invert Click and dominance drag on circle to change judgment
Other Comparison Mode Features Miscellaneous Command •Direct data entry – enter priorities or data directly •Comparison words – select Importance, Preference, Likelihood, or enter your own word •Restore Initial Values – restore values that were there upon entering the comparison mode Close Comparison Mode Judgments automatically save upon closing •Select File>Save and Close •Or click on
Miscellaneous Comparison Commands – Direct Data Entry (select Inverted button to invert Priorities when large numbers are undesirable. Use for costs, for example, where larger numbers should have smaller Priorities.) – Comparison Words (Select best word to describe type of comparison or enter your own comparison word)
Direct Data • To directly input values select Direct Data in the comparison mode; for example to input dollars or some other measures. The values will be normalized to give the priorities. • Inconsistency is always zero for direct data Invert if cheaper is Honda gets preferred – highest priority usually the case with
Weaknesses of using Direct Data • Data may not be as good as judgments in determining your personal priorities. It would usually be better to prioritize the price of the cars to customize the priorities for you instead of using the data directly. Suppose you are a poor college student. See the two results below. Which do you think more accurately reflects the reality? Comparing cars for price using judgments Priorities from Priorities judgments from data
To Build a 3-level Hierarchy Step 1. Create the clusters and nodes shown below Connections icon close-up view Click this button and drag to re- Turn on “Make size cluster Connections” mode by left- Name clusters clicking and nodes “connections” with number icon. prefixes. The supermatrix is arranged alphabetically so numbering controls order of presentation in supermatrix
Make Connections or Links from Goal Node to Criteria Nodes 1 2 Left-click “from” node Make sure (depresses node) “Make connections” icon is on 3 (depressed) Right-click each “to” node 4 Line will automatically appear from Goal cluster to Criteria cluster
Connect Criteria Nodes to Alternative Nodes SHORTCUT to connect many nodes at once Shift left-click on any “from” node selects all Shift right-click on any “to” node connects all to all Again, line automatically appears between clusters
Showing Node Connections Close-up of “show connections icon Hold cursor over any node and all nodes it Left-click on connects “to” “show will be outlined connections” in red. icon to depress it.
Supermatrix before making pairwise comparisons
Pairwise Compare Criteria with respect to the Goal 1. Left-click on Goal node to select it 2. Left-click on “node comparisons” icon Node comparison selector box will appear Matrix mode for making comparisons 3. Left-click “Do Comparisons” button to get into the Comparisons mode and click on Matrix to bring up the matrix view. 4. The (Prestige, Price) cell is highlighted so it is the current judgment
Enter pairwise comparisons for criteria with respect to the goal Enter judgments from AHP 1-9 scale (MPG, Comfort) is current judgment Blue – left element is dominant Red – top element is dominant Double-click Inconsistency index is 0.0768. arrow to invert (it is less than 0.10 so it is dominance okay) Select “Computations/Show New Priorities” Resulting Priorities
To Show Completed Comparisons Always mark comparisons complete as you finish them and are back in the node selector box. Turn on “Show Connections” icon and hold cursor over “parent” node to show its “children” nodes outlined in red. The entire cluster will be outlined in red when comparisons have been marked complete.
SuperMatrix showing Priorities of Criteria with respect to the Goal
Compare Cars for Prestige and Price Prestige Comparisons and Priorities Price Comparisons and Priorities
Compare Cars for MPG and Comfort MPG Comparisons and Priorities Comfort Comparisons and Priorities
4. Synthesis The Supermatrices 1. Computations>Unweighted Supermatrix: matrix containing the priorities from the pairwise comparisons. 2. Computations>Weighted Supermatrix: The unweighted supermatrix components have been multiplied by cluster weights. In a hierarchy the weighted supermatrix is the same as the unweighted. 3. Computations>Limit Supermatrix: Limit matrix is obtained by raising weighted supermatrix to powers until it converges to give the answer.
The Unweighted Supermatrix after all Judgments Completed
Results • Select Computations>Synthesize or click to get the final results: the priorities of the alternatives. Acura TL 0.344 Toyota Camry 0.200 Honda Civic 0.456 The Raw values come from the Limit Supermatrix. The Normalized values are obtained from them by normalizing. The Ideals are obtained by dividing all Raw values by the largest of them.
Results obtained from Limit Supermatrix
5. Sensitivity Analysis 1. Select Computations>Sensitivity command 2. Edit>Independent Variable in order to change the Independent Variable to the Goal. 3. In the Selected Node box highlight the current node and click Edit. 4. In the Input Parameter Box select Parameter Type: Supermatrix, Goal as wrt Node, and one of the criteria as the First Other Node, for example, Prestige. 5. Click Done and Update to see the sensitivity graph for that criterion. The first graph that appears is generally not the one you want. You want the Goal, not the Acura TL, as the independent variable
Getting Sensitivity Graph for Prestige Show Selected Node Box Set Parameters Box 1 2 Sensitivity Graph for Selected node(s) Show Selected Node Box Priority of Prestige is given on x-axis; vertical line is at Prestige priority of 3 4 50%; car priorities for Prestige=50% priority are shown by intersections with vertical line.
Priorities of all Nodes in Model • Select Computations>Priorities command to see priorities of all nodes in model • “Limiting priority” column shows value of Prestige from Limit supermatrix (.049) • “Normalized by Cluster” column shows overall priority of Prestige (.096) in model. • Drag the vertical line from .5 to . 096 on the x-axis in Sensitivity to show the priorities of the cars at that priority for Prestige.
Change Priority of Prestige At Prestige = 50%, Acura is best At Prestige = 9.2% (actual value), Civic is best Click and drag vertical line to change priority of Prestige The analysis: If your priority is less than about 25% for Prestige, the Honda is the car to buy. For any priority greater than that, the Acura is your best car.
Subcriteria in a Hierarchical Model • One creates clusters for the subcriteria. • Price connects to its subcriteria, initial cost and maintenance, which then connect to the cars • Comfort connects to its subcriteria Ride and Driving Performance which then connect to the cars. • Prestige and MPG connect directly to the cars as they have no subcriteria.
Ratings • Relative models: In a relative model such as the car model all nodes are pairwise compared to establish priorities. • Ratings models: In a ratings model standards are established for the criteria and the alternatives are rated one at a time against them.
Create a Ratings Model 1. Build a hierarchical model as shown below and enter judgments as before, but do not include the alternatives in the main screen of the model. The model has 4 criteria and the Comfort criterion has subcriteria of Ride and Driving Performance. 2. Select Design>Ratings to open the Ratings screen where the Alternatives will be evaluated.
Starting Ratings 1. Blank screen appears 2. Select Edit Criteria New and click on the criteria/subcriteria to appear as column headings. You must start by adding Criteria (trying to add Alternatives first will result in a software crash at present). Select the lowest level of covering criteria. Do NOT select Comfort; instead select its subcriteria, Driving Performance and Ride.
Ratings Spreadsheet 3. Ratings spreadsheet now has selected criteria in it as shown below: 4. Select Edit>Alternatives>New and enter name for each alternative: 5. The Ratings Spreadsheet now has one alternative; continue adding alternatives:
Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 5. Ratings Spreadsheet in which alternatives have been entered 6. Select Edit>Criteria> Edit Categories from menu or right-click on a column heading, for example, Prestige, to get the dropdown menu and select Edit Categories.
Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 7. Category Editor will appear. Enter names of Categories for the Prestige criterion (use New command) 8. Click Comparisons in Category Editor to bring up pairwise comparison screen a. Change comparison word to “preferred” b. Enter judgments – questionnaire mode appears but you can use any mode. c. Improve inconsistency to less than 0.10
Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 9. Compute priorities with Computations>Ideal Priorities command. The Ideal priorities are computed from the usual Priorities by dividing each priority by the largest. 8. Close the Comparisons screen in the usual way to return to the Ratings Spreadsheet. The categories have been established and pairwise compared for Prestige. 9. Click on the (Acura, Prestige) cell to show the categories from which you will choose the applicable rating and choose Excellent.
Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 10. Repeat the process to create the categories for Price and prioritize. Note that we have made the Price categories ranges of prices and that the lowest price range is the most preferred and gets the highest priority. 11. To display the priorities associated with the categories as shown here, turn on View>Category Display>Names and Priorities 12. Click on the (Acura, Price) cell and select its price range which has a priority of .085.
Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 13. Create categories for the remaining columns and rate the alternatives 14. Display Totals and Priorities columns with the View command
Results in Ratings 15. Final rated spreadsheet. The Priorities are the results. 16. Priorities can also be displayed with the Calculations>Synthesize command Ratings Relative Model Acura TL .280 .344 Toyota Camry .264 .200 Honda Civic .456 .455
Changing from a Hierarchical Model to a Network Model
Network Models do not have Goals A network model has a criteria cluster and an alternatives cluster, but no goal. The alternatives are prioritized for each criterion as in an AHP model.
Establishing Priorities for Criteria  In AHP criteria are prioritized by answering the question, “How important is C1 compared to C2 with respect to the goal?” Sometimes too abstract a question to answer.  In ANP criteria are prioritized by asking how important they are in each of the alternatives being considered. Usually an easier question to answer when looking at actual alternatives that have the properties in question.
Criterion Prestige connected to Alternative Cars and Cars Prioritized (and similarly for the other criteria) .707 .070 .223
Feedback: Link Alternatives to Criteria and compare for Preference For example, a pairwise question would be: “For the Acura TL, which do you like better, its prestige or its price?” ; “Its prestige or its MPG?” etc. .499 .066 .079 .355
Final Model
Make Comparisons  For each of the 3 cars compare your preference for their properties (or criteria) of Prestige, Price, MPG, and Comfort (same as in a hierarchy) This results in the three vectors of priorities for the criteria that go into the supermatrix. From these the limit supermatrix will net out an overall vector of priorities for the criteria.
Pairwise Compare Criteria for each Car Acura TL Results for Acura TL Results for Toyota Camry Toyota Camry
Pairwise Compare Criteria wrt Cars Honda Civic Results for Honda Civic
The Unweighted Supermatrix For example, the priorities in the last column come from comparing the criteria with respect to the Honda Civic. That is, what we value most about the Honda is its price.
Limit Supermatrix The limit supermatrix is obtained by raising the weighted supermatrix to powers until it converges (in this case all columns are the same, though not always true). The final answer, the synthesis, below is obtained by normalizing the raw values for the alternatives from the limit supermatrix: ANP AHP Acura TL .457 .344 Toyota Camry .173 .200 Honda Civic .369 .455
Why are the results different? •In AHP – the user, going top-down making comparisons, when asked without referring to actual alternatives, over-estimated the importance of cost. •In ANP – the user learned through feedback comparisons that his/her priority for Cost is not nearly as high as originally thought when asked the question abstractly, while Prestige gets more weight. This is why a husband and wife, setting out to the dealership to buy a “sensible” low priced car, walked out with something entirely different and much more costly. When they saw the shiny cars on the showroom floor they revised their priorities.
Inner and Outer Dependence •Outer dependence - the parent node and the nodes to be compared are in different clusters. A directed link appears from the parent node cluster to the other cluster. •Inner dependence - the parent node and the nodes to be compared are in the same cluster. The cluster is linked to itself and a loop link appears.
We can add some inner dependence: eg, price is influenced by prestige and comfort; and prestige is influenced by price and comfort.
An Example of an Inner Dependent Comparison is shown below: Which influences Price more, Prestige or Comfort? Which influences Prestige more, Price or Comfort?
The results with the interdependencies in place are: ANP ANP AHP (With dependencies) Acura TL .487 .457 .344 Toyota Camry .182 .173 .200 Honda Civic .331 .369 .455

More Related Content

PDF
Analytic network process
Mat Sahudi
 
PPT
Multi criteria decision making
Khalid Mdnoh
 
PPTX
Analytic hierarchy process
Ujjwal 'Shanu'
 
PDF
Beginners Guide to Non-Negative Matrix Factorization
Benjamin Bengfort
 
PPTX
Stochastic Gradient Decent (SGD).pptx
Shubham Jaybhaye
 
PPT
Ahp
fijojose
 
PPTX
multi criteria decision making
Shankha Goswami
 
PPT
Cluster analysis for market segmentation
Vishal Tandel
 
Analytic network process
Mat Sahudi
 
Multi criteria decision making
Khalid Mdnoh
 
Analytic hierarchy process
Ujjwal 'Shanu'
 
Beginners Guide to Non-Negative Matrix Factorization
Benjamin Bengfort
 
Stochastic Gradient Decent (SGD).pptx
Shubham Jaybhaye
 
Ahp
fijojose
 
multi criteria decision making
Shankha Goswami
 
Cluster analysis for market segmentation
Vishal Tandel
 

What's hot (20)

PDF
Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP
adcom2015
 
PDF
Independent Component Analysis
Tatsuya Yokota
 
PPTX
Dimensionality Reduction and feature extraction.pptx
Sivam Chinna
 
PPTX
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Rajiv Kumar
 
PDF
Genetic Algorithm (GA) Optimization - Step-by-Step Example
Ahmed Gad
 
PPTX
Feature selection concepts and methods
Reza Ramezani
 
PDF
Dimensionality Reduction
mrizwan969
 
PPT
Multi criteria decision making
Kartik Bansal
 
POT
Multi Objective Optimization
Nawroz University
 
PPTX
Data mining
Maulik Togadiya
 
PPTX
Machine Learning and Causal Inference
NBER
 
PPT
MCDM Introduction 08-01
rmcnab67
 
PPTX
Cannonical correlation
domsr
 
PDF
Case Based Reasoning
amironline
 
PDF
Decision tree lecture 3
Laila Fatehy
 
PPTX
Decision Trees
Student
 
PPTX
Logistic regression
saba khan
 
PDF
Classification Based Machine Learning Algorithms
Md. Main Uddin Rony
 
PPTX
Analytic Network Process
Amir NikKhah
 
PDF
Feature Extraction
skylian
 
Analytic Hierarchy Process AHP
adcom2015
 
Independent Component Analysis
Tatsuya Yokota
 
Dimensionality Reduction and feature extraction.pptx
Sivam Chinna
 
Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP)
Rajiv Kumar
 
Genetic Algorithm (GA) Optimization - Step-by-Step Example
Ahmed Gad
 
Feature selection concepts and methods
Reza Ramezani
 
Dimensionality Reduction
mrizwan969
 
Multi criteria decision making
Kartik Bansal
 
Multi Objective Optimization
Nawroz University
 
Data mining
Maulik Togadiya
 
Machine Learning and Causal Inference
NBER
 
MCDM Introduction 08-01
rmcnab67
 
Cannonical correlation
domsr
 
Case Based Reasoning
amironline
 
Decision tree lecture 3
Laila Fatehy
 
Decision Trees
Student
 
Logistic regression
saba khan
 
Classification Based Machine Learning Algorithms
Md. Main Uddin Rony
 
Analytic Network Process
Amir NikKhah
 
Feature Extraction
skylian
 
Ad

Viewers also liked (20)

PPT
Validation examples AHP and ANP
Elena Rokou
 
PPT
Tutorial 8 building_ahp_rating_ models_ver_2.2
elenau12
 
PPTX
Anp sunum
Oğuzhan Oğuz
 
PPT
ANP market share models
Elena Rokou
 
PPT
Changing from AHP to ANP thinking
Elena Rokou
 
PDF
Bütünleşik ahp topsis-vikor uygulaması
Ahmet S.
 
PPT
BOCR multi level ANP models
Elena Rokou
 
PDF
Apply AHP in decision making
Mohd Farid Awang
 
PDF
Ahp calculations
Lakshna Suresh
 
PDF
ANP SOLVER
Elena Rokou
 
PDF
A new method for feature selection in diagnosis using
Alexander Decker
 
PPT
Sensitivity in AHP models
Elena Rokou
 
PDF
Using DEMATEL Method to Analyze the Causal Relations on Technological Innovat...
drboon
 
PPS
Revised DEMATEL 2
nima_gheshlaghi
 
PDF
Modul 1 eselon 3 manajemen proyek
Dhiangga Jauhary
 
DOCX
Kartu praktikum
trilangga.com
 
PDF
Adeguamento Sismico, Master Livorno 07/03/14, Francesco Petrini
Franco Bontempi
 
PPTX
10. pertemuan 9 (pemodelan ahp)
iqbal vidianto
 
PDF
Kuliah SPK: Metode AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process)
Mutmainnah Muchtar
 
PPT
Regex php
Bertrand day
 
Validation examples AHP and ANP
Elena Rokou
 
Tutorial 8 building_ahp_rating_ models_ver_2.2
elenau12
 
Anp sunum
Oğuzhan Oğuz
 
ANP market share models
Elena Rokou
 
Changing from AHP to ANP thinking
Elena Rokou
 
Bütünleşik ahp topsis-vikor uygulaması
Ahmet S.
 
BOCR multi level ANP models
Elena Rokou
 
Apply AHP in decision making
Mohd Farid Awang
 
Ahp calculations
Lakshna Suresh
 
ANP SOLVER
Elena Rokou
 
A new method for feature selection in diagnosis using
Alexander Decker
 
Sensitivity in AHP models
Elena Rokou
 
Using DEMATEL Method to Analyze the Causal Relations on Technological Innovat...
drboon
 
Revised DEMATEL 2
nima_gheshlaghi
 
Modul 1 eselon 3 manajemen proyek
Dhiangga Jauhary
 
Kartu praktikum
trilangga.com
 
Adeguamento Sismico, Master Livorno 07/03/14, Francesco Petrini
Franco Bontempi
 
10. pertemuan 9 (pemodelan ahp)
iqbal vidianto
 
Kuliah SPK: Metode AHP (Analytical Hierarchy Process)
Mutmainnah Muchtar
 
Regex php
Bertrand day
 
Ad

Similar to SuperDecision for AHP and ANP (13)

PPTX
Auto Layouts , NSLayoutConstraint, Traits in iOS
Lakhdeep Jawandha
 
PPT
Tutorial 1 ahp_relative_model_ver_2.2.x
elenau12
 
PPT
Tutorial01_AHP.ppt
AristyoWijaya1
 
PDF
Building a local area network
Ashish Ranjan
 
PPTX
Comparing Means in IBM SPSS Modeler.pptx
Version 1 Analytics
 
PDF
w-jax 2022: Keeping CALM – Konsistenz in verteilten Systemen leichtgemacht
Susanne Braun
 
PDF
Konsistenz-in-verteilten-Systemen-leichtgemacht-wjax.pdf
Susanne Braun
 
PDF
Konsistenz-in-verteilten-Systemen-leichtgemacht.pdf
Susanne Braun
 
PDF
Facebook Network Analysis using Gephi
Sarah Joy Murray
 
PPTX
A Simple Tutorial on Conjoint and Cluster Analysis
Iterative Path
 
PDF
Architecture Description Languages: An Overview
elliando dias
 
PPTX
Lecture. COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING L.pptx
ssuser0009b6
 
PDF
Economics of platforms - Aditya.pdf
vineeth40
 
Auto Layouts , NSLayoutConstraint, Traits in iOS
Lakhdeep Jawandha
 
Tutorial 1 ahp_relative_model_ver_2.2.x
elenau12
 
Tutorial01_AHP.ppt
AristyoWijaya1
 
Building a local area network
Ashish Ranjan
 
Comparing Means in IBM SPSS Modeler.pptx
Version 1 Analytics
 
w-jax 2022: Keeping CALM – Konsistenz in verteilten Systemen leichtgemacht
Susanne Braun
 
Konsistenz-in-verteilten-Systemen-leichtgemacht-wjax.pdf
Susanne Braun
 
Konsistenz-in-verteilten-Systemen-leichtgemacht.pdf
Susanne Braun
 
Facebook Network Analysis using Gephi
Sarah Joy Murray
 
A Simple Tutorial on Conjoint and Cluster Analysis
Iterative Path
 
Architecture Description Languages: An Overview
elliando dias
 
Lecture. COMPUTER AIDED ENGINEERING L.pptx
ssuser0009b6
 
Economics of platforms - Aditya.pdf
vineeth40
 

More from Elena Rokou (8)

PPT
City of Pittsburgh decision about Penguins Arena
Elena Rokou
 
PPT
Int'l policy US tariffs on imported steel
Elena Rokou
 
PPT
Best time to withdraw from iraq BOCR model
Elena Rokou
 
PPT
Oil drilling policy in ANWR Alaska
Elena Rokou
 
PPTX
Tutorial 3 AHP ratings model
Elena Rokou
 
DOCX
Elena Rokou CV (En)
Elena Rokou
 
DOCX
Elena Rokou CV (Gr)
Elena Rokou
 
PDF
ER CV
Elena Rokou
 
City of Pittsburgh decision about Penguins Arena
Elena Rokou
 
Int'l policy US tariffs on imported steel
Elena Rokou
 
Best time to withdraw from iraq BOCR model
Elena Rokou
 
Oil drilling policy in ANWR Alaska
Elena Rokou
 
Tutorial 3 AHP ratings model
Elena Rokou
 
Elena Rokou CV (En)
Elena Rokou
 
Elena Rokou CV (Gr)
Elena Rokou
 
ER CV
Elena Rokou
 

SuperDecision for AHP and ANP

  • 2. SuperDecisions Software Tutorial Hyperlinked Index (must be in Slideshow mode for hyperlinks to work) • Outline of Process • Create a cluster • Create a node in a cluster • Create links between nodes (and hence clusters) • Make pairwise comparisons: Assess/Compare>node comparisons • Improving Consistency in making comparisons • Direct Data Entry • Building an AHP relative model to choose a car • The Three Types of Supermatrices • Getting Results • Doing Sensitivity Analysis • Relative vs. Ratings Models • Building an AHP Ratings model to choose a car • Moving to Network Models
  • 3. Outline of AHP/ANP Relative 4. Synthesis-Supermatrix 1. Design unweighted, weighted, limit – Clusters 5. Sensitivity – Nodes 1. Links Ratings – Node to Nodes 1. Design: same as relative, but alternatives in 1. Judgments spreadsheet, not in hierarchy (comparisons) – 2. Spreadsheet: covering Matrix criteria; intensity categories – Verbal for each criterion and scale – Graphic from comparisons; rating the – Questionnaire alternatives one at a time
  • 4. Download the file: SuperDecisionsSoftware_v1_6.exe from the Pitt Courseweb Week 1. Double-click on it to install it. This icon will appear on your desktop. Double-click on the icon on your desktop to run the software. You must enter a serial number the first time you run it. This one is valid through December 2007: WB43-AWVAY-PWPP
  • 6. B A E D C Validation exercise: Pairwise compare these figures to determine their relative areas. That is, the percent each figure has of the area of all the figures put together.
  • 9. 0.05 0.47 0.10 0.15 0.24
  • 10. Pairwise Comparison Matrix • We will demonstrate how to use the software to create a simple pairwise comparison matrix for comparing three cars with respect to the property of prestige.
  • 11. The Cars • Acura TL – Cost $30,000-$35,000 – Miles per Gallon 20/29 (City/Hwy) – Prestige is very good – Comfort is excellent • Toyoto Camry – Cost $22,000 - $28,000 – Miles per gallon 22/30 (City/Hwy) – Prestige is good – Comfort is good • Honda Civic – Cost $16,000 - $20,000 – Miles per gallon 29/38 (City/Hwy) – Prestige is medium to low – Comfort is medium to low
  • 12. Create a Cluster Select Design>Cluster>New to create cluster Enter cluster name and description Save
  • 13. Create a Node in the Cluster Right-click on cluster background to show dropdown menu (or use Design>Node command on main menu) Enter node name Prestige Click “Create Node” and description (optional) Save
  • 14. Cluster with node in it Add another cluster with 3 nodes in it for the alternatives, the cars: 1. Acura TL (about $35,000) 2. Toyoto Camry (about $30,000) 3. Honda Civic (about $16,000)
  • 15. Two clusters – not yet connected Connections icon close-up view Click at top of cluster and drag to move it Left-click around “connections” icon to Click on this depress it button and and enter drag to resize “make cluster connections” mode Double-click anywhere on a cluster to iconize/expand
  • 16. 2. Links Link the Prestige node to each of the car nodes 1 Left-click on “from” or parent node Make sure “connections” 2 Right-click icon is depressed successively on “to” or children nodes 3 Link then automatically appears between clusters You can also use the Design>Make Connexions command to make links!
  • 17. 3. Comparison Judgments Close-up of “Compare Left-click on “parent” node then left- nodes” icon click on “compare nodes” icon to launch comparison node selector with Prestige the “wrt” node Node Comparison Selector Box Click here to continue on into comparison mode
  • 18. Pairwise comparison matrix for cars with respect to Prestige Select Misc.>Comparison Words and change comparison word from “important” to “preferable”
  • 19. Enter pairwise comparisons for cars with respect to Prestige DOMINANCE STATEMENT FOR CURRENTLY SELECTED CELL (Civic vs Camry) Blue – left element is Inconsistency dominant ratio 0.0515<10% Red – top element so it is OK is dominant Double-click arrow to invert dominance Select Computations>Show new priorities
  • 20. The Comparison Matrix • The Software View • The Theory View Acura Civic Camry Acura 1 8 4 Civic 1/8 1 1/4 Camry 1/3 4 1 Diagonal elements are always 1 and do not need to be displayed. The crossed out elements are always inverses of the Elements in red are actually judgment in the reciprocal cell and do not reciprocals. For example, 4.0 need to be displayed. stands for 1/4 aij = 1/ aji
  • 21. Example A Three-Level Hierarchy Goal Buy Best Car Price MPG Prestige (Miles per Comfort gallon) Acura TL Toyota Camry Honda Civic
  • 22. Improving Inconsistency • Inconsistency of < 10% is tolerable. However, the software can help improve it. • Inconsistency can be improved only in the Matrix mode Select Computations>Basic Inconsistency Report The most inconsistent judgment is listed first and identified as the AcuraTL versus Honda Civic judgment of 4. The blue color indicates row element (Acura) is dominant, red would indicate column element dominant. Click on either the Row or Column name to select the cell in question. You may type in the suggested value, a value of your own selection or go on to the next pair..
  • 23. Inconsistency (cont’d) • The “best value” suggested for the (Acura,Civic) cell is 1.9988. This value will bring the inconsistency down the most. Enter it or some other value that best represents your feeling. • Entering 1.9988 gives an inconsistency of 0.0000. You do NOT have to use the suggested number. Choose the number that best represents your understanding. • Entering a 3 gives an inconsistency of 0.0176 – still an improvement on 0.0515. • If a number less than 1.0 is suggested, type the fraction in the appropriate cell. The software will automatically convert a fraction to a “red” number greater than 1.0 . It means the column element is dominant and the arrow points up. In the AHP literature this would be an inverse number with .33 would be a 1/3.
  • 24. 3 Other Comparison Modes Graphic Verbal Tracking  – shows which judgment you are on Questionnaire Click to invert Click and dominance drag on circle to change judgment
  • 25. Other Comparison Mode Features Miscellaneous Command •Direct data entry – enter priorities or data directly •Comparison words – select Importance, Preference, Likelihood, or enter your own word •Restore Initial Values – restore values that were there upon entering the comparison mode Close Comparison Mode Judgments automatically save upon closing •Select File>Save and Close •Or click on
  • 26. Miscellaneous Comparison Commands – Direct Data Entry (select Inverted button to invert Priorities when large numbers are undesirable. Use for costs, for example, where larger numbers should have smaller Priorities.) – Comparison Words (Select best word to describe type of comparison or enter your own comparison word)
  • 27. Direct Data • To directly input values select Direct Data in the comparison mode; for example to input dollars or some other measures. The values will be normalized to give the priorities. • Inconsistency is always zero for direct data Invert if cheaper is Honda gets preferred – highest priority usually the case with
  • 28. Weaknesses of using Direct Data • Data may not be as good as judgments in determining your personal priorities. It would usually be better to prioritize the price of the cars to customize the priorities for you instead of using the data directly. Suppose you are a poor college student. See the two results below. Which do you think more accurately reflects the reality? Comparing cars for price using judgments Priorities from Priorities judgments from data
  • 29. To Build a 3-level Hierarchy Step 1. Create the clusters and nodes shown below Connections icon close-up view Click this button and drag to re- Turn on “Make size cluster Connections” mode by left- Name clusters clicking and nodes “connections” with number icon. prefixes. The supermatrix is arranged alphabetically so numbering controls order of presentation in supermatrix
  • 30. Make Connections or Links from Goal Node to Criteria Nodes 1 2 Left-click “from” node Make sure (depresses node) “Make connections” icon is on 3 (depressed) Right-click each “to” node 4 Line will automatically appear from Goal cluster to Criteria cluster
  • 31. Connect Criteria Nodes to Alternative Nodes SHORTCUT to connect many nodes at once Shift left-click on any “from” node selects all Shift right-click on any “to” node connects all to all Again, line automatically appears between clusters
  • 32. Showing Node Connections Close-up of “show connections icon Hold cursor over any node and all nodes it Left-click on connects “to” “show will be outlined connections” in red. icon to depress it.
  • 33. Supermatrix before making pairwise comparisons
  • 34. Pairwise Compare Criteria with respect to the Goal 1. Left-click on Goal node to select it 2. Left-click on “node comparisons” icon Node comparison selector box will appear Matrix mode for making comparisons 3. Left-click “Do Comparisons” button to get into the Comparisons mode and click on Matrix to bring up the matrix view. 4. The (Prestige, Price) cell is highlighted so it is the current judgment
  • 35. Enter pairwise comparisons for criteria with respect to the goal Enter judgments from AHP 1-9 scale (MPG, Comfort) is current judgment Blue – left element is dominant Red – top element is dominant Double-click Inconsistency index is 0.0768. arrow to invert (it is less than 0.10 so it is dominance okay) Select “Computations/Show New Priorities” Resulting Priorities
  • 36. To Show Completed Comparisons Always mark comparisons complete as you finish them and are back in the node selector box. Turn on “Show Connections” icon and hold cursor over “parent” node to show its “children” nodes outlined in red. The entire cluster will be outlined in red when comparisons have been marked complete.
  • 37. SuperMatrix showing Priorities of Criteria with respect to the Goal
  • 38. Compare Cars for Prestige and Price Prestige Comparisons and Priorities Price Comparisons and Priorities
  • 39. Compare Cars for MPG and Comfort MPG Comparisons and Priorities Comfort Comparisons and Priorities
  • 40. 4. Synthesis The Supermatrices 1. Computations>Unweighted Supermatrix: matrix containing the priorities from the pairwise comparisons. 2. Computations>Weighted Supermatrix: The unweighted supermatrix components have been multiplied by cluster weights. In a hierarchy the weighted supermatrix is the same as the unweighted. 3. Computations>Limit Supermatrix: Limit matrix is obtained by raising weighted supermatrix to powers until it converges to give the answer.
  • 41. The Unweighted Supermatrix after all Judgments Completed
  • 42. Results • Select Computations>Synthesize or click to get the final results: the priorities of the alternatives. Acura TL 0.344 Toyota Camry 0.200 Honda Civic 0.456 The Raw values come from the Limit Supermatrix. The Normalized values are obtained from them by normalizing. The Ideals are obtained by dividing all Raw values by the largest of them.
  • 43. Results obtained from Limit Supermatrix
  • 44. 5. Sensitivity Analysis 1. Select Computations>Sensitivity command 2. Edit>Independent Variable in order to change the Independent Variable to the Goal. 3. In the Selected Node box highlight the current node and click Edit. 4. In the Input Parameter Box select Parameter Type: Supermatrix, Goal as wrt Node, and one of the criteria as the First Other Node, for example, Prestige. 5. Click Done and Update to see the sensitivity graph for that criterion. The first graph that appears is generally not the one you want. You want the Goal, not the Acura TL, as the independent variable
  • 45. Getting Sensitivity Graph for Prestige Show Selected Node Box Set Parameters Box 1 2 Sensitivity Graph for Selected node(s) Show Selected Node Box Priority of Prestige is given on x-axis; vertical line is at Prestige priority of 3 4 50%; car priorities for Prestige=50% priority are shown by intersections with vertical line.
  • 46. Priorities of all Nodes in Model • Select Computations>Priorities command to see priorities of all nodes in model • “Limiting priority” column shows value of Prestige from Limit supermatrix (.049) • “Normalized by Cluster” column shows overall priority of Prestige (.096) in model. • Drag the vertical line from .5 to . 096 on the x-axis in Sensitivity to show the priorities of the cars at that priority for Prestige.
  • 47. Change Priority of Prestige At Prestige = 50%, Acura is best At Prestige = 9.2% (actual value), Civic is best Click and drag vertical line to change priority of Prestige The analysis: If your priority is less than about 25% for Prestige, the Honda is the car to buy. For any priority greater than that, the Acura is your best car.
  • 48. Subcriteria in a Hierarchical Model • One creates clusters for the subcriteria. • Price connects to its subcriteria, initial cost and maintenance, which then connect to the cars • Comfort connects to its subcriteria Ride and Driving Performance which then connect to the cars. • Prestige and MPG connect directly to the cars as they have no subcriteria.
  • 49. Ratings • Relative models: In a relative model such as the car model all nodes are pairwise compared to establish priorities. • Ratings models: In a ratings model standards are established for the criteria and the alternatives are rated one at a time against them.
  • 50. Create a Ratings Model 1. Build a hierarchical model as shown below and enter judgments as before, but do not include the alternatives in the main screen of the model. The model has 4 criteria and the Comfort criterion has subcriteria of Ride and Driving Performance. 2. Select Design>Ratings to open the Ratings screen where the Alternatives will be evaluated.
  • 51. Starting Ratings 1. Blank screen appears 2. Select Edit Criteria New and click on the criteria/subcriteria to appear as column headings. You must start by adding Criteria (trying to add Alternatives first will result in a software crash at present). Select the lowest level of covering criteria. Do NOT select Comfort; instead select its subcriteria, Driving Performance and Ride.
  • 52. Ratings Spreadsheet 3. Ratings spreadsheet now has selected criteria in it as shown below: 4. Select Edit>Alternatives>New and enter name for each alternative: 5. The Ratings Spreadsheet now has one alternative; continue adding alternatives:
  • 53. Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 5. Ratings Spreadsheet in which alternatives have been entered 6. Select Edit>Criteria> Edit Categories from menu or right-click on a column heading, for example, Prestige, to get the dropdown menu and select Edit Categories.
  • 54. Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 7. Category Editor will appear. Enter names of Categories for the Prestige criterion (use New command) 8. Click Comparisons in Category Editor to bring up pairwise comparison screen a. Change comparison word to “preferred” b. Enter judgments – questionnaire mode appears but you can use any mode. c. Improve inconsistency to less than 0.10
  • 55. Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 9. Compute priorities with Computations>Ideal Priorities command. The Ideal priorities are computed from the usual Priorities by dividing each priority by the largest. 8. Close the Comparisons screen in the usual way to return to the Ratings Spreadsheet. The categories have been established and pairwise compared for Prestige. 9. Click on the (Acura, Prestige) cell to show the categories from which you will choose the applicable rating and choose Excellent.
  • 56. Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 10. Repeat the process to create the categories for Price and prioritize. Note that we have made the Price categories ranges of prices and that the lowest price range is the most preferred and gets the highest priority. 11. To display the priorities associated with the categories as shown here, turn on View>Category Display>Names and Priorities 12. Click on the (Acura, Price) cell and select its price range which has a priority of .085.
  • 57. Ratings Spreadsheet (cont’d) 13. Create categories for the remaining columns and rate the alternatives 14. Display Totals and Priorities columns with the View command
  • 58. Results in Ratings 15. Final rated spreadsheet. The Priorities are the results. 16. Priorities can also be displayed with the Calculations>Synthesize command Ratings Relative Model Acura TL .280 .344 Toyota Camry .264 .200 Honda Civic .456 .455
  • 59. Changing from a Hierarchical Model to a Network Model
  • 60. Network Models do not have Goals A network model has a criteria cluster and an alternatives cluster, but no goal. The alternatives are prioritized for each criterion as in an AHP model.
  • 61. Establishing Priorities for Criteria  In AHP criteria are prioritized by answering the question, “How important is C1 compared to C2 with respect to the goal?” Sometimes too abstract a question to answer.  In ANP criteria are prioritized by asking how important they are in each of the alternatives being considered. Usually an easier question to answer when looking at actual alternatives that have the properties in question.
  • 62. Criterion Prestige connected to Alternative Cars and Cars Prioritized (and similarly for the other criteria) .707 .070 .223
  • 63. Feedback: Link Alternatives to Criteria and compare for Preference For example, a pairwise question would be: “For the Acura TL, which do you like better, its prestige or its price?” ; “Its prestige or its MPG?” etc. .499 .066 .079 .355
  • 65. Make Comparisons  For each of the 3 cars compare your preference for their properties (or criteria) of Prestige, Price, MPG, and Comfort (same as in a hierarchy) This results in the three vectors of priorities for the criteria that go into the supermatrix. From these the limit supermatrix will net out an overall vector of priorities for the criteria.
  • 66. Pairwise Compare Criteria for each Car Acura TL Results for Acura TL Results for Toyota Camry Toyota Camry
  • 67. Pairwise Compare Criteria wrt Cars Honda Civic Results for Honda Civic
  • 68. The Unweighted Supermatrix For example, the priorities in the last column come from comparing the criteria with respect to the Honda Civic. That is, what we value most about the Honda is its price.
  • 69. Limit Supermatrix The limit supermatrix is obtained by raising the weighted supermatrix to powers until it converges (in this case all columns are the same, though not always true). The final answer, the synthesis, below is obtained by normalizing the raw values for the alternatives from the limit supermatrix: ANP AHP Acura TL .457 .344 Toyota Camry .173 .200 Honda Civic .369 .455
  • 70. Why are the results different? •In AHP – the user, going top-down making comparisons, when asked without referring to actual alternatives, over-estimated the importance of cost. •In ANP – the user learned through feedback comparisons that his/her priority for Cost is not nearly as high as originally thought when asked the question abstractly, while Prestige gets more weight. This is why a husband and wife, setting out to the dealership to buy a “sensible” low priced car, walked out with something entirely different and much more costly. When they saw the shiny cars on the showroom floor they revised their priorities.
  • 71. Inner and Outer Dependence •Outer dependence - the parent node and the nodes to be compared are in different clusters. A directed link appears from the parent node cluster to the other cluster. •Inner dependence - the parent node and the nodes to be compared are in the same cluster. The cluster is linked to itself and a loop link appears.
  • 72. We can add some inner dependence: eg, price is influenced by prestige and comfort; and prestige is influenced by price and comfort.
  • 73. An Example of an Inner Dependent Comparison is shown below: Which influences Price more, Prestige or Comfort? Which influences Prestige more, Price or Comfort?
  • 74. The results with the interdependencies in place are: ANP ANP AHP (With dependencies) Acura TL .487 .457 .344 Toyota Camry .182 .173 .200 Honda Civic .331 .369 .455