Difference between revisions of "JeromeQuah Ex2 AHP"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
{| align=center width = 100% | {| align=center width = 100% | ||
| − | | style="text-align:justify; width:20em; height: 1em; font-size:17px; font-family: Times New Roman !important; background-color:ghostwhite; color: black;"| The ''Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)'' is a multi-criteria decision-making method to derive | + | | style="text-align:justify; width:20em; height: 1em; font-size:17px; font-family: Times New Roman !important; background-color:ghostwhite; color: black;"| The ''Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP)'' is a multi-criteria decision-making method to derive the relative weight of a number of criteria affecting for a decision to be made via the pair-wise comparison matrix. <br> |
| + | In this case, we will be applying the AHP in our decision-making for the suitable site to build the CDQC in Gombak, with the criteria being the '''Health Risk Factor''', '''Accessibility Factor''', '''Natural Conservation Factor''' and '''Economic Factor'''. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Before utilising the AHP, the priority for the mentioned factors for the suitability map with its rationale are as follows: | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''Order of Priority:''' | ||
| + | (1 - Most Important, 4 - Least Important) | ||
| + | |||
| + | 1. ''Health Risk Factor'' | ||
| + | * Bulleted list item | ||
| + | |||
| + | 2. ''Accessibility Factor'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 3. ''Natural Conservation Factor'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 4. ''Economic Factor'' | ||
| + | |||
| + | |} | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<!--Fundamental Scale Heading --> | <!--Fundamental Scale Heading --> | ||
Revision as of 18:03, 9 November 2019
| OVERVIEW | PROXIMITY | CRITERION SCORES | AHP | SUITABILITY |
|---|
| The Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) is a multi-criteria decision-making method to derive the relative weight of a number of criteria affecting for a decision to be made via the pair-wise comparison matrix. In this case, we will be applying the AHP in our decision-making for the suitable site to build the CDQC in Gombak, with the criteria being the Health Risk Factor, Accessibility Factor, Natural Conservation Factor and Economic Factor. Before utilising the AHP, the priority for the mentioned factors for the suitability map with its rationale are as follows: Order of Priority: (1 - Most Important, 4 - Least Important) 1. Health Risk Factor
2. Accessibility Factor 3. Natural Conservation Factor 4. Economic Factor |
| AHP FUNDAMENTAL SCALE |
|---|
| AHP Fundamental Scale (Row vs Column) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extremely Less Important | 1/9 | |||
| 1/8 | ||||
| Very Strongly Less Important | 1/7 | |||
| 1/6 | ||||
| Strongly Less Important | 1/5 | |||
| 1/4 | ||||
| Moderately Less Important | 1/3 | |||
| 1/2 | ||||
| Equal Importance | 1 | |||
| 2 | ||||
| Moderately More Important | 3 | |||
| 4 | ||||
| Strongly More Important | 5 | |||
| 6 | ||||
| Very Strongly More Important | 7 | |||
| 8 | ||||
| Extremely More Important | 9 | |||
| MATRIX INPUT |
|---|
| Factor Priorities for Communicable Disease Quarantine Centre in Gombak - Pairwise Comparison Matrix | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Row vs. Column | Economic Factor | Accessibility Factor | Health Risk Factor | Natural Conservation Factor |
| Economic Factor | 1 | 1/7 | 1/9 | 1/3 |
| Accessibility Factor | 7 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| Health Risk Factor | 9 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
| Natural Conservation Factor | 3 | 1/3 | 1/7 | 1 |
| Column Totals | 20.00 | 2.48 | 2.25 | 11.33 |
| Legend | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Automatic Calculation by Matrix | Red | |||
| Self-Input into Matrix | Yellow | |||
| RESULTS REPORT |
|---|
| Normalised Column Weights | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Row vs. Column | Economic Factor | Accessibility Factor | Health Risk Factor | Natural Conservation Factor | AHP-1(%) |
| Economic Factor | 0.05 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 4.7 |
| Accessibility Factor | 0.35 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.26 | 36.6 |
| Health Risk Factor | 0.45 | 0.40 | 0.44 | 0.62 | 47.9 |
| Natural Conservation Factor | 0.15 | 0.13 | 0.06 | 0.09 | 10.9 |
| Consistency Check | 6% |
| REFERENCES |
|---|
