FAHP Weighting

84
Input cells Auto-filled Weighing Score Fuzzy An al ytic Hierarch This c al culati on t ool is d esigned to a utomat e the Fuzz y AHP proc ess to wei ghti ng evaluation cr iteria by con making model. In the weight stage, performance attributes for a transportation project are defined as wel This tool uses the FAHP technique was utilized to establish the consensus weights among stakeholders of number is u til ized to ana lyz e dis crep anc ies ar isi ng du e to stakeholders’ preferenc es on performance attrib perf ormance attributes ar e orga nized in hierar chi cal clus ter to f acilit ate pair wise c ompari sons and to es ti determin ed by c onduct ing a sur vey i n the grou p of s take holders. If local survey i s not feasibl e, the import allows to define three (3) stakeholders and four (4) criteria. sc a mer: s ana ys s oo mp emen s e uzzy proce ures or ana yz ng e norma ze we g v vary and practical results may differ from pla nni ng estimates. NOT AUT HORIZED FOR FURT HER REPRODU

description

FAHP Weighting

Transcript of FAHP Weighting

IntroductionFuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Weight Scoring ToolThis calculation tool is designed to automate the Fuzzy AHP process to weighting evaluation criteria by considering conflicting interests from multiple stakeholders. This is one of the four modules in the entire decision making model. In the weight stage, performance attributes for a transportation project are defined as well as the stakeholders' preference. This tool will provide a weight vector applied to each project evaluation criteria.This tool uses the FAHP technique was utilized to establish the consensus weights among stakeholders of the concerning performance attributes in a project by considering both objective and subjective factors. Fuzzy number is utilized to analyze discrepancies arising due to stakeholders preferences on performance attributes. The triangular fuzzy number (TFN) is used in this model In Fuzzy AHP, complex structure representing performance attributes are organized in hierarchical cluster to facilitate pair wise comparisons and to estimate their relative weights The importance levels of these attributes among different interests groups can be determined by conducting a survey in the group of stakeholders. If local survey is not feasible, the importance levels can also be estimated based on the specific interests in each interest group. This demo version only allows to define three (3) stakeholders and four (4) criteria.Disclaimer: This analysis tool implements the Fuzzy AHP procedures for analyzing the normalized weight vectors of the performance attributes. All values reported in this analysis are estimates. Actual performance may vary and practical results may differ from planning estimates. NOT AUTHORIZED FOR FURTHER REPRODUCTION OR DISTRIBUTION WITHOUT PERMISSION.Input cells Traffic and Transportation Laboratory 2012, Developed by Xin (Alyx) Yu, All Rights ReservedAuto-filledWeighing Score

Start AnalysisDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering Traffic and Transportation Laboratory

DefintionEvaluation CiteriaCriteria 1Project RevenueCriteria 2System PerformanceCriteria 3Risk AllocationCriteria 4Social and Environmental ImpactsStakeholdersStakeholder 1The Private SectorStakeholder 2The Public SectionStakeholder 3The Public

Next

StakeholdersStakeholdersThe Private Sectorweight (1~10)1Importance Matrix - LinguisticAttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental ImpactsProject RevenueEqually222System PerformanceSlightly-Equally67Risk AllocationSlightly-Slightly+Equally3Social and Environmental ImpactsSlightly-Moderately+Moderately-EquallyThe Public Sectionweight (1~10)1Importance Matrix - LinguisticAttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental ImpactsProject RevenueEqually116System PerformanceEquallyEqually31Risk AllocationEquallyModerately-Equally2Social and Environmental ImpactsSlightly+EquallySlightly-EquallyThe Publicweight (1~10)1Importance Matrix - LinguisticAttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental ImpactsProject RevenueEqually667System PerformanceSlightly+Equally32Risk AllocationSlightly+Moderately-Equally7Social and Environmental ImpactsModerately+Slightly-Moderately+EquallyNOTES:Linguistic StatementIndictorsLinguistic StatementIndictorsAttribute i Equally Important to Attribute jEquallyAttribute i Equally Important to Attribute jEquallyAttribute i Slightly Important to Attribute jSlight+Attribute i Slightly Less Important to Attribute jSlight-Attribute i Moderately Important to Attribute jModerately+Attribute i Moderately Less Important to Attribute jModerately-Attribute i Strongly Important to Attribute jStrongly+Attribute i Strongly Less Important to Attribute jStrongly-Attribute i Extremely Important to Attribute jExtermely+Attribute i Extremely Less Important to Attribute jExtermely-AttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental ImpactsProject Revenue1222System Performance6167Risk Allocation6213Social and Environmental Impacts6371TFN1Equally11,1,1111Importance Matrix - TFN2Slightly+21,2,3123AttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental Impacts3Moderately+33,4,5345Project Revenue1,1,11,2,31,2,31,2,34Strongly+45,6,7567System Performance1/3,1/2,1/11,1,11/3,1/2,1/11/5,1/4,1/35Extermely+57,8,9789Risk Allocation1/3,1/2,1/11,2,31,1,13,4,56Slightly-61/3,1/2,1/11/31/21Social and Environmental Impacts1/3,1/2,1/13,4,51/5,1/4,1/31,1,17Moderately-71/5,1/4,1/31/51/41/38Strongly-81/7,1/6,1/51/71/61/59Extermely-91/9,1/8,1/71/91/81/71111231231231/31/211111/31/211/51/41/31/31/211231113451/31/213451/51/41/3111AttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental ImpactsProject Revenue1116System Performance1131Risk Allocation1712Social and Environmental Impacts2161TFN1Equally11,1,1111Importance Matrix - TFN2Slightly+21,2,3123AttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental Impacts3Moderately+33,4,5345Project Revenue1,1,11,1,11,1,11/3,1/2,1/14Strongly+45,6,7567System Performance1,1,11,1,13,4,51,1,15Extermely+57,8,9789Risk Allocation1,1,11/5,1/4,1/31,1,11,2,36Slightly-61/3,1/2,1/11/31/21Social and Environmental Impacts1,2,31,1,11/3,1/2,1/11,1,17Moderately-71/5,1/4,1/31/51/41/38Strongly-81/7,1/6,1/51/71/61/59Extermely-91/9,1/8,1/71/91/81/71111111111/31/211111113451111111/51/41/31111231231111/31/21111AttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental ImpactsProject Revenue1667System Performance2132Risk Allocation2717Social and Environmental Impacts3631TFN1Equally11,1,1111Importance Matrix - TFN2Slightly+21,2,3123AttributesProject RevenueSystem PerformanceRisk AllocationSocial and Environmental Impacts3Moderately+33,4,5345Project Revenue1,1,11/3,1/2,1/11/3,1/2,1/11/5,1/4,1/34Strongly+45,6,7567System Performance1,2,31,1,13,4,51,2,35Extermely+57,8,9789Risk Allocation1,2,31/5,1/4,1/31,1,11/5,1/4,1/36Slightly-61/3,1/2,1/11/31/21Social and Environmental Impacts3,4,51/3,1/2,1/13,4,51,1,17Moderately-71/5,1/4,1/31/51/41/38Strongly-81/7,1/6,1/51/71/61/59Extermely-91/9,1/8,1/71/91/81/71111/31/211/31/211/51/41/31231113451231231/51/41/31111/51/41/33451/31/21345111

Next

Weight ScalesWeight ScoresCriteriaWeighting ScoreProject Revenue0.188System Performance0.280Risk Allocation0.232Social and Environmental Impacts0.301Total1.0011122233344411.001.001.000.781.171.670.781.171.670.510.921.4420.781.171.671.001.001.002.112.833.670.731.081.4430.781.171.670.470.831.221.001.001.001.402.082.7841.442.173.001.441.832.331.181.582.111.001.001.00lmu>=S1>=S2>=S3>=S413.074.255.7810.110.190.35S10.700.860.620.6224.626.087.7820.160.280.47S21.001.000.930.9333.645.086.6730.130.230.41S31.000.840.770.7745.076.588.4440.180.300.51S41.001.001.001.0016.4022.0028.670.0610.0450.0350.0350.0450.061

Weight Scales

Project Revenue System Performance Risk Allocation Social and Environmental Impacts

Back