FAHP weighting.xls
24
Fuzzy Analytic Hier Input cells Auto-filled Weighing Score This calculation tool is designed to automate the Fuzzy AHP process to weighting evaluation criteria b the weight stage, performance attributes for a transportation project are defined as well as the stakeh This tool uses the FAHP technique was utilized to establish the consensus w objective and subjective factors. ♦ Fuzzy number is utilized to analyze di fuzzy number (TFN) is used in this model In Fuzzy AHP, complex structur ♦ comparisons and to estimate their relative weights The importance level ♦ the group of stakeholders. If local survey is not feasible, the importance version only allows to define three (3) stakeholders and four (4) criteria. analysis are estimates. Actual performance may vary and practical results m PERMISSION. Departm T
description
FAHP weighting.xlsFAHP weighting.xlsFAHP weighting.xls
Transcript of FAHP weighting.xls
Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process Weight Scoring Tool
Input cellsAuto-filledWeighing Score
This 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.
Start Analysis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Traffic and Transportation Laboratory
Fuzzy 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
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.
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.
© Traffic and Transportation Laboratory 2012, Developed by Xin (Alyx) Yu,
All Rights Reserved
Start Analysis
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Traffic and Transportation Laboratory
Fuzzy 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
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.
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
© Traffic and Transportation Laboratory 2012, Developed by Xin (Alyx) Yu,
All Rights Reserved
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Traffic and Transportation Laboratory
Evaluation Citeria
Criteria 1 Project Revenue
Criteria 2 System Performance
Criteria 3 Risk Allocation
Criteria 4 Social and Environmental Impacts
Stakeholders
Stakeholder 1 The Private Sector
Stakeholder 2 The Public Section
Stakeholder 3 The PublicNext
Stakeholders
The Private Sector weight (1~10)Importance Matrix - Linguistic
Attributes Project RevenueProject Revenue Equally
System Performance Slightly-Risk Allocation Slightly-
Social and Environmental Impacts Slightly-
The Public Section weight (1~10)Importance Matrix - Linguistic
Attributes Project RevenueProject Revenue Equally
System Performance EquallyRisk Allocation Equally
Social and Environmental Impacts Slightly+
The Public weight (1~10)Importance Matrix - Linguistic
Attributes Project RevenueProject Revenue Equally
System Performance Slightly+Risk Allocation Slightly+
Social and Environmental Impacts Moderately+
NOTES:Linguistic Statement Indictors
Equally
Slight+
Moderately+
Strongly+
Extermely+
Attribute i Equally Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Slightly Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Moderately Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Strongly Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Extremely Important to Attribute j
Attributes Project RevenueProject Revenue 1
System Performance 6Risk Allocation 6
Social and Environmental Impacts 6
Importance Matrix - TFNAttributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1,1,1System Performance 1/3,1/2,1/1
Risk Allocation 1/3,1/2,1/1Social and Environmental Impacts 1/3,1/2,1/1
1 1 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/2 1/3 1/2
Attributes Project RevenueProject Revenue 1
System Performance 1Risk Allocation 1
Social and Environmental Impacts 2
Importance Matrix - TFNAttributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1,1,1System Performance 1,1,1
Risk Allocation 1,1,1Social and Environmental Impacts 1,2,3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Attributes Project RevenueProject Revenue 1
System Performance 2Risk Allocation 2
Social and Environmental Impacts 3
Importance Matrix - TFNAttributes Project Revenue
Project Revenue 1,1,1System Performance 1,2,3
Risk Allocation 1,2,3Social and Environmental Impacts 3,4,5
1 1 1 2 1 2 3 4
1
System Performance Risk Allocation2 2
Equally 6Slightly+ Equally
Moderately+ Moderately-
1
System Performance Risk Allocation1 1
Equally 3Moderately- Equally
Equally Slightly-
1
System Performance Risk Allocation6 6
Equally 3Moderately- Equally
Slightly- Moderately+
Linguistic Statement Indictors
Equally
Slight-
Moderately-
Strongly-
Extermely-
Attribute i Equally Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Slightly Less Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Moderately Less Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Strongly Less Important to Attribute j
Attribute i Extremely Less Important to Attribute j
System Performance Risk Allocation2 21 62 13 7
System Performance Risk Allocation1,2,3 1,2,31,1,1 1/3,1/2,1/11,2,3 1,1,13,4,5 1/5,1/4,1/3
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3
System Performance Risk Allocation1 11 37 11 6
System Performance Risk Allocation1,1,1 1,1,11,1,1 3,4,5
1/5,1/4,1/3 1,1,11,1,1 1/3,1/2,1/1
1 1 1 1 1 1/53 1
System Performance Risk Allocation6 61 37 16 3
System Performance Risk Allocation1/3,1/2,1/1 1/3,1/2,1/1
1,1,1 3,4,51/5,1/4,1/3 1,1,11/3,1/2,1/1 3,4,5
1 1/33 1 3 1/55 1/3
Social and Environmental Impacts273
Equally
Social and Environmental Impacts612
Equally
Social and Environmental Impacts727
Equally
Next
Social and Environmental Impacts2731
TFN1 Equally 1 1,1,12 Slightly+ 2 1,2,3
Social and Environmental Impacts 3 Moderately+ 3 3,4,51,2,3 4 Strongly+ 4 5,6,7
1/5,1/4,1/3 5 Extermely+ 5 7,8,93,4,5 6 Slightly- 6 1/3,1/2,1/11,1,1 7 Moderately- 7 1/5,1/4,1/3
8 Strongly- 8 1/7,1/6,1/59 Extermely- 9 1/9,1/8,1/7
2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1/3 1/2 1 2 3 1 1 1 4 5 1/5 1/4 1/3
Social and Environmental Impacts6121
TFN1 Equally 1 1,1,12 Slightly+ 2 1,2,3
Social and Environmental Impacts 3 Moderately+ 3 3,4,51/3,1/2,1/1 4 Strongly+ 4 5,6,7
1,1,1 5 Extermely+ 5 7,8,91,2,3 6 Slightly- 6 1/3,1/2,1/11,1,1 7 Moderately- 7 1/5,1/4,1/3
8 Strongly- 8 1/7,1/6,1/59 Extermely- 9 1/9,1/8,1/7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 4 5 1/4 1/3 1 1 1 1 1 1/3 1/2 1
Social and Environmental Impacts7271
TFN1 Equally 1 1,1,12 Slightly+ 2 1,2,3
Social and Environmental Impacts 3 Moderately+ 3 3,4,51/5,1/4,1/3 4 Strongly+ 4 5,6,7
1,2,3 5 Extermely+ 5 7,8,91/5,1/4,1/3 6 Slightly- 6 1/3,1/2,1/1
1,1,1 7 Moderately- 7 1/5,1/4,1/38 Strongly- 8 1/7,1/6,1/59 Extermely- 9 1/9,1/8,1/7
1/2 1 1/3 1/2 1 1 1 3 4 5 1/4 1/3 1 1 1 1/2 1 3 4 5
1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 1/3 1/2 1 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/9 1/8 1/7
1 2 3 1/5 1/4 1/33 4 5 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 1/3 1/2 1 1/5 1/4 1/3
1/7 1/6 1/5 1/9 1/8 1/7
1/3 1/2 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 2 3 3 4 5 5 6 7 7 8 9 1/3 1/2 1 1/5 1/4 1/3 1/7 1/6 1/5 1/9 1/8 1/7
1/5 1/4 1/31 2 3 1/5 1/4 1/31 1 1
Weight Scores
Project Revenue
System Performance
Risk Allocation
Social and Environmental Impacts 0.0000.1000.2000.3000.400
Back
11 1.002 0.783 0.784 1.44
1 3.072 4.623 3.644 5.07
16.400.0610.035
Criteria Weighting ScoreProject Revenue 0.188System Performance 0.280Risk Allocation 0.232Social and Environmental Impacts 0.301
Total 1.00
Project Revenue
System Performance
Risk Allocation
Social and Environmental Impacts 0.0000.1000.2000.3000.400
1 1 2 2 2 31.00 1.00 0.78 1.17 1.67 0.781.17 1.67 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.111.17 1.67 0.47 0.83 1.22 1.002.17 3.00 1.44 1.83 2.33 1.18
l m u4.25 5.78 1 0.11 0.19 0.356.08 7.78 2 0.16 0.28 0.475.08 6.67 3 0.13 0.23 0.416.58 8.44 4 0.18 0.30 0.51
22.00 28.670.045 0.0350.045 0.061
3 3 4 4 41.17 1.67 0.51 0.92 1.442.83 3.67 0.73 1.08 1.441.00 1.00 1.40 2.08 2.781.58 2.11 1.00 1.00 1.00
>=S1 >=S2 >=S3 >=S4S1 0.70 0.86 0.62 0.62S2 1.00 1.00 0.93 0.93S3 1.00 0.84 0.77 0.77S4 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
