Technical Policy Briefing Notes - 7
Analytic Hierarchy Process
Strengths and Weaknesses
Policy Briefs
Analytic Hierarchy Process
Strengths and Weaknesses
A key part of the MEDIATION project has been
to identify the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches. A
summary of some of the strengths and weakness is outlined below.
The main strength of AHP is the ability to directly compare tangible and intangible elements, taking into account the opinions and preferences of a wide range of people in the analysis of complex problems. This allows it to be used in contexts in which other decision tools cannot be used. The approach also provides results in a simple ranking that is easy to communicate. As well as the application in areas where quantification or valuation is difficult, it can also compare options against qualitative criteria, even in areas which are not directly comparable using conventional decision support techniques.
The potential weaknesses relate to the increased complexity of application and time taken to apply the approach if many criteria, sub-criteria and options are considered, and the somewhat subjective nature of the results (athough an inconsistency index can be calculated. The use of software can also conceal conflicting value judgments.
The main strength of AHP is the ability to directly compare tangible and intangible elements, taking into account the opinions and preferences of a wide range of people in the analysis of complex problems. This allows it to be used in contexts in which other decision tools cannot be used. The approach also provides results in a simple ranking that is easy to communicate. As well as the application in areas where quantification or valuation is difficult, it can also compare options against qualitative criteria, even in areas which are not directly comparable using conventional decision support techniques.
The potential weaknesses relate to the increased complexity of application and time taken to apply the approach if many criteria, sub-criteria and options are considered, and the somewhat subjective nature of the results (athough an inconsistency index can be calculated. The use of software can also conceal conflicting value judgments.
| Key strengths Can be applied to complex problems where decision elements are difficult to quantify or not directly comparable. Relatively simple approach and produces simple rankings that are easy to communicate. Does not require information on economic benefits and monetary valuation, and so it is applicable to areas that are difficult to value (e.g. ecosystems), difficult to quantify (e.g. equity) or that are contentious. Can accommodate a wide range of disciplines, opinions and groups of people who do not normally interact. | Potential weaknesses Results change as new options / alternatives are considered in the analysis. Becomes complicated if many criteria and options are considered. Some criteria are not independent so this can bias or complicate the way in which they are assessed. Subjective scale can lead to biases and it is subject to human error. The use of software can conceal conflicting value judgments. Linked to the previous point, trans-disciplinary capacity building can be undermined at the cost of the expediency (Cartwright et al., 2012) |
download this briefing note