Quantification of stochastic uncertainty through confidence intervals when probability distributions are known is well-understood. There is considerable uncertainty in design decision support, however, for which probability distributions are unknown. The confidence interval formulation does not apply to these situations. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, or AHP, is an example of a tool with wide-spread industry application but questionable mathematical foundations. It is recognized by responsible practitioners that AHP should not be used as an optimization tool, but as a means of clarifying group attitudes. This raises the question, how differently must two alternatives be ranked by AHP to instill confidence that one is truly better than the other? In practice, this question is always answered using intuition. This paper examines and proposes the quantification of sources of uncertainty in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, and offers an answer to the question posed above. This study is the first step of a larger effort to quantify uncertainties in decision support in engineering design.
Skip Nav Destination
ASME 2002 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference
September 29–October 2, 2002
Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Conference Sponsors:
- Design Engineering Division and Computers and Information in Engineering Division
ISBN:
0-7918-3624-X
PROCEEDINGS PAPER
Quantifying Certainty in Design Decisions: Examining AHP Available to Purchase
Michael J. Scott
Michael J. Scott
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Search for other works by this author on:
Michael J. Scott
University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Paper No:
DETC2002/DTM-34020, pp. 219-229; 11 pages
Published Online:
June 18, 2008
Citation
Scott, MJ. "Quantifying Certainty in Design Decisions: Examining AHP." Proceedings of the ASME 2002 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference. Volume 4: 14th International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Integrated Systems Design, and Engineering Design and Culture. Montreal, Quebec, Canada. September 29–October 2, 2002. pp. 219-229. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2002/DTM-34020
Download citation file:
10
Views
Related Proceedings Papers
On Rank Reversals in the Borda Count
IDETC-CIE2003
Related Articles
Limitations of Pareto Front in Design Under Uncertainty and Their Reconciliation
J. Mech. Des (July,2013)
A Methodology for Trading-Off Performance and Robustness Under Uncertainty
J. Mech. Des (July,2006)
Untrained and Unmatched: Fast and Accurate Zero-Training Classification for Tabular Engineering Data
J. Mech. Des (September,2024)
Related Chapters
Utility Function Fundamentals
Decision Making in Engineering Design
Performance-Based Expert Judgement Weighting Using Moment Methods (PSAM-0264)
Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Probabilistic Safety Assessment & Management (PSAM)
Part A: Executive Summary
All Hazards Risk and Resilience: Prioritizing Critical Infrastructure Using the RAMCAP Plus (SM) Approach