Delphic hierarchy process (DHP) : A methodology

European Journal of Operational Research 37 (1988) 347-354
North-Holland
347
Theory and Methodology
Delphic hierarchy process (DHP) :
A methodology for priority setting derived
from the Delphi method and analytical
hierarchy process
Reza KHORRAMSHAHGOL
*
A T& T Bell Laboratories, 480 Red Hill Rd, Middletown, NJ 07748, USA
Vassilis S. M O U S T A K I S
Department of Management Systems, Technical University of Crete, Chania, Greece
Abstract: Identifying of criteria and objectives is of paramount importance to a decision-making process
and is the basis for a sound decision. A systematic approach, therefore, is needed so that the objectives of
the organization not only can be identified but also prioritized so that the resources will be allocated to the
relative importance of the objectives and how well the alternatives satisfy them. The methodology
proposed here uses the Delphi method and integrates it with the analytic hierarchy process. It assists the
decision maker(s) to systematically identify the organizational objectives and then to set priorities among
them. The application of the proposed model is illustrated by a case study.
Keywords: Objectives, priority setting, economic development projects, project evaluation
1. Introduction
Decision making essentially deals with the
planning aspect of the management process. It
involves identifying objectives and alternatives and
choosing among them. Identifying criteria and
objectives is of paramount importance to a decision-making process and is the basis for a sound
decision. Inappropriate objectives will lead to improper planning and open the door to chaos.
* This work was performed when the author was with the
School of Business, North Carolina Central University,
Durham, NC 27707, USA.
Received April 1987; revised January 1988
Because much subjectivity enters into multiobjective decision-making models, the decision can
be error-prone even if the model works perfectly.
Therefore, this research aims to develop a methodology that reduces subjectivity and allows decision
makers to elicit systematically (1) the organizational objectives and (2) subjective value judgments for these objectives to be used to set priorities among them.
The proposed model is an effective priority-setting technique that benefits from a strong and
widely used managerial tool (i.e., the Delphi
method) and integrates it with a powerful
mathematical model (i.e., analytic hierarchy process). The Delphi method and analytic hierarchy
process are discussed next, then the proposed
0377-2217/88/$3.50 ~'~1988, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)
348
R. Khorramshahgol,V.S.Moustakis/ Delphichierarchyprocess
model is introduced and its application illustrated
through a case study.
2. Delphi method
The Delphi method is a systematic procedure
for evoking expert opinion. According to Dalkey
[3], there are three features to Delphi: (1) anonymity; (2) controlled feedback; (3) statistical group
response. Anonymity, effected by the use of
questionnaires or other formal communication
channels, such as on-line computer communication, is a way of reducing the effect of dominant
individuals. Controlled feedback--conducting the
exercise in a sequence of rounds and giving participants a summary of the results at the end of
each r o u n d - - i s a device to produce objectivity.
Use of a statistical definition of the response is a
way of reducing group pressure for conformity; at
the end of the exercise there may still be a significant spread in individual opinions. Probably more
important, the statistical group response is a device to assure that the opinion of every member of
the group is represented in the final response.
Within these three basic features, it is, of course,
possible to have many variations.
The rationale behind the Delphi, according to
Dalkey [3], is the age-old adage: " t w o heads are
better than one", (or in general: n heads are better
than one).
Linstone and Turoff [9] explain the process of
conventional Delphi as: " A small monitor team
design a questionnaire which is sent to a larger
respondent group. After the questionnaire is returned the monitor team summarizes the results
and, based upon the results, develops a new
questionnaire for the respondent group. The respondent group is given at least an opportunity to
re-evaluate its original answers based upon examination of the group response. To a degree, this
form of Delphi is a combination of a polling
procedure and a conference procedure which attempts to shift a significant portion of the effort
needed for individuals to communicate from the
larger respondent group to the smaller monitor
team."
Through the Delphi inquiry, the views of the
decision makers as well as others in the organization can be obtained and used to generate new
ideas, unique suggestions, and distinct alterna-
tives. Delphi also enables the monitor team to
bring together the opinion of individuals located
in different geographical areas whose views are
crucial for decision analysis, and whose joint
meeting is impossible or costly.
Dalkey [3], however, warns against the fact that
there might also be at least as much misinformation in n heads as there is in one. Therefore,
selection of the panel members and questionnaire
formulation are of utmost importance.
An excellent and readable book by Stanley L.
Payne [13] can be of great assistance in designing
the questionnaire. This book explains the art of
asking the right questions in the right way, and it
deals with human behavior and the principles of
wording.
3. Analytic hierarchy process (AHP)
AHP, introduced by Saaty [15], is based on the
idea that a complex issue can be effectively examined if it is hierarchically decomposed into its
parts. A H P implementation entails a hierarchy
whose top level reflects the overall objective: the
flows. Criteria on which the focus is dependent are
listed at intermediate levels, while the lowest level
includes the alternatives. An element at a higher
level is said to be a governing element for those
elements at the lower level• Elements at a certain
level are compared to each other with reference to
their effect on the governing element. Let us
consider the elements C 1, C2. . . . . Cn of some level
in a hierarchy and let us denote their normalized,
unknown, priority weights by w 1, w 2 . . . . . wn, respectively. The value of w i reflects the degree of
importance of C, with respect to C/s governing
element. The first step in the calculation of W, 's is
to derive pair-wise comparisons between the n
elements. These pairwise comparisons are structured into a n-by-n reciprocal matrix a = [a(i, j)],
called the judgment matrix:
G
C1 ]Va(1, 1)
An = C2 [a(2, 1)
C,
[~(n', 1)
c~
.-.
co
a(1, 2)
a(2, 2)
...
-..
a(2, n)
a(n,
.--
a(n, n
2)
a(1, n1
R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis /Delphic hierarchy process
Elements of matrix A are derived using the following scale:
a(i, j ) = 1 when i = j , diagonal elements,
a(i, j ) = 1 if C, and ~ are equally important,
= 3 if C, is weakly more important than
349
number of areas ranging from energy management
to political decision making [14,15] and software
package evaluation [11,12]. Zahedi [20] gives a
good survey of A H P and its applications and
Harker [6] assesses A H P and its critics.
cj,
= 5 if C~ is strongly more important than
4. Outline of the proposed model
= 7 if C, is very strongly more important
than ~ ,
= 9 if C, is absolutely more important than
= 2, 4, 6, 8: used to compromise between
two judgments.
Also a(i, j ) = 1 / a ( j , i) for all i, j =
1, 2 . . . . . n. If element C~ dominates over element
C 2, then the whole integer is entered in row 1,
column 2 and the reciprocal (fraction) is entered
in row 2, column 1. If element C'2 dominates
element C~ then the reverse occurs. If the elements being compared are equal, then one is assigned to both positions. There are n ( n - 1 ) / 2
judgments required to develop a n-by-n judgment
matrix, since reciprocals are automatically assigned in each pair-wise comparison.
Second, the unknown weights are calculated
from the judgment matrix A through the following equation
n
(A - I ) W = O;
Y'. wj = 1
j=l
where I and O are the unitary and zero matrices,
respectively, and W the normalized vector of
weights W 1 ... IV,. In addition, Saaty [14,15] has
developed an inconsistency index to capture any
bias when relative comparisons are made. The
reciprocity of the judgment matrix requires that
a(i, k ) = a ( i , j ) * a ( j , k), but this is often
violated. The inconsistency ratio (IR) is defined
as:
X-n
IR=--
n--1
where X is the largest eigenvalue. A zero value
would indicate perfect consistency whereas larger
values indicating increasing levels of inconsistency. Saaty has indicated that the I R should be
about 10% or less to be acceptable. If the I R
exceeds the 10% level, value judgment may need
to be revised. A H P has had wide success in a
AHP, described in the previous section, provides a framework to structure individual and
group subjective judgments. In this paper we suggest that the Delphi method be conducted prior to
A H P so that not only can the objectives to be
considered in analysis be determined, but the
opinions of all decision makers can also be incorporated in problem formulation. We refer to the
merger of A H P and Delphi as Delphic Hierarchy
Process (DHP). This section outlines the steps of
DHP, and the next section, by means of experimentation, illustrates how D H P can be used to
elicit objectives from decision makers, obtain their
weighting of those objectives, and then derive
priorities among them.
The steps of D H P are as follows:
I. Select a monitor team to conduct the Delphi
inquiries. The team should consist of experts
familiar with the problem area--e.g., managers
a n d / o r staff or anyone who will be involved in
decision making for the problem.
II. Choose the participants of the Delphi inquiries. The monitor team then chooses the individuals who will participate in the inquiries--e.g.,
the decision maker(s) and experts as well as anyone who can provide some input.
III. Use the Delphi method to determine objectives and their weights. The monitor team should
design a questionnaire in which the participants
are asked to specify the objectives the organization should pursue in the long or short run. Obviously these objectives may be diversified (and
often conflicting). Since the purpose is to prioritize them, all objectives can be included for further analysis. If any screening is necessary, it can
be done after priorization. Alternatively, the
monitor team can use the weights obtained in the
Delphi inquiry to eliminate the unimportant objectives before proceeding to the next step.
IV. Perform another Delphi to set up a pairwise
comparison matrix for objectives. Here, the objec-
R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis / Delphichierarchyprocess
350
Delphi inquiries
I Delphi inquiry I
Information eficiting
Ranking of objectives
Objectives
and their
weights
Prepare a list of
important objectives
Delphi inquiry II
Pairwise comparison
matrix
Priorities
for
objectives
Figure 1. An overviewof the proposed model
rives specified in step III should be presented to
the participants in order to obtain their subjective
value judgments for pairwise comparison matrix.
If consensus is not reached regarding any individual element of this matrix, the arithmetic mean of
the value judgments of all participants will be
considered for that element.
V. Obtain eigenvalues of the pairwise comparison
matrix. The eigenvalues of this matrix represent
the priority among objectives. This set of objectives then can be an input to any multi-criteria
resource allocation model (see Khorramshahgol
[7,81).
5. Why use Delphi?
Many other techniques for forecasting and
preference analysis exist. To name some: (1)
Bernolli's Utility Theory [1], (2) Samuelson's Revealed Preference [16], (3) Econometric Models
[10], and (4) Socio-Psychological Scaling Techniques [4]--e.g., Paired Comparison," The Method
of Equal-appearing Intervals," The Method of
Successive Intervals," Summed Rating Method, etc.
For the purpose of our problem--namely, determining the objectives and their weights--the
Delphi method is the most suitable because other
forecasting and preference analysis models all lack
the Delphi capability to elicit expert opinion iteratively. Some others such as Samuelson's Revealed
Preference also need an astronomical amount of
data to build a model.
Other advantages of the Delphi that cannot be
provided by other methods are the following:
(1) All managers and decision makers will be
deeply involved in the planning process because
the Delphi allows them to suggest what objectives
should be considered in the analysis. Therefore,
Delphi will ensure not only a more agreeable
solution (i.e., agreement on objectives selected)
but also an effective implementation of alternative(s) chosen to achieve the objectives.
(2) Because of anonymity, Delphi allows the
participants to express their opinions freely and to
assign numerical values to what is essentially an
opinion, though an educated one. The participants
will be given the opportunity to express their
subjective value judgments for each objective and
can be assured that their judgments will be taken
into account. On the other hand, for this very
reason, the subjectivity in assigning weights to
objectives will be minimized and the weights will
be more objective. Similarly, the subjectivity inherent in the construction of pairwise comparison
matrices will be minimized.
6. The application of the proposed model
The case of La Carreteria Bolivariana Marginal De
la Selva: An international development highway
To test its practicality, the proposed model
(DHP) was applied to an international development highway called La Carreteria Bolivariana
R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis / Delphic hierarchy process
Marginal De la Selva. This highway is to start
from the frontier of Columbia and Venezuela and
end at Santa Cruz in Bolivia. (For a detailed
explanation, see Steiner [17,18]). President
Fernando Belaunde was the prime mover of this
highway and presented its socio-economic concept
in his 1959 book, The Concept of Peru by Peruvians. Bolivariana appears in the highway's name
because the road traverses part of the area liberated
by Simon Bolivar and because the highway is a
step toward Bolivar's great h o p e - - t h e unification
of South America. It will be a major step since it
is to link in its course all areas suitable for agriculture, cattle raising, and forest exploitation along
the upper rim of the jungle, which washes against
the eastern slope of the Andes in Colombia,
Ecuador, Peru, and Bolivia.
At present, the Peruvian Oriente, which is the
country's largest region, is isolated from the rest
of the country. However, there is a great potential
for developing Oriente's natural resources and its
agricultural product and cattle raising.
" T h e technique of our engineers has been, until
now, that of joining two more or less distant
points by the shortest road. This criterion is not
appropriate for a colonizing highway such as the
Bolivar Highway, where the main interest lies in
opening up the largest possible area of useful land
for agriculture and cattle raising [2, p. 4].
After his election as President of Peru in 1963,
Belaunde began to carry out his idea by inviting
the governments of the countries concerned to
consider the project. In October, 1963, the Ministers of Development and Public Works of the four
countries met in Lima. They agreed to a preliminary feasibility study and subsequently more
detailed studies.
" I n the case of Peru, the transportation modes
connecting coastal Peru with its jungle are truck,
airplane, and beast of burden. All these, coming
west from the jungle (the Oriente) must cross the
Andes (the Sierra-Alti-plano) and come down to
the coastal desert where Lima and many other
cities and towns are located. But east-west roads
are scarce, the terrain is formidable, and earthquakes and landslides are frequent. Thus the
cheapest mode, the truck, is undependable. For
producers of perishable agricultural products, dependability of transport is vital. However, the
construction and improvement of these east-west
links--called penetration roads--is proceeding
351
rapidly, and if all goes as scheduled, by the time
the Bolivar Highway is completed, the penetration
roads will have been in operation for some years.
The Bolivar Highway will connect the ends of the
penetration roads. As each section of it is finished
the agricultural lands it crosses will be open for
colonization. The Bolivar Highway will provide
the missing eastern side to the grid formed by the
Pan-American highway running north and south
along the coast and the penetration roads running
east and west over the Andes" (Steiner [17]).
To set construction priorities along the route,
the highway was divided into sections that formed
a " T " with the penetration roads from the coast.
The vertical of the " T " is the penetration road,
the horizontal is the new highway. Each section of
the Bolivar Highway is connected to a penetration
road already in existence, planned, or in the process of construction.
One of the primary objectives of the Bolivar
Highway is to initiate the integration of the country's largest region, the Peruvian Oriente, with the
rest of the country, as well as developing its natural resources and agricultural potential.
As an international highway, the Bolivar project is expected to foster economic interchange
among the four countries through which it passes,
thereby, doing its share toward reaching the major
goal of all South American transport projects: the
tying together of a continent.
Table 1 summarizes a few of the facts about the
Bolivar Highway (see TAMS report [19]).
The appfication of DHP
In the case of the La Carreteria Bolivariana
Marginal De la Selva, the purpose of D H P was
threefold: (1) to elicit the objectives to be pursued
Table 1
Some facts about the Bolivar Highway
Total length of the Highway
Colombia
Ecuador
Peru
Bolivia
Existing portions
Portions under construction
Portion to be built
5 590 kms.
(24%)
( 15 %)
(44%)
(17%)
1 320
860
2460
950
kms.
kms.
kms.
kms.
1030 kms.
743 kms.
3 810 kms.
352
R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis /Delphic hierarchy process
Table 2
Part I of questionnaire--Round 1
Table 3
Part II of questionnaire--Round 1
Please read the case study carefully. Assume that you are
an economist in the Socio-Economic Studies Division of the
Department of Transportation of the Government of Peru. In
the space provided, please name at leastfive objectives that you
think should be pursued when allocating resources for the
construction of the La Carreteria Bolivariana De la Selva.
Please be very specific and consider the viewpoint of the
Peruvian government only.
Example: In a private company the possible objectives
might be:
Refer to your answer to Part I. Please rank the objectives
in order of importance, from most to least important. Weight
these objectives using a scale of 1 to 100. Assign 100 to the
objective you consider most important, and judge all others by
that objective. One almost as important might be 95; half as
important would be 50.
1. To increase sales revenues
2. To maintain the level of employment
3. To decrease employee absenteeism
4. To improve the quality of products
No.
Objective
Weight
I n the next r o u n d of the Delphi, the respondents were given a list of the objectives (Table 4)
o b t a i n e d from R o u n d 1. They were then asked to
review the s u m m a r y a n d to weight the objectives
again. The p u r p o s e for the second r o u n d of the
Delphi was to p r o v i d e each p a r t i c i p a n t with some
overall i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the objectives a n d their
weights a n d to give t h e m a chance to change their
responses (in the light of new i n f o r m a t i o n ) if they
wished.
Table 4
Questionnaire--Round 2
w h e n c o n s t r u c t i n g the Bolivar Highway, (2) to
screen these objectives so that u n i m p o r t a n t ones
will n o t be considered further a n d (3) to prioritize
the screened objectives.
The experiment was as follows ( R o m a n n u m e r als correspond to those of the p r o p o s e d m e t h o d o l ogy, page 7):
I. A m o n i t o r team consisting of the authors was
formed to c o n d u c t the Delphi inquiries.
II. The p a r t i c i p a n t s were selected b y the m o n i tor team. The a u t h o r s at the time taught two
graduate level courses in E c o n o m i c A n a l y s i s for
P l a n n i n g at The George W a s h i n g t o n University.
T h e students of these two classes were chosen to
be the p a r t i c i p a n t s in the Delphi inquiries. The
case study presented in the previous section a n d
the socio-economic aspects of it were a part of the
course. Therefore, the case was fully discussed in
b o t h classes a n d its details explained.
III. A Delphi i n q u i r y was performed, its purpose being to get the p a r t i c i p a n t s ' ideas a b o u t
objectives to be p u r s u e d when allocating resources
for the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the highway. Tables 2 a n d
3 are the questionnaires for the first r o u n d of the
Delphi inquiry.
The following is a summary of the responses to the recent
questionnaire on objectives for road construction fund distribution in Peru. They were chosen based on the average weight
and the number of respondents favoring each objective. A list
of the weights for different objectives is also given.
Please take a few minutes to review the summary, and
weight the objectives on a scale of 1 to 100. Assign 100 to the
objective you consider most important, and judge all others by
that objective. One almost as important might be 95; half as
important would be 50.
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Objectives
To increase level of
employment
To improve agriculture and
cattle raising
To provide access to natural
resources
To provide access to markets
To serve the largest number
of people
To reduce transportation
expenses
To increase GNP
To increase trade with neighboring countries
To increase foreign exchange
To increase tourism
Weights
from
Round 1
39.80
17.00
16.00
11.75
10.00
7.25
6.75
5.00
2.50
2.50
Weights
for
Round 2
353
R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis /Delphic hierarchy process
Table 7
Overall pairwise comparison matrix
Table 5
Objectives and their weights
(1) (2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
No. Weights
% of respond.
Round 1 Round 2 Round 3 favoring goal
i in Round 3
(6)
(4) x (5)
final
weights
l 39.80
2 17.00
3 16.00
4 11.75
5 10.00
6
7.25
7
6.75
8
5.00
9
2.50
10 2.50
78.68
61.78
79.37
68.06
42.60
36.25
60.88
44.29
30.59
18.53
90.63
66.75
75.63
77.81
68.75
53.06
64.50
48.38
29.94
21.13
78.68
64.89
79.37
71.84
61.32
43.05
64.26
52.26
36.32
22.00
100.00
94.74
100.00
94.74
69.47
84.21
94.74
84.74
84.21
84.21
T a b l e 5 gives the result of the D e l p h i inquiry.
N u m b e r s in the first c o l u m n refer to the objectives
listed in T a b l e 4.
In Table 5, c o l u m n s 2, 3, a n d 4 give weights
o b t a i n e d in r o u n d s 1, 2, a n d 3 of the D e l p h i .
C o l u m n 5 gives p e r c e n t a g e o f the r e s p o n d e n t s
who favored a given objective (e.g., all chose o b jectives 1 and 3 - - n a m e l y , assigned a n o n - z e r o
weight to t h e m - - b u t o n l y 69.47 p e r c e n t of the
p a r t i c i p a n t s t h o u g h t that the fith objective s h o u l d
b e c o n s i d e r e d for further analysis).
T h e final weights for objectives ( c o l u m n 6)
were calculated b a s e d on two factors: (1) the
average weight for an objective, a n d (2) the percentage of p a r t i c i p a n t s favoring it. T h e r e a s o n for
c o n s i d e r i n g these two factors is to reduce the
weight for an objective that m a y have a high
weight b u t m a y not b e highly favored (consider
Table 6
Summary of objectives
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Objectives
Weights
from
Table 5
To provide access to natural resources
To increase level of employment
To provide access to markets
To improve agriculture and cattle raising
To increase GNP
To increase trade with neighboring
countries
To serve the largest number of people
To reduce transportation expenses
To increase foreign exchange
To increase tourism
79.37
78.68
68.06
61.78
60.88
44.29
42.60
36.25
30.59
18.53
No.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
3.60
1
2.30
0.90
1
3.20
2.40
3.60
1
5.00
4.00
4.70
3.50
1
the case where an objective weights 100 b u t is
c h o s e n b y o n l y o n e p a r t i c i p a n t ; in other words, all
p a r t i c i p a n t s b u t one t h i n k it should not be c o n s i d ered for further analysis). T h e weights in c o l u m n s
2 a n d 3 were o b t a i n e d in the same way as in
c o l u m n 6.
T h e final weights given in T a b l e 5 were used b y
the m o n i t o r t e a m to screen the objectives. A c c o r d ingly, further analysis was c o n f i n e d o n l y to the
first five objectives in T a b l e 6 b e c a u s e the last five
objectives were weighted c o n s i d e r a b l y less t h a n
the others.
IV. The m o n i t o r t e a m c o n d u c t e d a n o t h e r Delp h i i n q u i r y to o b t a i n the pairwise c o m p a r i s o n
m a t r i x for the five objectives selected. The individual value j u d g m e n t s p r o v i d e d b y the p a r t i c i p a n t s
were a v e r a g e d to d e t e r m i n e the entries in the
overall pairwise c o m p a r i s o n m a t r i x ( T a b l e 7).
T h e n u m b e r s in the first c o l u m n of T a b l e 7
refer to the first five objectives in T a b l e 6.
V. T h e eigenvalues of the m a t r i x of T a b l e 7
c o r r e s p o n d i n g to ?tm,~ were o b t a i n e d with the help
o f a software p a c k a g e called " E x p e r t Choice",
which has been d e v e l o p e d for i m p l e m e n t i n g A H P
(see F o r m a n [5]). A c c o r d i n g to Saaty [15], these
eigenvalues p r e s e n t the p r i o r i t y a m o n g the objectives. T a b l e 8 gives the objectives a n d their r a n k ing, which the p l a n n e r s of the Bolivar H i g h w a y
should c o n s i d e r when allocating c o n s t r u c t i o n
funds.
Table 8
Objectives and their ranking
No. Objectives
Eigen- Rank
value
1
2
3
4
5
0.423
0.185
0.236
0.106
0.050
To provide access to natural resources
To increase level of employment
To provide access to markets
To improve agriculture and cattle raising
To increase GNP
1
3
2
4
5
354
R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis / Delphic hierarchy process
7. Advantages of DHP
The advantages of D H P in general and in particular as applied to the case of Bolivar Highway
are as follows:
(1) It combines two well established decision
making tools - namely, the Delphi and AHP.
(2) The iterative process of the Delphi permits
the participants to reconsider their responses if
they wish.
(3) It takes into account the opinions of several
experts; therefore, it is less subjective and arrives
at a more agreeable solution.
(4) If there are too many objectives, the D H P
allows them to be screened based on their weights.
This screening enables the monitor team to disregard some unimportant objectives, thereby reducing the size of the pairwise comparison matrix and
avoiding unnecessary comparisons.
(5) Since Delphi enables different decision
makers to actively participate in the entire decisionmaking process, the selected project(s) will
have their full support during implementation and
their patronage upon completion.
However, a disadvantage of D H P is the lengthy
and time-consuming process of the two Delphi
inquiries.
8. Summary and conclusions
The identification of criteria and determination
of objectives is of paramount importance to a
decision making process and it is the basis for a
sound decision. In this paper, through an experiment, the Delphic Hierarchy Process (DHP) proposed here is used to determine the objectives, and
to derive priorities among them. Primary results
indicate that D H P can effectively be used to determine the objectives of an organization and then
to prioritize them. D H P allows for the participation of all experts as well as individuals who can
provide input, thereby ensuring the acceptance
and effective implementation of the solution.
References
[1] Arrow, K.J., "Alternative approaches to the theory of
choice in risk-taking situations", Econometrica 19 (1951)
404-437.
[2] Belaunde, F., "The Concept of Peru by Peruvians", Peru,
Ministerio de Fomentoy Obras Publicas, Carreteria
Bolivariana Marginal de la Selva, 1959.
[3] Dalkey, N.C., "The Delphi method: An experimental
study of group opinion", The RAND Corporation, Research Paper, RM-5888-PR, June, 1969.
[4] Edwards, A.L., Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction,
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.
[5] Forman, E., and Saaty, T.L., "Expert choice, decision
support software", A Software Package for Implementing
the Analytic Hierarchy Process (available from DSS Inc.,
McClean, VA, USA).
[6] Harker, P.T., and Vargas, L.G., "The theory of ratio scale
estimation: Saaty's analytic hierarchy process", Management Science 33 (1987) 1383-1403.
[7] Khorramshahgol, R., and Ignizio, J.P., "Single and multiple decision making in a multiple objective environment",
Advances in Management Studies 3 (1984) 181-192.
[8] Khorramshahgol, R., and Gousty, Y., "Delphic goal programming (DGP): A multi-objective cost benefit approach to R&D portfolio analysis", 1EEE Transactions on
Engineering Management 33 (1986) 172-175.
[9] Linstone, H.A., and Turoff, M., The Delphi Method." Techniques and Applications, Addison-Wesley, MA 1975, p. 5.
[10] Maddala, G.S., Econometrics, McGraw-Hill, New York,
1977.
[11] Moustakis, V.S., "The system cost analogy technique",
DSc. dissertation, The George Washington University,
May 1984.
[12] Moustakis, V.S., "A model for decision support software
evaluation", Research Paper, Institute for Artificial Intelligence, Department of Engineering Administration, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20051,
August 1984 (photographic copy available).
[13] Payne, S.L., The Art of Asking Questions, Princeton University Press, NJ, 1973.
[14] Saaty, T.L., "A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures", Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15
(1977) 234-281.
[15] Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1980.
[16] Samuelson, P.A., "Consumption theory in terms of
revealed preference", Economica 15 (1948) 243-253.
[17] Steiner, H.M., and Seminario, A., "Economic aspects of
the Bolivaro Highway in Peru", Engineering Economist 14
(1970) 101-107.
[18] Steiner, H.M., Public and Private Investment: A Socioeconomic Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1980.
[19] Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, Engineers and Architects, La Carreteria Marginal de la Seloa, un informe
presentado a la Comisi6n Conjunta de Ministros de
Fomento y Obras Pfiblicas de Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador
y Peril, Lima: Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton, 1965.
[20] Zahedi, F., "The analytic hierarchy process: A survey of
the method and its applications", Interfaces 16 (1986)
96-108.

Download Report