2.8. Analytical Hierarchy Process
The Analytical Hierarchy Process AHP is one of Multi-Criteria Decision Making MCDM that developed by Saaty, it aims at quantifying relatives
priorities for a given set of alternatives on a ratio scales based on the judgment of the decision makers, and stresses the importance of the intuitive judgment of a
decision makers as well as the consistency of the comparison of alternatives in the decision making process Saaty., 1980.
Since a decision maker bases judgment on knowledge and experience, then makers decision accordingly, the AHP approach agrees well with the behavior of
the decision maker. The strength of this approach is that it organizes tangible and intangible factors in a systematic way and provides simple solution for the
decision makers. In addition, by breaking a problem down in a logical fashion from the large, descending in gradual steps, to the smaller and smaller, one is able
to connect, through simple paired comparison judgments, the small to the large. AHP is a systematic method for comparing a list of objectives or
alternatives. It is a comprehensive, logical and structured framework that allows improving understanding of complex decisions by decomposing the problems in a
hierarchical structure. The method will be performed based on the three principles of AHP, there are:
• Decomposition of the decision problems
• Comparative judgment of the elements
• Synthesis of the priorities
In the AHP, elements of problems are compared in pairs with respect to translated from linguisticverbal forms to numerical numbers.
Table 1. Pair-wise comparison scales for AHP preferences.
Numerical Rating Verbal Judgment of preferences
9 Extremely preferred
8 Very strongly to extremely preferred
7 Very strongly preferred
6 Strongly to very strongly preferred
5 Strongly preferred
4 Moderately to strongly preferred
3 Moderately preferred
2 Equally to moderately preferred
1 Equally preferred
Source: Saaty,1980
AHP uses a quantitative comparison method that is based on pair-wise comparisons of decision criteria, rather than utility and weighting functions. Table
above explains of a preference for one criterion versus another using a nine-point scale:
1: if the two elements are equally important 3: if one element is weaklymoderately more important than the other element
5: if one element is strongly more important than the other element 7: if one element is very strongly more important than the other element
9: if one element is absolutelyextremely more important than the other element
All individual criteria must be paired against all others and the results compiled in matrix form. If criterion A is strongly more important compared to
criterion B i.e. a value of 3, then criterion B has a value of 13 compared to criterion A. Thus for each comparative score provided, the reciprocal score is
awarded to the opposite relationship. The AHP technique thus relies on the
supposition that humans are more capable of making relative judgments than absolute judgments.
III. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Time and Location
Kategori