Directory UMM :Data Elmu:jurnal:I:Information and Management:Vol38.Issue5.Apr2001:
Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model
Dae-Ho Byun*
Management Information Systems, Division of Business Administration, College of Commerce and Economics, Kyungsung University,
Daeyeon-Dong 110-1, Nam-Ku, Pusan 608736, South Korea
Received 24 July 1998; received in revised form 10 August 2000; accepted 1 October 2000
Abstract
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) provides a structure on decision-making processes where there are a limited numbers
of choices but each has a number of attributes. This paper explores the use of AHP for deciding on car purchase. In the context
of shopping, it is important to include elements that provide attributes that make consumer decision-making easier,
comfortable and therefore, lead to a car purchase. As the car market becomes more competitive, there is a greater demand for
innovation that provides better customer service and strategic competition in the business management.
This paper presents a new methodological extension of the AHP by focusing on two issues. One combines pairwise
comparison with a spreadsheet method using a 5-point rating scale. The other applies the group weight to a reciprocal
consistency ratio. Three newly formed car models of midsize are used to show how the method allows choice to be prioritized
and analyzed statistically. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Analytic hierarchy process; Car purchase model; Group decision-making; Sensitivity analysis; Automobile
1. Introduction
Cars touch the lives of hundreds of millions of
people nearly everywhere on this planet on a daily
basis. Other than a house, a car is perhaps the largest
purchase that we make. With the average cost of a car
well over US$ 15,000, choosing just the right one
becomes a major decision.
Buying a new car is regarded as a decision-making
problem and a re¯ection of customer preference.
Before someone shops for a new car, he or she want
to take a look at ®nances and options. The possible
budget is then a constraint in the decision on which car
to buy. Most people shopping for a new car rank safety
high among their purchase considerations. Other
*
Tel.: 82-51-620-4452; fax: 82-51-625-4536.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D.-H. Byun).
important attributes include: fuel economy; comfort
and convenience features; insurance information; speci®cation and warranties and resale value.
Constant changes in customer demands lead manufactures to produce new and improved designs.
Automation of manufacturing technologies allows
this. Recently the production life cycle has become
shorter. For example, General Motors in the USA is
leading the industry in developing ground-breaking
technologies to improve the driving experience and to
meet the changing needs and life styles of modern
drivers. They are making efforts to lower the cost of
the technology to a level that will make advanced cars
an attractive purchase.
As the automobile market becomes more competitive, the industry has no choice but to adopt innovation
that brings better customer service. Many customers
seek advice from car experts or friends when purchasing a car. In many cases, there are times when the price
0378-7206/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 2 0 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 1 - 9
290
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
and special features do not match the budget. The
frequency of making such a decision is much less, as
the average person does not purchase cars annually
and the effect is greater than, say that of buying
laundry powder [8]. An appropriate decision-making
method for selecting the best car is useful to both
customers and producers. An analytic method not only
reduces the dealer's burden, but also may increase
sales. In addition, it plays a kind of strategic role,
increasing customer services in the competitive market environment.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is an intuitively easy method for formulating and analyzing
decisions [13,14]. It was developed to solve a speci®c
class of problems that involves prioritization of potential alternate solutions. This is achieved by evaluation
of a set of criteria elements and sub-criteria elements
through a series of pairwise comparisons. Numerous
applications of the AHP have been made since its
development and it has been applied to many types of
decision problems [2,9,11,16].
Together with the AHP, the Delphi process represents one of the ®rst formalized methods for systematically obtaining and aggregating group judgements
[7]. The Delphi method was developed by the RAND
corporation in the 1960's. The method is generally
used as a forecasting technique. Also, group decisionmaking problems are easily formulated by the Expert
Choice software package [3,5]; this allows the decision-maker to derive geometric means as weights or
priorities instead of using an eigenvector method. The
geometric mean is an appropriate rule for combining
individual judgements to obtain the group judgement
for each pairwise comparison. Here the decisionmaker is considering the sub-nodes in the hierarchy
as part of the whole.
This paper presents extensions of the AHP with the
selection of the best car model with respect to the
following.
To fulfill the Saaty's C.R. limit: repeating the
survey is difficult and costly. Sometimes it is not
possible to acquire consistent responses from
domain experts, because they may refuse to
respond to the question that appears to be burdensome. Some pairwise comparison matrices with
respect to a specific criterion cannot but be
included, even with a C:R: > 0:2.
2. Lack of enough data: In this case, it is almost
impossible to perform pairwise comparisons. For
example, suppose that the buyer has not driven both
car models.
1. Some inconsistency of the given pairwise comparisons: A consistency ratio (C.R.) provides a measure of the probability that the pairwise comparison
matrix was filled in purely at random. The number
0.2 which is the upper limit for C.R. says that there
is a 20% chance that the decision-maker will
answer the questions in random manner. A value
of the C:R: 0:2 is typically considered tolerable.
1. a telephone interview with dealers who are part of
companies that make the models. The manufacturing company with the highest market share considered graceful body styles and smart design of
facilities related to safety to be most important. On
the other hand, warranty on the car and the dealer's
strategies for marketing are regarded as important
customer criteria;
On the other hand, a spreadsheet model [6,10] using
a 5-point rating scheme has been used to reduce the
number of pairwise comparison. There are n n ÿ 1=2
judgements required to develop each matrix where n is
the total number of elements being compared. The
AHP is used to group decision situations by gathering
the entire group together in a single session. However,
how much do we assign to each individual weight?
Conventionally, it is possible to combine the different
judgements. One method is to multiply the judgements
and take the kth root of the AHP hierarchy if k experts
are participating. In fact, the priority of overall alternatives tends to change according to the different
weights for the decision-makers [15].
The AHP model depicted in this paper uses the
following decision criteria: exterior, convenience,
performance, safety, economic aspect, dealer, and
warranty as well as 39 sub-criteria. For the implementation of the AHP, we considered the three midsize passenger car models as alternatives that were
announced recently in the Korean domestic market.
2. Evaluation criteria
The source for deriving the evaluation criteria
candidate was:
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
2. the use of personal experiences recorded on an
online bulletin board was corrected using the
Internet;
3. Korean automobile manufacturers' Internet sites
were examined, with some from foreign car manufacturer. The sales information to a car in General
Motors (http://www.gm.com) mainly represents
exterior and interior features, functionality, engine types and specifications and price information. On the Chrysler (http://chryslercorp.com),
Ford (http://www.ford.com) and Toyota (http://
www.toyota.com) homepages, the following criteria were considered of importance and were
included in the AHP hierarchy: exterior, interior,
291
functionality, convenience, style, engine types,
comfortableness, performance, model, color and
price.
The AHP model shown in Fig. 1 consists of three
levels. Exterior involves components and factors seen
from the outside such as color, length and width, tyres,
trunk, wheels, doors and headlamp styles. It includes
the following sub-criteria: model, style, length, quality
of interior decoration, number of available color types,
and instrument cluster.
Convenience is related to the design of the equipments for easy operation. It includes: inside width,
ease of loading or unloading packages, convenience of
Fig. 1. The AHP model.
292
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
operating instruments, modern ®ttings (such as electronic systems and a burglar alarm), forward visibility
and quality of the audio system.
Performance is related to the functioning of the car.
It includes maximum torque, maximum speed, fuel
tank capacity, braking ability, cornering ability, inside
noises and traveling comforts.
Safety is enhanced by a body designed to protect the
drivers and passengers against collisions. The most
important safety features are those that reduce the risk
of death or serious injury. It includes: airbags, antilock braking system ABS, impact protection systems,
trunk safety, seat belts, safety of the body and number
of alarm facilities. Airbags provide total chest and
face protection. The ABS allows drivers full steering
control and shorter stopping distance in adverse
situations.
The economic aspect refers to the price and cost of a
new car, or maintaining the car within budgets, etc. It
includes: purchasing prices, fuel consumption per
month, insurance costs and installment conditions, resale prices of used cars and optional equipment costs.
The dealer criterion refers to personal characteristics and attitudes that lead the customer to make the
purchasing decision. This criterion includes: visits or
calls needed to persuade the customer to buy, the
dealer's attitude, the dealer's expertize and belief in
the dealer's promises.
The warranty criterion include: the number of
service stations, ease of acquiring spare parts,
Fig. 2. Procedure for determining synthesized priorities.
customer satisfaction after services, and the average
repair time for minor troubles.
Some of these criteria are not mutually exclusive.
This may be a limitation in the use of the AHP. We
Table 1
Consistency ratio for each main criterion and sub-criterion
Decision-makers
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3
C4
a
Parent nodes in the AHP model hierarchya
C0
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
0.616
0.350
0.756
0.605
0.568
0.218
0.509
0.104
0.686
0.598
0.409
0.319
0.469
1.304
0.419
0.175
0.106
0.362
0.219
0.314
0.125
0.897
0.193
1.489
0.390
0.083
0.314
0.183
0.191
0.319
0.969
0.050
0.423
0.439
1.246
0.133
1.122
0.317
0.116
0.615
0.202
0.235
0.145
0.570
0.114
0.219
0.123
1.592
0.190
0.477
0.278
0.190
0.354
0.168
0.214
0.138
0.738
0.155
0.096
0.122
0.504
0.333
0.404
0.090
0.408
0.424
0.162
0.132
0.303
0.816
0.289
0.159
0.160
0.496
1.018
0.401
0.230
0.210
2.589
0.267
0.062
0.273
0.419
0.085
0.433
0.135
2.319
0.246
0.389
0.168
0.250
0.473
0.152
0.301
0.186
0.415
0.111
0.204
0.179
0.469
0.308
0.358
0.140
0.429
C0: main criteria, C1: exterior, C2: convenience, C3: performance, C4: safety, C5: economic aspect, C6: dealer, C7: warranty.
293
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
should consider all interdependent components at the
same time. For example, we can change the height of a
car, lowering it to help increase its maximum speed, or
the seats could be specially designed to make the car
safer or to reduce noise.
Table 2
Synthesized priorities and ranks for criteria (Case-II)
Main criteria
Sub-criteria
Priority
Rank
Exterior (0.116)
Style
Model
Length
Decoration
Color type
Instrument cluster
0.0532
0.0380
0.0189
0.0176
0.0118
0.0073
3
8
25
27
32
37
Convenience (0.078)
Fittings
Operating
Audio system
Visibility
Loading
Inside width
0.0629
0.0267
0.0190
0.0139
0.0124
0.0119
2
16
24
29
30
31
Performance (0.192)
Braking
Noise
Cornering
Speed
Torque
Comfort
Fuel tank
0.0401
0.0380
0.0310
0.0179
0.0093
0.0064
0.0039
7
9
11
26
34
38
39
Safety (0.291)
Body
Seat belts
ABS
Alarm
Airbags
Impact
Trunk
0.0414
0.0353
0.0300
0.0264
0.0199
0.0154
0.0077
6
10
12
18
22
28
36
Economic aspect (0.159)
Insurance
Resale
Fuel
Price
Equipment
0.0300
0.0286
0.0273
0.0222
0.0093
13
14
15
20
35
Dealer (0.085)
Expertize
Visit
Attitude
Belief
0.0525
0.0246
0.0211
0.0193
4
19
21
23
Warranty (0.078)
Satisfaction
Repair time
Spare parts
Service station
0.0654
0.0445
0.0265
0.0105
1
5
17
33
3. Implementation and ranking
We mailed questionnaires to each of two groups.
The ®rst group was given a questionnaire that contained a pairwise comparison sheet. The members
consisted of 13 managers who were serving in the
sales department and who had experience exceeding
10 years (see Appendix A for this questionnaire).
Respondents were domain experts who easily recognized their own sales products and have valuable
knowledge about the customer requirements and preferences. Twenty-two potential customers with experience over 7 years were in the second group (see
Appendix B). They answered about their satisfaction
with their current car.
A procedure of prioritizing each car model is shown
in Fig. 2. Table 1 shows the C.R. for each individual,
where the circle represents meaningful C.R. Using
Expert Choice, we obtained the synthesized priorities
of the main criteria and sub-criteria. The reason that
the group's weight is 1/C.R., is to assign higher
weights for higher consistent persons. As a result,
safety gains is the highest priority in the main criteria.
The body safety is especially important.
The synthesized priorities and ranks resulted in
Table 2 (Case-II). The priorities of the sub-criteria
are not proportional to those of the main criteria. This
means the decision-makers have different opinions on
the importance of the main criteria. By synthesizing
the drivers' rating values with the priorities, we obtain
the priorities of the car models and the ranks with
respect to the goal and synthesized priorities for each
main criterion when the C.R. is bounded by the limit
(see Table 3).
In Case-I and Case-II, the computational methods
used are reasonable when the groups' consistency is
more important than the individual ones. Because the
conventional AHP has no choice but to increase the
Delphi rounds in order to increase the groups' consistency, much effort is required to reduce the C.R. If
the Delphi rounds are not suf®ciently processed, it is
unreliable through the inclusion of inconsistent
matrices [12].
Using the Spearman rank correlation test [1],
accepting H0 means that the ranks are either uncorrelated or negatively correlated. That is, two decisionmakers exhibit an insigni®cant level of agreement in
ranking for each criterion. Rejecting H0 means that the
294
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
Table 3
Synthesized priorities and ranks with respect to the goal node and
main criteria
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Goal node
Case-I
Case-II
0.339(2)
0.340(1)
0.341(1)
0.338(2)
0.320(3)
0.322(3)
Main criteria
Exterior
Convenience
Performance
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
0.338(2)
0.427(1)
0.347(1)
0.324(2)
0.338(2)
0.287(3)
0.356(1)
0.351(1)
0.298(2)
0.336(2)
0.357(1)
0.319(3)
0.351(2)
0.322(2)
0.311(3)
0.275(3)
0.317(3)
0.319(3)
0.342(1)
0.362(1)
0.322(2)
implementation of AHP provides four graphical sensitivity analysis modes: dynamic, gradient, performance and two-dimensional analysis [4]. Here
performance sensitivity analysis is employed. It
depicts how well each alternative performs on each
criterion by increasing or decreasing the importance of
the criteria. In addition to this, each sub-criterion
performs on each main criterion by increasing or
decreasing the importance of the main criteria. It
should be noted that if a criterion is not sensitive, it
would be better to eliminate it from the AHP model.
In the case of increasing importance of a criterion to
the maximum value of 1.0, we assigned the alternative
that gained the highest rank to score 5 and the lowest
rank to score 1. The value of Model 1 is 25, Model 2 is
21 and Model 3 is 15. In summary, we can conclude
Model 1 is the best among the alternatives, although
the highest priorities were different in Case-I and
Case-II.
ranks are positively correlated. As shown in Table 4,
we conclude that there are signi®cant effects between
groups since the rate of the H0 acceptance is 83%
(65=78 100). This shows that Case-I is the more
appropriate method. It re¯ects greater agreement
between groups.
5. Conclusion
Our paper presented a decision-making method for
selecting the best passenger car models through combining the AHP and a spreadsheet model. The C.R. is
used as the decision-maker's weights. As an implementation of the AHP, three car models were prioritized. Through the sensitivity analysis, the fact that
Model 1 ranked the highest, is consistent with the
4. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis allowed us to verify the results
of the decision. A sensitivity analysis can be formed to
see how sensitive the alternatives are to change with
the importance of the criteria. The Expert Choice
Table 4
The Spearman rank correlation testa
B1±B2
B1±B3
B1±A1
B1±A2
B1±A3
B1±A4
B1±A5
B1±A6
B1±C1
B1±C2
B1±C3
B1±C4
..
.
a
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
Sd2
Rho
z
Accept
2
4
5
2
ÿ1
ÿ1
2
0
0
5
2
3
vdots
ÿ1
ÿ1
ÿ3
ÿ2
ÿ1
0
ÿ1
0
0
2
ÿ3
ÿ1
vdots
1
ÿ1
ÿ3
1
1
2
0
1
ÿ4
0
1
2
vdots
0
ÿ6
ÿ2
ÿ2
ÿ3
ÿ2
0
0
0
ÿ3
ÿ2
1
vdots
ÿ1
ÿ4
ÿ3
1
1
ÿ3
0
ÿ1
0
ÿ3
ÿ4
5
vdots
0
4
3
0
5
5
0
0
4
1
6
..4
.
ÿ1
4
3
0
ÿ1
ÿ1
ÿ1
0
0
ÿ2
0
0
vdots
8
102
74
14
39
44
6
2
32
52
70
56
vdots
0.8571
ÿ0.821
ÿ0.321
0.75
0.3036
0.2143
0.8929
0.9643
0.4286
0.0714
ÿ0.25
0
vdots
2.0996
ÿ2.012
ÿ0.787
1.8371
0.7436
0.5249
2.187
2.362
1.0498
0.175
ÿ0.612
0
vdots
H1
H1
H0
H1
H0
H0
H1
H1
H0
H0
H0
H0
..
.
C1: exterior, C2: convenience, C3: performance, C4: safety, C5: economic aspect, C6: dealer, C7: warranty.
295
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
advertising costs and shorten time consuming purchasing procedures. There are obvious limitations of
the method. It depends on qualitative data in the
evaluation of a car model by its owners. It would
be better if convenience, comfort, visibility and performance of brake systems could be evaluated more
objectively by means of the data obtained by results of
testing.
result of the highest market share. The sales volumes
during 1999 for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 were
76,771, 38,705 and 29,797, respectively.
An appropriate method for selecting the best car
would be helpful to manufactures and dealers. While
the size of decision-making groups is larger, customers can receive help from expert groups. A systematic approach could contribute to reduce much
Appendix A. Questionnaire items for dealers
Compare the relative preference with respect to: main criteria < goal
Evaluation
criteria
Numerical scale
Evaluation
criteria
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Safety
Safety
Safety
Economic
aspect
Economic
aspect
Dealer
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Convenience
Performance
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Performance
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Dealer
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Warranty
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Warranty
Compare the relative preference with respect to: sub-criteria < exterior
Evaluation
criteria
Numerical scale
Model
Model
Model
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
Evaluation
criteria
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
Style
Length
Color type
296
Model
Model
Style
..
.
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
9
9
9.
..
8
8
..8
.
7
7
7.
..
6
6
6.
..
5
5
5.
..
4
4
..4
.
3
3
..3
.
2
2
..2
.
1
1
..1
.
1. How many different types of body colors does the
car model have? ( )
2. How many kinds of modern fittings provided as
optional specifications does the car model have?
( )
3. Does the car model provide airbags? ( )
4. How many alarm facilities does the car model
have? ( )
5. How many times does dealers visit a customer to
sell a car on average? ( )
6. How many service stations are there for repairing
each car maker? ( )
7. How long does it take to fix minor car troubles on
average? ( )
Appendix B. Questionnaire items for drivers
1. How many years have you driven? ( ) years
What do you think about your current car?
2. Style
Bad
1
2
Normal
3
4
Excellent
5
2
2
..2
.
3
3
..3
.
4
4
..4
.
5
5
..5
.
6
6
..6
.
7
7
..7
.
8
8
..8
.
9
9
..9
.
Decoration
Instrument cluster
Length
..
.
7. Forward visibility
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
8. Quality of the audio system
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
9. Braking ability
Bad
1
2
Excellent
5
Normal
3
4
10. Cornering ability
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
11. Inside noises
Bad
1
2
Excellent
5
Normal
3
4
Excellent
5
12. Traveling comforts
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
Excellent
5
13. Performance of the ABS facility
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
5. Ease of loading or unloading packages
Bad
Normal
Excellent
1
2
5
2
4
14. Impact protection systems
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
6. Conveniences of operating instruments
Bad
Normal
Excellent
1
3
5
2
4
15. Trunk safety
Bad
1
2
Excellent
5
3. Quality of interior decoration
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
4. Instrument cluster
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Normal
3
4
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
16. Seat belts
Bad
1
2
Normal
3
4
Excellent
5
17. Safety of the body
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
18. Dealer' attitude
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
19. Dealer' expertize
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
20. Belief in the dealers' promises
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
21. Ease of acquiring spare parts
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
22. Customer satisfaction after services
Bad
Normal
Excellent
1
3
5
2
4
References
[1] E.K. Bowen, M.K. Starr, Basic Statistics for Business and
Economics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.
[2] D.-H. Byun, E.H. Suh, A methodology for evaluating EIS
software packages, Journal of End User Computing 8 (2),
1996, pp. 21±31.
[3] R.F. Dyer, E.H. Forman, Group decision support with the
analytic hierarchy process, Decision Support Systems 8,
1992, pp. 99±124.
[4] Expert Choice Inc., Expert Choice 8.0: User Manual, Expert
Choice, Inc., Pittsburg, 1992.
[5] E.H. Forman, T.L. Saaty, M.A. Selly, R. Waldron, Expert
Choice, Decision Support Software, McLean, VA, 1983.
[6] D.B. Hoffman, Using an electronic spreadsheet to support the
analytic hierarchy process, in: Proceedings of the 16th Annual
Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences,
1984, pp. 653±655.
297
[7] R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis, Delphic hierarchy
process (DHP): a methodology for priority setting derived
from the Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process,
European Journal of Operational Research 37, 1988, pp. 347±
354.
[8] P. Korhonen, H. Moskowitz, J. Wallenius, Multiple criteria
decision support-a review, European Journal of Operational
Research 63, 1992, pp. 361±375.
[9] V.S. Lai, R.P. Trueblood, B.K. Wong, Software selection:
a case study of the application of the analytic hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring
system, Information and Management 36, 1999, pp. 221±
232.
[10] M.J. Liberatore, An extension of the analytic hierarchy
process for industrial R&D project selection and resource
allocation, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
EM-34 (1), 1987, pp. 12±18.
[11] M.J. Liberatore, A.C. Stylianou, Using knowledge-based
systems for strategic market assessment, Information and
Management 27, 1994, pp. 221±232.
[12] C.Y. Lym, D.-H. Byun, E.H. Suh, S.I. Huh, Group AHP:
toward consistency ratio and judgement scale, in: Proceedings
of Korean OR/MS Society Annual Meeting, October 1994,
pp. 247±254.
[13] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1980.
[14] T.L. Saaty, K. Kearns, Analytical Planning: The Organization
of Systems, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1985.
[15] T.L. Saaty, Group decision-making and the AHP, in: B.L.
Golden, E.A. Wasil, P.T. Harker (Eds.), The Analytic
Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies, Springer, New
York, 1989, pp. 59±67.
[16] F. Zahedi, The analytic hierarchy process-a survey of the
method and its applications, Interfaces 16 (4), 1986, pp. 96±
108.
Dae-Ho Byun is an Assistant Professor
of Management Information Systems at
Kyungsung University at Pusan, Republic of Korea. He received his Ph D
degree from Pohang University of
Science and Technology, his MS degree
from Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology and his BS
degree from Korea University at the
Department of Industrial Engineering.
He worked in Daewoo Motor company
as a system analyst from 1987 to 1991. He has published in Expert
Systems With Applications, Expert Systems, Human Systems
Management, Journal of End User Computing, International
Journal of Information Management, Encyclopedia of Computer
Science and Technology, Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Science and International Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology. His research interests include knowledge-based expert
systems, managerial decision-making using the analytic hierarchy
process and electronic commerce.
The AHP approach for selecting an automobile purchase model
Dae-Ho Byun*
Management Information Systems, Division of Business Administration, College of Commerce and Economics, Kyungsung University,
Daeyeon-Dong 110-1, Nam-Ku, Pusan 608736, South Korea
Received 24 July 1998; received in revised form 10 August 2000; accepted 1 October 2000
Abstract
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) provides a structure on decision-making processes where there are a limited numbers
of choices but each has a number of attributes. This paper explores the use of AHP for deciding on car purchase. In the context
of shopping, it is important to include elements that provide attributes that make consumer decision-making easier,
comfortable and therefore, lead to a car purchase. As the car market becomes more competitive, there is a greater demand for
innovation that provides better customer service and strategic competition in the business management.
This paper presents a new methodological extension of the AHP by focusing on two issues. One combines pairwise
comparison with a spreadsheet method using a 5-point rating scale. The other applies the group weight to a reciprocal
consistency ratio. Three newly formed car models of midsize are used to show how the method allows choice to be prioritized
and analyzed statistically. # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Analytic hierarchy process; Car purchase model; Group decision-making; Sensitivity analysis; Automobile
1. Introduction
Cars touch the lives of hundreds of millions of
people nearly everywhere on this planet on a daily
basis. Other than a house, a car is perhaps the largest
purchase that we make. With the average cost of a car
well over US$ 15,000, choosing just the right one
becomes a major decision.
Buying a new car is regarded as a decision-making
problem and a re¯ection of customer preference.
Before someone shops for a new car, he or she want
to take a look at ®nances and options. The possible
budget is then a constraint in the decision on which car
to buy. Most people shopping for a new car rank safety
high among their purchase considerations. Other
*
Tel.: 82-51-620-4452; fax: 82-51-625-4536.
E-mail address: [email protected] (D.-H. Byun).
important attributes include: fuel economy; comfort
and convenience features; insurance information; speci®cation and warranties and resale value.
Constant changes in customer demands lead manufactures to produce new and improved designs.
Automation of manufacturing technologies allows
this. Recently the production life cycle has become
shorter. For example, General Motors in the USA is
leading the industry in developing ground-breaking
technologies to improve the driving experience and to
meet the changing needs and life styles of modern
drivers. They are making efforts to lower the cost of
the technology to a level that will make advanced cars
an attractive purchase.
As the automobile market becomes more competitive, the industry has no choice but to adopt innovation
that brings better customer service. Many customers
seek advice from car experts or friends when purchasing a car. In many cases, there are times when the price
0378-7206/01/$ ± see front matter # 2001 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 7 8 - 7 2 0 6 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 1 - 9
290
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
and special features do not match the budget. The
frequency of making such a decision is much less, as
the average person does not purchase cars annually
and the effect is greater than, say that of buying
laundry powder [8]. An appropriate decision-making
method for selecting the best car is useful to both
customers and producers. An analytic method not only
reduces the dealer's burden, but also may increase
sales. In addition, it plays a kind of strategic role,
increasing customer services in the competitive market environment.
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is an intuitively easy method for formulating and analyzing
decisions [13,14]. It was developed to solve a speci®c
class of problems that involves prioritization of potential alternate solutions. This is achieved by evaluation
of a set of criteria elements and sub-criteria elements
through a series of pairwise comparisons. Numerous
applications of the AHP have been made since its
development and it has been applied to many types of
decision problems [2,9,11,16].
Together with the AHP, the Delphi process represents one of the ®rst formalized methods for systematically obtaining and aggregating group judgements
[7]. The Delphi method was developed by the RAND
corporation in the 1960's. The method is generally
used as a forecasting technique. Also, group decisionmaking problems are easily formulated by the Expert
Choice software package [3,5]; this allows the decision-maker to derive geometric means as weights or
priorities instead of using an eigenvector method. The
geometric mean is an appropriate rule for combining
individual judgements to obtain the group judgement
for each pairwise comparison. Here the decisionmaker is considering the sub-nodes in the hierarchy
as part of the whole.
This paper presents extensions of the AHP with the
selection of the best car model with respect to the
following.
To fulfill the Saaty's C.R. limit: repeating the
survey is difficult and costly. Sometimes it is not
possible to acquire consistent responses from
domain experts, because they may refuse to
respond to the question that appears to be burdensome. Some pairwise comparison matrices with
respect to a specific criterion cannot but be
included, even with a C:R: > 0:2.
2. Lack of enough data: In this case, it is almost
impossible to perform pairwise comparisons. For
example, suppose that the buyer has not driven both
car models.
1. Some inconsistency of the given pairwise comparisons: A consistency ratio (C.R.) provides a measure of the probability that the pairwise comparison
matrix was filled in purely at random. The number
0.2 which is the upper limit for C.R. says that there
is a 20% chance that the decision-maker will
answer the questions in random manner. A value
of the C:R: 0:2 is typically considered tolerable.
1. a telephone interview with dealers who are part of
companies that make the models. The manufacturing company with the highest market share considered graceful body styles and smart design of
facilities related to safety to be most important. On
the other hand, warranty on the car and the dealer's
strategies for marketing are regarded as important
customer criteria;
On the other hand, a spreadsheet model [6,10] using
a 5-point rating scheme has been used to reduce the
number of pairwise comparison. There are n n ÿ 1=2
judgements required to develop each matrix where n is
the total number of elements being compared. The
AHP is used to group decision situations by gathering
the entire group together in a single session. However,
how much do we assign to each individual weight?
Conventionally, it is possible to combine the different
judgements. One method is to multiply the judgements
and take the kth root of the AHP hierarchy if k experts
are participating. In fact, the priority of overall alternatives tends to change according to the different
weights for the decision-makers [15].
The AHP model depicted in this paper uses the
following decision criteria: exterior, convenience,
performance, safety, economic aspect, dealer, and
warranty as well as 39 sub-criteria. For the implementation of the AHP, we considered the three midsize passenger car models as alternatives that were
announced recently in the Korean domestic market.
2. Evaluation criteria
The source for deriving the evaluation criteria
candidate was:
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
2. the use of personal experiences recorded on an
online bulletin board was corrected using the
Internet;
3. Korean automobile manufacturers' Internet sites
were examined, with some from foreign car manufacturer. The sales information to a car in General
Motors (http://www.gm.com) mainly represents
exterior and interior features, functionality, engine types and specifications and price information. On the Chrysler (http://chryslercorp.com),
Ford (http://www.ford.com) and Toyota (http://
www.toyota.com) homepages, the following criteria were considered of importance and were
included in the AHP hierarchy: exterior, interior,
291
functionality, convenience, style, engine types,
comfortableness, performance, model, color and
price.
The AHP model shown in Fig. 1 consists of three
levels. Exterior involves components and factors seen
from the outside such as color, length and width, tyres,
trunk, wheels, doors and headlamp styles. It includes
the following sub-criteria: model, style, length, quality
of interior decoration, number of available color types,
and instrument cluster.
Convenience is related to the design of the equipments for easy operation. It includes: inside width,
ease of loading or unloading packages, convenience of
Fig. 1. The AHP model.
292
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
operating instruments, modern ®ttings (such as electronic systems and a burglar alarm), forward visibility
and quality of the audio system.
Performance is related to the functioning of the car.
It includes maximum torque, maximum speed, fuel
tank capacity, braking ability, cornering ability, inside
noises and traveling comforts.
Safety is enhanced by a body designed to protect the
drivers and passengers against collisions. The most
important safety features are those that reduce the risk
of death or serious injury. It includes: airbags, antilock braking system ABS, impact protection systems,
trunk safety, seat belts, safety of the body and number
of alarm facilities. Airbags provide total chest and
face protection. The ABS allows drivers full steering
control and shorter stopping distance in adverse
situations.
The economic aspect refers to the price and cost of a
new car, or maintaining the car within budgets, etc. It
includes: purchasing prices, fuel consumption per
month, insurance costs and installment conditions, resale prices of used cars and optional equipment costs.
The dealer criterion refers to personal characteristics and attitudes that lead the customer to make the
purchasing decision. This criterion includes: visits or
calls needed to persuade the customer to buy, the
dealer's attitude, the dealer's expertize and belief in
the dealer's promises.
The warranty criterion include: the number of
service stations, ease of acquiring spare parts,
Fig. 2. Procedure for determining synthesized priorities.
customer satisfaction after services, and the average
repair time for minor troubles.
Some of these criteria are not mutually exclusive.
This may be a limitation in the use of the AHP. We
Table 1
Consistency ratio for each main criterion and sub-criterion
Decision-makers
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
A6
B1
B2
B3
C1
C2
C3
C4
a
Parent nodes in the AHP model hierarchya
C0
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
0.616
0.350
0.756
0.605
0.568
0.218
0.509
0.104
0.686
0.598
0.409
0.319
0.469
1.304
0.419
0.175
0.106
0.362
0.219
0.314
0.125
0.897
0.193
1.489
0.390
0.083
0.314
0.183
0.191
0.319
0.969
0.050
0.423
0.439
1.246
0.133
1.122
0.317
0.116
0.615
0.202
0.235
0.145
0.570
0.114
0.219
0.123
1.592
0.190
0.477
0.278
0.190
0.354
0.168
0.214
0.138
0.738
0.155
0.096
0.122
0.504
0.333
0.404
0.090
0.408
0.424
0.162
0.132
0.303
0.816
0.289
0.159
0.160
0.496
1.018
0.401
0.230
0.210
2.589
0.267
0.062
0.273
0.419
0.085
0.433
0.135
2.319
0.246
0.389
0.168
0.250
0.473
0.152
0.301
0.186
0.415
0.111
0.204
0.179
0.469
0.308
0.358
0.140
0.429
C0: main criteria, C1: exterior, C2: convenience, C3: performance, C4: safety, C5: economic aspect, C6: dealer, C7: warranty.
293
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
should consider all interdependent components at the
same time. For example, we can change the height of a
car, lowering it to help increase its maximum speed, or
the seats could be specially designed to make the car
safer or to reduce noise.
Table 2
Synthesized priorities and ranks for criteria (Case-II)
Main criteria
Sub-criteria
Priority
Rank
Exterior (0.116)
Style
Model
Length
Decoration
Color type
Instrument cluster
0.0532
0.0380
0.0189
0.0176
0.0118
0.0073
3
8
25
27
32
37
Convenience (0.078)
Fittings
Operating
Audio system
Visibility
Loading
Inside width
0.0629
0.0267
0.0190
0.0139
0.0124
0.0119
2
16
24
29
30
31
Performance (0.192)
Braking
Noise
Cornering
Speed
Torque
Comfort
Fuel tank
0.0401
0.0380
0.0310
0.0179
0.0093
0.0064
0.0039
7
9
11
26
34
38
39
Safety (0.291)
Body
Seat belts
ABS
Alarm
Airbags
Impact
Trunk
0.0414
0.0353
0.0300
0.0264
0.0199
0.0154
0.0077
6
10
12
18
22
28
36
Economic aspect (0.159)
Insurance
Resale
Fuel
Price
Equipment
0.0300
0.0286
0.0273
0.0222
0.0093
13
14
15
20
35
Dealer (0.085)
Expertize
Visit
Attitude
Belief
0.0525
0.0246
0.0211
0.0193
4
19
21
23
Warranty (0.078)
Satisfaction
Repair time
Spare parts
Service station
0.0654
0.0445
0.0265
0.0105
1
5
17
33
3. Implementation and ranking
We mailed questionnaires to each of two groups.
The ®rst group was given a questionnaire that contained a pairwise comparison sheet. The members
consisted of 13 managers who were serving in the
sales department and who had experience exceeding
10 years (see Appendix A for this questionnaire).
Respondents were domain experts who easily recognized their own sales products and have valuable
knowledge about the customer requirements and preferences. Twenty-two potential customers with experience over 7 years were in the second group (see
Appendix B). They answered about their satisfaction
with their current car.
A procedure of prioritizing each car model is shown
in Fig. 2. Table 1 shows the C.R. for each individual,
where the circle represents meaningful C.R. Using
Expert Choice, we obtained the synthesized priorities
of the main criteria and sub-criteria. The reason that
the group's weight is 1/C.R., is to assign higher
weights for higher consistent persons. As a result,
safety gains is the highest priority in the main criteria.
The body safety is especially important.
The synthesized priorities and ranks resulted in
Table 2 (Case-II). The priorities of the sub-criteria
are not proportional to those of the main criteria. This
means the decision-makers have different opinions on
the importance of the main criteria. By synthesizing
the drivers' rating values with the priorities, we obtain
the priorities of the car models and the ranks with
respect to the goal and synthesized priorities for each
main criterion when the C.R. is bounded by the limit
(see Table 3).
In Case-I and Case-II, the computational methods
used are reasonable when the groups' consistency is
more important than the individual ones. Because the
conventional AHP has no choice but to increase the
Delphi rounds in order to increase the groups' consistency, much effort is required to reduce the C.R. If
the Delphi rounds are not suf®ciently processed, it is
unreliable through the inclusion of inconsistent
matrices [12].
Using the Spearman rank correlation test [1],
accepting H0 means that the ranks are either uncorrelated or negatively correlated. That is, two decisionmakers exhibit an insigni®cant level of agreement in
ranking for each criterion. Rejecting H0 means that the
294
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
Table 3
Synthesized priorities and ranks with respect to the goal node and
main criteria
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Goal node
Case-I
Case-II
0.339(2)
0.340(1)
0.341(1)
0.338(2)
0.320(3)
0.322(3)
Main criteria
Exterior
Convenience
Performance
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
0.338(2)
0.427(1)
0.347(1)
0.324(2)
0.338(2)
0.287(3)
0.356(1)
0.351(1)
0.298(2)
0.336(2)
0.357(1)
0.319(3)
0.351(2)
0.322(2)
0.311(3)
0.275(3)
0.317(3)
0.319(3)
0.342(1)
0.362(1)
0.322(2)
implementation of AHP provides four graphical sensitivity analysis modes: dynamic, gradient, performance and two-dimensional analysis [4]. Here
performance sensitivity analysis is employed. It
depicts how well each alternative performs on each
criterion by increasing or decreasing the importance of
the criteria. In addition to this, each sub-criterion
performs on each main criterion by increasing or
decreasing the importance of the main criteria. It
should be noted that if a criterion is not sensitive, it
would be better to eliminate it from the AHP model.
In the case of increasing importance of a criterion to
the maximum value of 1.0, we assigned the alternative
that gained the highest rank to score 5 and the lowest
rank to score 1. The value of Model 1 is 25, Model 2 is
21 and Model 3 is 15. In summary, we can conclude
Model 1 is the best among the alternatives, although
the highest priorities were different in Case-I and
Case-II.
ranks are positively correlated. As shown in Table 4,
we conclude that there are signi®cant effects between
groups since the rate of the H0 acceptance is 83%
(65=78 100). This shows that Case-I is the more
appropriate method. It re¯ects greater agreement
between groups.
5. Conclusion
Our paper presented a decision-making method for
selecting the best passenger car models through combining the AHP and a spreadsheet model. The C.R. is
used as the decision-maker's weights. As an implementation of the AHP, three car models were prioritized. Through the sensitivity analysis, the fact that
Model 1 ranked the highest, is consistent with the
4. Sensitivity analysis
Sensitivity analysis allowed us to verify the results
of the decision. A sensitivity analysis can be formed to
see how sensitive the alternatives are to change with
the importance of the criteria. The Expert Choice
Table 4
The Spearman rank correlation testa
B1±B2
B1±B3
B1±A1
B1±A2
B1±A3
B1±A4
B1±A5
B1±A6
B1±C1
B1±C2
B1±C3
B1±C4
..
.
a
C1
C2
C3
C4
C5
C6
C7
Sd2
Rho
z
Accept
2
4
5
2
ÿ1
ÿ1
2
0
0
5
2
3
vdots
ÿ1
ÿ1
ÿ3
ÿ2
ÿ1
0
ÿ1
0
0
2
ÿ3
ÿ1
vdots
1
ÿ1
ÿ3
1
1
2
0
1
ÿ4
0
1
2
vdots
0
ÿ6
ÿ2
ÿ2
ÿ3
ÿ2
0
0
0
ÿ3
ÿ2
1
vdots
ÿ1
ÿ4
ÿ3
1
1
ÿ3
0
ÿ1
0
ÿ3
ÿ4
5
vdots
0
4
3
0
5
5
0
0
4
1
6
..4
.
ÿ1
4
3
0
ÿ1
ÿ1
ÿ1
0
0
ÿ2
0
0
vdots
8
102
74
14
39
44
6
2
32
52
70
56
vdots
0.8571
ÿ0.821
ÿ0.321
0.75
0.3036
0.2143
0.8929
0.9643
0.4286
0.0714
ÿ0.25
0
vdots
2.0996
ÿ2.012
ÿ0.787
1.8371
0.7436
0.5249
2.187
2.362
1.0498
0.175
ÿ0.612
0
vdots
H1
H1
H0
H1
H0
H0
H1
H1
H0
H0
H0
H0
..
.
C1: exterior, C2: convenience, C3: performance, C4: safety, C5: economic aspect, C6: dealer, C7: warranty.
295
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
advertising costs and shorten time consuming purchasing procedures. There are obvious limitations of
the method. It depends on qualitative data in the
evaluation of a car model by its owners. It would
be better if convenience, comfort, visibility and performance of brake systems could be evaluated more
objectively by means of the data obtained by results of
testing.
result of the highest market share. The sales volumes
during 1999 for Model 1, Model 2, and Model 3 were
76,771, 38,705 and 29,797, respectively.
An appropriate method for selecting the best car
would be helpful to manufactures and dealers. While
the size of decision-making groups is larger, customers can receive help from expert groups. A systematic approach could contribute to reduce much
Appendix A. Questionnaire items for dealers
Compare the relative preference with respect to: main criteria < goal
Evaluation
criteria
Numerical scale
Evaluation
criteria
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Exterior
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Convenience
Performance
Performance
Performance
Performance
Safety
Safety
Safety
Economic
aspect
Economic
aspect
Dealer
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Convenience
Performance
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Performance
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Safety
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Economic aspect
Dealer
Warranty
Dealer
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Warranty
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Warranty
Compare the relative preference with respect to: sub-criteria < exterior
Evaluation
criteria
Numerical scale
Model
Model
Model
9
9
9
8
8
8
7
7
7
6
6
6
Evaluation
criteria
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
6
6
7
7
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
Style
Length
Color type
296
Model
Model
Style
..
.
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
9
9
9.
..
8
8
..8
.
7
7
7.
..
6
6
6.
..
5
5
5.
..
4
4
..4
.
3
3
..3
.
2
2
..2
.
1
1
..1
.
1. How many different types of body colors does the
car model have? ( )
2. How many kinds of modern fittings provided as
optional specifications does the car model have?
( )
3. Does the car model provide airbags? ( )
4. How many alarm facilities does the car model
have? ( )
5. How many times does dealers visit a customer to
sell a car on average? ( )
6. How many service stations are there for repairing
each car maker? ( )
7. How long does it take to fix minor car troubles on
average? ( )
Appendix B. Questionnaire items for drivers
1. How many years have you driven? ( ) years
What do you think about your current car?
2. Style
Bad
1
2
Normal
3
4
Excellent
5
2
2
..2
.
3
3
..3
.
4
4
..4
.
5
5
..5
.
6
6
..6
.
7
7
..7
.
8
8
..8
.
9
9
..9
.
Decoration
Instrument cluster
Length
..
.
7. Forward visibility
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
8. Quality of the audio system
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
9. Braking ability
Bad
1
2
Excellent
5
Normal
3
4
10. Cornering ability
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
11. Inside noises
Bad
1
2
Excellent
5
Normal
3
4
Excellent
5
12. Traveling comforts
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
Excellent
5
13. Performance of the ABS facility
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
5. Ease of loading or unloading packages
Bad
Normal
Excellent
1
2
5
2
4
14. Impact protection systems
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
6. Conveniences of operating instruments
Bad
Normal
Excellent
1
3
5
2
4
15. Trunk safety
Bad
1
2
Excellent
5
3. Quality of interior decoration
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
4. Instrument cluster
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Normal
3
4
D.-H. Byun / Information & Management 38 (2001) 289±297
16. Seat belts
Bad
1
2
Normal
3
4
Excellent
5
17. Safety of the body
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
18. Dealer' attitude
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
19. Dealer' expertize
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
20. Belief in the dealers' promises
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
21. Ease of acquiring spare parts
Bad
Normal
1
3
2
4
Excellent
5
22. Customer satisfaction after services
Bad
Normal
Excellent
1
3
5
2
4
References
[1] E.K. Bowen, M.K. Starr, Basic Statistics for Business and
Economics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1982.
[2] D.-H. Byun, E.H. Suh, A methodology for evaluating EIS
software packages, Journal of End User Computing 8 (2),
1996, pp. 21±31.
[3] R.F. Dyer, E.H. Forman, Group decision support with the
analytic hierarchy process, Decision Support Systems 8,
1992, pp. 99±124.
[4] Expert Choice Inc., Expert Choice 8.0: User Manual, Expert
Choice, Inc., Pittsburg, 1992.
[5] E.H. Forman, T.L. Saaty, M.A. Selly, R. Waldron, Expert
Choice, Decision Support Software, McLean, VA, 1983.
[6] D.B. Hoffman, Using an electronic spreadsheet to support the
analytic hierarchy process, in: Proceedings of the 16th Annual
Meeting of the American Institute for Decision Sciences,
1984, pp. 653±655.
297
[7] R. Khorramshahgol, V.S. Moustakis, Delphic hierarchy
process (DHP): a methodology for priority setting derived
from the Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process,
European Journal of Operational Research 37, 1988, pp. 347±
354.
[8] P. Korhonen, H. Moskowitz, J. Wallenius, Multiple criteria
decision support-a review, European Journal of Operational
Research 63, 1992, pp. 361±375.
[9] V.S. Lai, R.P. Trueblood, B.K. Wong, Software selection:
a case study of the application of the analytic hierarchical process to the selection of a multimedia authoring
system, Information and Management 36, 1999, pp. 221±
232.
[10] M.J. Liberatore, An extension of the analytic hierarchy
process for industrial R&D project selection and resource
allocation, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management
EM-34 (1), 1987, pp. 12±18.
[11] M.J. Liberatore, A.C. Stylianou, Using knowledge-based
systems for strategic market assessment, Information and
Management 27, 1994, pp. 221±232.
[12] C.Y. Lym, D.-H. Byun, E.H. Suh, S.I. Huh, Group AHP:
toward consistency ratio and judgement scale, in: Proceedings
of Korean OR/MS Society Annual Meeting, October 1994,
pp. 247±254.
[13] T.L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1980.
[14] T.L. Saaty, K. Kearns, Analytical Planning: The Organization
of Systems, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1985.
[15] T.L. Saaty, Group decision-making and the AHP, in: B.L.
Golden, E.A. Wasil, P.T. Harker (Eds.), The Analytic
Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies, Springer, New
York, 1989, pp. 59±67.
[16] F. Zahedi, The analytic hierarchy process-a survey of the
method and its applications, Interfaces 16 (4), 1986, pp. 96±
108.
Dae-Ho Byun is an Assistant Professor
of Management Information Systems at
Kyungsung University at Pusan, Republic of Korea. He received his Ph D
degree from Pohang University of
Science and Technology, his MS degree
from Korea Advanced Institute of
Science and Technology and his BS
degree from Korea University at the
Department of Industrial Engineering.
He worked in Daewoo Motor company
as a system analyst from 1987 to 1991. He has published in Expert
Systems With Applications, Expert Systems, Human Systems
Management, Journal of End User Computing, International
Journal of Information Management, Encyclopedia of Computer
Science and Technology, Encyclopedia of Library and Information
Science and International Journal of Computer Applications in
Technology. His research interests include knowledge-based expert
systems, managerial decision-making using the analytic hierarchy
process and electronic commerce.