Você está na página 1de 35

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.

htm

The analytic hierarchy process and analytic network process: an overview of applications
Seyhan Sipahi and Mehpare Timor
School of Business, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a detailed literature review of the recent applications of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and analytic network process (ANP) group decision-making methodologies. Design/methodology/approach Among more than 600 related papers published in the period 2005-2009, a total of 232 application articles published in highly reputed international academic journals were selected and referenced in this paper. Papers were categorized according to application areas, subject titles, publication date, country of origin, academic journals, and integrated methodologies, and are summarized herein by various tables and charts. Findings The ndings show that during the years 2005-2009, use of the AHP technique has continued to increase exponentially. Moreover, it is expected that ANP will gain more popularity in the future, as the benets of ANP become better understood. Applications of AHP have been dominant in manufacturing, followed by the environmental management and agriculture eld, power and energy industry, transportation industry, construction industry, and healthcare. Other remarkable application elds include education, logistics, e-business, IT, R&D, telecommunication industry, nance and banking, urban management, defense industry and military, government, marketing, tourism and leisure, archaeology, auditing, and the mining industry. Research limitations/implications The study does not consider theoretical based AHP or ANP articles. Also the search excluded conference proceedings, masters theses, and doctoral dissertations. Practical implications It is hoped that this study will guide practitioners in future work towards advancement of these techniques and will help the managers to select better decisions by making use of these methodologies. Originality/value The paper presents a comprehensive literature review of recent applications of AHP, and also ANP decision tools over the period 2005-2009. Furthermore, the paper covers fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ANP extensions that are becoming popular methods in some application areas of traditional AHP and ANP. Keywords Analytical hierarchy process, Decision making Paper type Literature review

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 775

1. Introduction In the 1970s, Thomas L. Saaty developed the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) technique, which constructs a decision-making problem in various hierarchies as goal, criteria, sub-criteria, and decision alternatives. The theoretical background and mathematical concept of the AHP methodology have been expressed in several books and articles (Vargas, 1990; Saaty, 1990, 2001b; Saaty and Vargas, 2001). The AHP technique performs pairwise comparisons to measure the relative importance of elements at each level of the hierarchy and evaluates alternatives at the lowest level of the hierarchy in order to make the best decision among multiple alternatives. AHP provides decision makers with a way to transform subjective

Management Decision Vol. 48 No. 5, 2010 pp. 775-808 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0025-1747 DOI 10.1108/00251741011043920

MD 48,5

776

judgments into objective measures. Due to its mathematical simplicity and exibility, AHP has been a favorite decision tool for research in many elds, such as engineering, food, business, ecology, health, and government. In addition to AHP, the analytic network process (ANP) technique, also developed by Thomas L. Saaty, is a generic form of AHP that allows for more complex, interdependent, relationships, and feedback among elements in the hierarchy (Saaty, 2001a). ANP has been used in several decision-making applications in the last decade, especially in the study of risk and uncertainty. The purpose of this study is to present a detailed literature review of the recent applications of AHP and ANP. Out of more than 600 related articles published in the period from 2005 to 2009, a total of 232 application-based articles published in English language and highly reputable academic journals were selected and referred in this paper. Articles were categorized according to methodology, journal name, publication date, country of origin, application areas, subject titles, and integrated methodologies, and are summarized herein by various tables and charts. 2. Previous AHP literature studies In the last 20 years, few studies were published in the area of AHP literature searches. In 1993, Apostolou and Hassell (1993) summarized current use of AHP in accounting research. The literature was presented chronologically by year of publication to document the evolution of AHP use in accounting. Omkarprasad and Sushil (2006) extensively analyzed the applicability of AHP, and reviewed 150 articles that had been published in highly reputed journals since 2003. Articles were categorized by selection, evaluation, benet-cost analysis, allocations, planning and development, priority and ranking, decision making, forecasting, and health and related elds application categories. In another literature search study, Ho (2008) reviewed integrated AHP articles that were published from 1997 to 2006. Mathematical programming, quality function deployment (QFD), meta-heuristics, SWOT analysis, and data envelopment analysis (DEA), decision tools that were commonly combined with AHP, were emphasized in Hos article. Furthermore, the most popular application areas for integrated AHP were summarized. Liberatore and Nydick (2008) studied 50 AHP articles in medical and healthcare published since 1997. These articles were classied by publication year, journal, healthcare category, method of analyzing alternatives, participants, and application type. This article aimed to present a rather comprehensive literature review of recent applications of the AHP as well as the ANP over the period from 2005 to 2009. Furthermore, our study covers fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ANP extensions that are becoming popular methods in some application areas of traditional AHP and ANP. The literature review was undertaken by conducting an expansive search on such academic databases as ISI Web of Science, Science Direct, Proquest ABI/Inform, and Ebscohost (business) using the AHP keywords AHP, Analytic Hierarchy Process, ANP, Analytic Network Process, Fuzzy AHP, Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process, Fuzzy ANP, Fuzzy Analytic Network Process, and pairwise comparisons. Our search excluded conference proceedings, masters theses, and doctoral dissertations. We inspected each article by publication year, methodology, country of origin, integrated techniques, application areas, and by subject.

3. Classications and observations Table I classies articles by country of origin and by publication year. Taiwan had the largest number of published articles (52) followed by Turkey (36), The USA (19), China (10), and Korea (10). Table II indicates the use of AHP, ANP, Fuzzy AHP, or Fuzzy ANP methodologies in these countries. Numbers in parentheses represent reference numbers. As observed in Table II, the articles published in USA, China, and Korea were predominantly based on the AHP method. However, in Taiwan and Turkey, articles focused on fuzzy AHP as well. Table III categorizes all 232 articles by AHP methodology and publication year. Numbers in brackets represent reference numbers. Of 232 articles, 169 utilized the AHP method. Also, a signicant use of fuzzy AHP is observed. Although the use of fuzziness has been increasing, fuzziness in AHP has been criticized in that the fuzzy approach does not yield better results than the simpler and more direct approach of the AHP and does not yield more-valid priorities (Saaty, 2006). Additionally, 2009 was the year in which the highest number of application articles was published. Table IV indicates the top ten journals that published the largest number of articles during the period from 2005 to 2009. In total 40 articles appeared in Expert Systems with Applications, followed by the European Journal of Operational Research (14), International Journal of Production Economics (12), and International Journal of Production Research (11). Numbers in brackets represent reference numbers. In this study, articles have also been classied according to additional methods used with AHP, fuzzy AHP, ANP, or fuzzy ANP. Integrated methods were used in 141 (61 per cent) of the articles (see Figure 1). Among the integrated methodologies, simulation was the most popular technique followed by TOPSIS and GIS. Other tools that were commonly combined with AHP were goal programming, DEA, Delphi method, balanced scorecard, factor analysis, fuzzy logic model, genetic algorithm, and SWOT analysis (see Figure 2). The association of the integrated methodologies to AHP and ANP and the reference numbers of the articles related to them are tabulated in Table V.
Year 2007 14 10 6 2 4 1 1 2 2 5 8 55

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 777

Country Taiwan Turkey The USA China Korea Hong Kong Greece India The UK Other countriesa Cooperative works Total

2005 5 4 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 6 3 27

2006 3 5 6 2 1 1 1 2 8 8 37

2008 10 5 4 4 1 5 3 1 13 9 55

2009 20 12 1 1 3 2 2 2 9 6 58

Total 52 36 19 10 10 9 7 7 7 41 34 232 Table I. Classication of articles by country and publication year

Notes: aArgentina, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Thailand, UAE (Dubai)

MD 48,5

778

Taiwan

Turkey

Table II. Classication of the top ve countries articles by methodology


AHP and ANP Chang et al. (2009); Liao Chang et al. (2009); Chiang et al. and Chang (2009); Lin (2008); Hsu et al. (2009); Hu et al. (2009); Huang et al. (2008); Kang and Juan (2009) and Lee (2007); Kreng and Wu (2007); Lai and Tsai (2009); Lee (2009); Lee et al. (2008); Lee et al. (2009a); Lee et al. (2009b); Lin et al. (2009); Lin (2009); Ma et al. (2007); Sun et al. (2009); Tseng et al. (2009); Wu et al. (2009) ANP Fuzzy AHP Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ANP Fuzzy ANP Grand total 52 Demirtas and Ustun (2009); Yuksel and Dagdeviren (2007) zdemir Kahraman Ayag and O Bozbura et al. (2007); Buyukozkan et al. (2008); Cebeci et al. (2006) (2007) and Ayag and zdemir (2009) O (2009); Celik et al. (2009); ksel (2008); Dagdeviren and Yu Erensal et al. (2006); Ertugrul and Karakasoglu (2009); Golec and Taskin (2007); Kayakutlu and Buyukozkan (2008); Kulak and Kahraman (2005); Secme et al. (2009); Tiryaki and Ahlatcioglu (2009); Tolga et al. (2005) 36 (continued )

AHP

Chang et al. (2007a); Chang et al. Chang et al. (2007b); Yang (2007); Chao and Chen (2009); Che et al. (2007); Chen and Liu et al. (2009) (2007); Cheng et al. (2005); Chiueh et al. (2008); Chou and Cheng (2006); Hsieh et al. (2006); Hsu et al. (2008a); Hsu et al. (2008b); Hsu and Pan (2009); Huang (2009); Huang et al. (2009); Kuo et al. (2008); Kuo and Chen (2006); Lin and Hsu (2007); Liou and Tzeng (2007); Liu and Hai, 2005); Liu and Chen (2007); Tsai and Su (2005); Shee and Wang (2008); Su and Chou (2008); Tsai (2005); Tsai and Hung (2009); Wang and Chang (2007); Wei et al. (2005); Wu et al. (2007); Yu and Tsai (2008

Ismayilova et al. Ayag (2005); Ayag (2007); (2007); Baykasoglu et al. (2009); Caliskan (2006); Celik (2009); Dagdeviren et al. (2009); Dikmen and Birgonul (2006); Erol et al. (2009); Gol and Catay (2007); Isiklar and Buyukozkan (2007); Kahraman et al. (2007); Kandakoglu et al. (2009); Korkmaz et al. (2008); Ozgen et al. (2008); Sevkli et al. (2007); Sun et al. (2008); Yurdakul and Ic (2005)

AHP Bertolini and Bevilacqua (2006)

AHP and ANP

ANP

Fuzzy AHP

Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ANP Fuzzy ANP Grand total

USA

Cooper and Qiu (2006); Gabriel Partovi (2006); et al. (2006); Gibney and Shang Peniwati and (2007); Huang and Bian (2009); Brenner (2008) Khorramshahgol and Djavanshir (2008); Kull and Talluri (2008); Lee and Kozar (2006); Levary (2007); Levary (2008); Li et al. (2008); Ma et al. (2005); Okudan (2006); Park and Rothrock (2007); Rabelo et al. (2007); Sale and Sale (2005); Strager and Rosenberger (2006); Sun et al. (2007);

China

Cheng et al. (2008); Hu et al. (2008); Ngai and Chan (2005); Wan et al. (2009); Wang and Yang (2007); Wang et al. (2008a); Wang et al. (2008b); Ying et al. (2007); Zhang et al. (2006); Zhao et al. (2006);

10

Korea

Ahn and Choi (2008); An et al. (2007); Chung and Lee (2009); Kim et al. (2005); Lee et al. (2007); Niaraki and Kim (2009); Shin et al. (2007); Shin et al. (2009); Yang et al. (2007); Yoo and Choi (2006); 83 5 5 31 1 2

10

Grand total

127

779

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications

Table II.

MD 48,5

780

Method Abildtrup et al. (2006); Alkahtani et al. (2006); Arslan and Khisty (2006); Bertolini and Bevilacqua (2006); Caliskan (2006); Chan et al. (2006); Chan (2006); Chou and Cheng (2006); Cieslik et al. (2006); Cooper and Qiu (2006); Dey (2006); Dikmen and Birgonul (2006); Ertay et al. (2006); Gabriel et al. (2006); Hsieh et al. (2006); Karami (2006); Korhonen et al. (2006); Korhonen and Voutilainen (2006); Kuo and Chen (2006); Lee and Kozar (2006); Liang et al. (2006); Masozera et al. (2006); Nagesha and Balachandra (2006); Okudan (2006); Strager and Rosenberger (2006); Sun et al. (2008); Teo and Ling (2006); Tudela et al. (2006); Vashishtha and Ramachandran (2006); Yoo and Choi (2006); Yuniarto and Labib (2006); Zhang et al. (2006); Zhao et al. (2006) An et al. (2007); Arshinder and Deshmukh (2007); Ayag uelas and Antony (2007); Ban (2007); Carlucci and Schiuma (2007); Chang et al. (2007a); Chang et al. (2007); Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2007); Che et al. (2007); Chen and Liu (2007); Diamantopoulos (2007); Gerdsri and Kocaoglu (2007); Gibney and Shang (2007); Gol and Catay (2007); Hafeez et al. (2007); Hsu et al. (2008b); Isiklar and Buyukozkan (2007); Islam (2007); Kahraman et al. (2007); Korpela et al. (2007); Lee et al. (2007); Levary (2007); Lin and Hsu (2007); Liou and Tzeng (2007); Liu et al. (2007); Oddershede et al. (2007); Park and Rothrock (2007); Peters and Zelewski (2007); Rabelo et al. (2007); Saaty (2001b); Sevkli et al. (2007); Shin et al. (2007); Srdjevic (2007); Sun et al. (2007); Wang and Yang (2007); Wang and Chang (2007); Wu et al. (2007); Yang et al. (2007); Ying et al. (2007); Zeng et al. (2007) Ahn and Choi (2008); Ananda and Herath (2008); Angelou and Economides (2008); Carrion et al. (2008); Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2008); Cheng et al. (2008); Chin et al. (2008); Chiueh et al. (2008); Cicone et al. (2008); Dey and Ramcharan (2008); Firouzabadi et al. (2008); Garcia et al. (2008); Giokas and Pentzaropoulos (2008); Hsu et al. (2008a); Hu et al. (2008); Huang et al. (2009); Kengpol (2008); Khorramshahgol and Djavanshir (2008); Kinra and Kotzab (2008); Korkmaz et al. (2008); Kull and Talluri (2008); Kuo et al. (2008); Lee and Chan (2008); Lee et al. (2008); Levary (2008); Li et al. (2008); Martinez-Olvera (2008); Ozgen et al. (2008); Parra-Lopez et al. (2008); Partovi (2007); Quintero et al. (2008); Shee D (2008); Su and Chou (2008); Valente and Vettorazzi (2008); Wang et al. (2008a); Wang et al. (2008b); Wang et al. (2008c); Wang et al. (2008d); Wong and Li (2008); Yu J (2008)

AHP

Table III. Categorized references at a glance


Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 Aguilar-Lasserre et al. (2009); Bahinipati et al. (2009); Baykasoglu et al. (2009); Berrittella et al. (2009); Celik (2009); Chao and Chen (2009); Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2009a); Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2009b); Chung and Lee (2009); Dagdeviren et al. (2009); Erol et al. (2009); Garcia-Cascales and Lamata (2009); Ho and Emrouznejad (2009); Hsu and Pan (2009); Huang (2009); Huang and Bian (2009); Hughes (2009); Kandakoglu et al. (2009); Karger and Hennings (2009); Li and Li (2009); Mansar et al. (2009); Michnik and Lo (2009); Naesens et al. (2009); Nekhay et al. (2009); Niaraki and Kim (2009); Oconnor and Kuyler (2009); Park et al. (2009); Sharma and Agrawal (2009); Shin et al. (2009); Sueyoshi et al. (2009); Tsai and Hung (2009); Wan et al. (2009) Total no. of articles 169 (continued )

2005

Ayag (2005); Carnero (2005); Chan et al. (2005); Chan and Chung (2005); Cheng et al. (2005); Chougule and Ravi (2005); Hummel et al. (2005); Kim et al. (2005); Krajnc and Glavic (2005); Kwak et al. (2005); Lam and Chin (2005); Liu and Hai (2005); Tsai (2005); Ma et al. (2005); Ngai and Chan (2005); Paralikas and Lygeros (2005); Richman et al. (2005); Sale and Sale (2005); Scholl et al. (2005); Tsai (2005); Wang et al. (2005); Wattage and Mardle (2005); Wei et al. (2005); Yurdakul and Ic (2005)

Year 2006 Erensal et al. (2006) Bozbura et al. (2007); Chan et al. (2005); Chen et al. (2007); Golec and Taskin (2007); Hwang et al. (2007); Kang and Lee (2007); Kreng and Wu (2007); Ma et al. (2007); Ravi and Mukherjee (2007) Buyukozkan et al. (2008); Cakir and Canbolat (2008); Chan et al. (2008); Chiang et al. (2008); Dagdeviren and ksel (2008); Huang et al. Yu (2008); Kayakutlu and Buyukozkan (2008); Lee et al. (2008); Sasmal and Ramanjaneyulu (2008); Wang and Chin (2008); Zaerpour et al. (2008) 2007 2008 2009 Total no. of articles 42

Method

2005

Fuzzy AHP

Kulak and Kahraman (2005); Tolga et al. (2005)

ANP

Cheng and Li (2007); Yuksel and Dagdeviren (2007)

AHP and ANP

Wolfslehner et al. (2005)

Leung et al. (2006); Peniwati and Brenner (2008)

Chang et al. (2007b); Ismayilova et al. (2007); Partovi (2006) zdemir (2007) Ayag and O

Cebeci (2009); Celik et al. (2009); Chang et al. (2009); Chang et al. (2009); Ertugrul and Karakasoglu (2009); Hsu et al. (2009); Hu et al. (2009); Lai and Tsai (2009); Lee (2009); Lee et al. (2009a); Lee et al. (2009b); Lin et al. (2009); Lin (2009); Naghadehi et al. (2009); Secme et al. (2009); Sun et al. (2009); Tiryaki and Ahlatcioglu (2009); Tseng et al. (2009); Wu et al. (2009) Wong et al. (2008a); Yan et al. Chang et al. (2009); Demirtas (2008); Zoffer et al. (2008) and Ustun (2009); Liao and Chang (2009); Lin and Juan (2009) Wong et al. (2008b) Cortes-Aldana et al. (2009); Yang et al. (2009) zdemir (2009) Ayag and O

Kahraman et al. (2006)

2 1

Fuzzy ANP Fuzzy AHP and Fuzzy ANP Total no. of articles 37 55

27

55

58

232

781

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications

Table III.

MD 48,5

782

Journal name Bozbura et al. (2007); Carlucci and Schiuma (2007); Che et al. (2007); Chen et al. (2007); Kang and Lee (2007) Cakir and Canbolat (2008); Chin et al. (2008); Lee et al. (2008); Sasmal and Ramanjaneyulu (2008); Su and Chou (2008)

Expert Systems with Applications

European Journal of Operational Research

Table IV. Classication of the top ten journals articles by years


2006 Year of publication 2007 2008 2009 Cebeci (2009); Celik et al. (2009); Chang et al. (2009); Chang et al. (2009); Chao and Chen (2009); Dagdeviren et al. (2009); Ertugrul and Karakasoglu (2009); Ho and Emrouznejad (2009); Hsu et al. (2009); Hsu and Pan (2009); Hu et al. (2009); Huang (2009); Huang and Bian (2009); Karami (2006); Lai and Tsai (2009); Lee et al. (2009a); Lee et al. (2009b); Li and Li (2009); Lin and Juan (2009); Mansar et al. (2009); Naghadehi et al. (2009); Niaraki and Kim (2009); Secme et al. (2009); Sun et al. (2009); Wu et al. (2009); Yang et al. (2009) Kreng and Wu (2007); Park and Rothrock (2007); Wang and Chang (2007) Partovi (2007) Cortes-Aldana et al. (2009); Michnik and Lo (2009); Sueyoshi et al. (2009) Total no. of articles 40 Arslan and Khisty (2006); Caliskan (2006); Kahraman et al. (2006); Korhonen et al. (2006); Korhonen and Voutilainen (2006) 14 (continued )

2005

Cheng et al. (2005); Ngai and Chan (2005); Tsai (2005)

Kwak et al. (2005); Scholl et al. (2005)

Journal name Korpela et al. (2007); Partovi (2006); Rabelo et al. (2007) Buyukozkan et al. Naesens et al. (2009) (2008); Kengpol (2008); Kinra and Kotzab (2008); MartinezOlvera (2008) Chan et al. (2008); Chiang et al. (2008); Li et al. (2008)

2005

2006

Year of publication 2007 2008 2009 12

Total no. of articles

International Journal of Production Economics

Liu and Hai (2005); Dey (2006) Tolga et al. (2005); Wei et al. (2005)

International Journal of Production Research

Ayag (2007); Chougule Yuniarto and Labib and Ravi (2005); (2006) Yurdakul and Ic (2005)

zdemir Ayag and O (2009); Ayag (2005); Ravi and Mukherjee (2007); Sevkli et al. (2007) Chang et al. (2007a) Firouzabadi et al. (2008); Garcia-Cascales and Lamata (2009); Levary (2008); Wang et al. (2008d); Yu J (2008) Dagdeviren and ksel (2008); Yu Korkmaz et al. (2008); Ozgen et al. (2008) Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2008); Cicone et al. (2008); Lee et al. (2008); Wang et al. (2008a)

11

Computers & Industrial Engineering

zdemir Ayag and O (2009); Bahinipati et al. (2009); Demirtas and Ustun (2009); Lin (2009) Tiryaki and Ahlatcioglu (2009)

10

Information Sciences

Kulak and Kahraman (2005)

Erensal et al. (2006); Ertay et al. (2006)

Chang et al. (2007b); Golec and Taskin (2007); Yuksel and Dagdeviren (2007) Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2007); Lee et al. (2007)

10

Energy Policy

Liang et al. (2006)

Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2009a); Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2009b)

(continued )

783

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications

Table IV.

MD 48,5

784

Journal name Zhao et al. (2006) Zeng et al. (2007) Dey and Ramcharan (2008)

Journal of Environmental Management Chou and Cheng (2006); Chan and Kumar Peniwati and Brenner (2007) (2008) Teo and Ling (2006)

Omega

Building and Environment

Others Total no. of articles

Table IV.
2006 Year of publication 2007 2008 2009 Celik (2009); Chang et al. (2009); Chung and Lee (2009); Oconnor and Kuyler (2009) Hughes (2009); Tsai and Hung (2009); Tseng et al. (2009) Total no. of articles 8 Huang et al. (2008) 8 An et al. (2007); Chang Hsu et al. (2008a); et al. (2007); Cheng and Wong and Li (2008) Li (2007); Wu et al. (2007) 8 102 232

2005

Wattage and Mardle (2005)

Chan et al. (2005)

Kim et al. (2005)

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 785

Figure 1. Percentages of integrated methods

Figure 2. Integrated methods used

4. Analysis of applications by areas Table VI categorizes articles according to application areas. The manufacturing industry comes in at the top with 76 articles, followed by environmental management and agriculture (26), general decision problems (19), power and energy industry (15), transportation industry (15), construction industry (11), and healthcare (10). AHP and Fuzzy AHP were the most preferred techniques. Other remarkable application elds include education, logistics, e-business, IT, R&D, telecommunication industry, nance and banking, urban management, defense industry and military, government, marketing, tourism and leisure, archaeology, auditing, mining industry, sport, and politics. 4.1 AHP and ANP in manufacturing A great interest in the study of AHP and ANP is obvious in the area of manufacturing. Supplier selection, supply chain evaluation, location selection, system selection or evaluation, and strategy evaluation are the most common problems tackled in the manufacturing area.

MD 48,5

786

Simulation

TOPSIS

GIS

Goal programming

Table V. Integrated methods to AHP, Fuzzy AHP, ANP and AHP-ANP Fuzzy AHP ANP AHP and ANP Buyukozkan et al. (2008); Ertugrul and Karakasoglu (2009); Secme et al. (2009); Tseng et al. (2009); Wu et al. (2009) Chang et al. (2009); Demirtas and Ustun (2009) (continued )

AHP

Huang et al. (2008) Ahn and Choi (2008); Ayag (2005); uelas and Antony Ayag (2007); Ban (2007); Berrittella et al. (2009); Chung and Lee (2009); Gabriel et al. (2006); Hsu and Pan (2009); Kuo et al. (2008); Li and Li (2009); Park and Rothrock (2007); Rabelo et al. (2007); Richman et al. (2005); Sharma and Agrawal (2009)

Cheng et al. (2008); Dagdeviren et al. (2009); Hsieh et al. (2006); Isiklar and Buyukozkan (2007); Kandakoglu et al. (2009); Kuo et al. (2008); Yurdakul and Ic (2005)

Chang et al. (2009) Carrion et al. (2008); Chiueh et al. (2008); Cooper and Qiu (2006); Huang and Bian (2009); Ma et al. (2005); Nekhay et al. (2009); Strager and Rosenberger (2006); Valente and Vettorazzi (2008); Wang et al. (2008); Ying et al. (2007)

Lee et al. (2009b); Wang and Chin Bertolini and Bevilacqua (2006); (2008) Firouzabadi et al. (2008); Ho and Emrouznejad (2009); Kull and Talluri (2008); Peters and Zelewski (2007)

AHP

Fuzzy AHP

ANP

AHP and ANP

DEA

Delphi method

Tseng et al. (2009) Ertay et al. (2006); Giokas and Pentzaropoulos (2008); Korpela et al. (2007); Liu and Hai (2005); Sevkli et al. (2007); Sueyoshi et al. (2009); Wang et al. (2008d) Hsieh et al. (2006); Hu et al. (2008); Kayakutlu and Buyukozkan (2008); Tsai (2005); Shin et al. (2009) Lee et al. (2009a) Lin and Juan (2009)

Balanced scorecard

Leung et al. (2006)

Factor analysis

Chan (2006); Hafeez et al. (2007); Lee et al. (2008) Huang (2009); Sale and Sale (2005) Carnero (2005); Liou and Tzeng (2007); Lin et al. (2009); Ma et al. (2007) Teo and Ling (2006); Zhang et al. (2006)

Fuzzy logic model

Arshinder and Deshmukh (2007); Arslan and Khisty (2006); Bahinipati et al. (2009); Paralikas and Lygeros (2005); Yuniarto and Labib (2006)

Genetic algorithm

Aguilar-Lasserre et al. (2009); Chan et al. (2005); Chan et al. (2006); Chan and Chung (2005); Lin and Hsu (2007) Zaerpour et al. (2008) Yuksel and Dagdeviren (2007)

SWOT

Kahraman et al. (2007); Kandakoglu et al. (2009); Masozera et al. (2006)

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications

Table V.

787

MD 48,5

Area Manufacturing industry Environmental management and agriculture General decision problem Power and energy industry Transportation industry Construction industry Health Others Total

AHP ANP 45 24 12 14 12 8 10 44 169 2 2 1 1 3 9

AHP and ANP 4 1 1 1 2 9

Fuzzy AHP 23 1 3 1 2 1 11 42

Fuzzy ANP 1 1

Fuzzy AHP and fuzzy ANP 1

Total 76 26 19 15 15 11 10 60 232

788
Table VI. Classication by application area and methodology

Wei et al. (2005) proposed an ERP system selection method in which an objective hierarchy was constructed and appropriate attributes were specied to provide guidance for ERP system valuation. The proposed methodology attempted to ensure that the evaluation process was aligned with the competitive strategies and goals of the enterprise. The AHP method was applied for dealing with the ambiguities involved in assessment of ERP alternatives and relative importance weightings of attributes. Liu and Hai (2005) proposed a six-step AHP procedure for the supplier selection problem. In order to decide the total ranking of suppliers, they compared the weighted sum of the selection number of rank votes after determining the weights in a selected rank. This investigation presented a novel weighting procedure in place of the AHP paired comparison. This provided a simpler method than AHP, called the voting analytic hierarchy process, but it does not lose the systematic approach of deriving weights to be used and scoring of the performance of suppliers. Ertay et al. (2006) integrated DEA and AHP for facility layout design in manufacturing systems. In their study, the criteria to be minimized were viewed as inputs, whereas the criteria to be maximized were considered outputs. Then, AHP was applied to collect qualitative data related to quality and exibility. The DEA methodology was used to solve the layout design problem by simultaneously considering both the quantitative and qualitative data. The integrated procedure was applied to a real data set in a case study. Another study on supplier selection, was done by Sevkli et al. (2007). In their study, the DEA approach was embedded into AHP for weight derivation and aggregation. Chan et al. (2005) developed a hybrid genetic algorithm for production and distribution problems in multi-factory supply chain models. In their work, the AHP method was utilized to assign weights and relate supply chain criteria such as operating cost, service level, resources utilization, etc. Then, genetic algorithms were utilized to determine job allocation into suitable production plants. In another study, Chan and Chung (2005) combined AHP and genetic algorithms again to determine the optimized schedule for collaboration of each entity to fulll demands. They focused on the demand due date factor in a multi-echelon distribution network problem and the impact on production scheduling in manufacturing plants. Carnero (2005) proposed a model that carries out the decision making in relation to selection of diagnostic techniques and instrumentation in predictive maintenance programs. The model combines AHP and factor analysis and has been tested in screw

compressors with integration of lubricant and vibration analyses. Lam and Chin (2005) examined the critical success factors of conict management in collaborative new product development. By using AHP, they prioritized the importance of four categories of success factors, namely relationship management, conict handling system, new product development, process management, and communication. They found that communication management, trust, and commitment to the collaboration are the most important factors. Ayag (2005) used AHP to evaluate conceptual design alternatives in a new product design environment and used a simulation generator integrated with this technique to perform economic analyses for AHPs high-score alternatives. Finally, the results of both techniques, simulation and AHP, were used in a benet/cost analysis to reach a nal decision on the conceptual design alternatives. Isiklar and Buyukozkan (2007) proposed a model to evaluate mobile phone options with respect to user preference order. In their study, the most desirable features inuencing the choice of a mobile phone were identied. AHP was applied to determine the relative weights of evaluation criteria and extension of the technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) was applied to rank the mobile phone alternatives. A few other research papers have utilized the ANP technique along with AHP to measure inter-factor dependencies in manufacturing. For instance, Partovi (2006) used QFD, AHP, and ANP models for a facility location problem that incorporates both external and internal criteria in the decision-making process. QFD matrices with interconnected rows and columns relate market segments, competitive priorities, critical processes, location attributes, and various locations. In the model, AHP determines the intensity of the relationship between the row and column variables of each matrix, whereas ANP determines the intensity of synergistic effects among column variables. The model ne-tunes and adds precision to an otherwise qualitative strategic decision process. Partovi (2007) also developed an analytical technique for process selection and evaluation for manufacturing systems, again using QFD, AHP, and ANP models. In another study, Yuksel and Dagdeviren (2007) explained the weaknesses of traditional SWOT analysis and performed a quantitative SWOT analysis wherein the possible dependencies among SWOT factors were included. The ANP technique, which enables measurement of inter-factor dependencies, was utilized in their work. They also used the AHP method with SWOT analysis to compare the effects of the dependencies among the SWOT factors on prioritizing the alternative strategies and on the SWOT sub-factor weights. Yang et al. (2009) proposed an integrated process that allows manufacturing systems to construct a performance measurement model. Performance criteria from the literature and an expert questionnaire were utilized prior to building the performance measurement model. AHP and ANP were utilized to determine the weight of each criterion when generating the performance model for manufacturing systems. 4.2 AHP and ANP in the construction industry AHP has been often used in the construction industry for technical assessment, construction safety, project evaluation, project risk analysis, and intelligent building design evaluation. For instance, Dikmen and Birgonul (2006) used the AHP method for assessment of the risk involved in international projects. International project, risk assessment, is a complicated task because of the sensitivity of project success related to country-specic risks as well as project risks. Teo and Ling (2006) proposed a model

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 789

MD 48,5

790

describing the development and testing of a model used to calculate the Construction Safety Index and an accompanying set of tools that can be used to audit the effectiveness of a construction rms safety management system. A list of 590 attributes useful in assessment of construction safety was identied, and the method used to determine the rst and second level weights using the AHP procedure was described. The ve-point Likert scale was used to determine the importance weights of lower level attributes. Chen and Liu (2007) presented a new methodology based on AHP and the fuzzy Delphi method (FDM) for assessing rock mass rating. This research treats rock mass classication as a group decision problem, and applies the fuzzy logic theory as the criterion for calculating the weighting of factors. Wong and Li (2008) applied AHP in multi-criteria for analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems (IB). They designed two surveys, a general survey, and an AHP survey, to achieve the objectives. The rst general survey aimed to collect general views from intelligent building experts and practitioners to identify the perceived critical selection criteria, while the AHP survey was conducted to prioritize and assign the important weightings for the perceived criteria in the general survey. The study contributes to the industry and IB research in at least two aspects. First, it widens the understanding of selection criteria as well as the degree of importance for the IB systems. It also adopts multi-criteria AHP approach, which is a new method used to analyze and select building systems in IB. Wong et al. (2008a, b) developed two other models to evaluate the system intelligence of intelligent building systems. AHP and ANP were employed in those studies, to evaluate the system intelligence of the IB. AHP was utilized, to determine the relative importance, of the intelligence attributes, and indicators in the model, while ANP was employed to examine the interdependence between the intelligent attributes, and operational benets of the IB. Wang et al. (2008) studied bridge risk assessment, as a MCDM problem, which involves multiple assessment criteria, such as safety, functionality, and sustainability. Of the MCDM approaches, the AHP method can only compare a very limited number of decision alternatives. The pairwise comparison approach is obviously infeasible in this situation. To overcome this difculty, they combine the AHP with DEA and propose an integrated AHP-DEA methodology in their paper. 4.3 AHP in power and energy industries Dey (2006) used AHP to develop a decision support system (DSS) for project evaluation and selection. The model has been developed with the active involvement of project participants. The article explains the entire methodology through a case study of the cross-India petroleum pipeline. Shin et al. (2007) applied the AHP process to evaluation of national nuclear research and development projects in Korea. Also in Korea, Lee et al. (2007) used the AHP method to develop a scientic and rational assessment model for demand-side management investment programs (DSMIPs) in the areas of natural gas and district heating. Demand-side management (DSM) is the process of managing the consumption of energy to optimize available and planned generation resources, and DSMIPs are the actions conducted by energy suppliers to promote investment. Garcia et al. (2008) presented a model developed to evaluate the Dynamic Adaptation of an Electric Energy Distribution System with respect to planning for a given period of Tariff Control. The model is based on a two-stage strategy that deals with the mid/short-term and long-term planning, respectively. The starting point for

modeling is selected by the results from a multi-attribute method based on Fuzzy Dynamic Programming and AHP for a mid/short-term horizon. Lee et al. (2008) studied the potential for Korea to be competitive in development of hydrogen energy technology using the AHP approach, in which they tabulated Koreas competitive position compared with other countries. Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2007) evaluated the impact of non-radioactive emissions in the most commonly used types of power plants using AHP to synthesize objective and subjective criteria. Sensitivity analysis was used in order to examine how a change of input data affects the nal results. Finally, ten main types of power plants were evaluated according to the level and type of emissions released. In another study, Chatzimouratidis and Pilavachi (2009a) studied types of power plants and presented a sensitivity analysis comprised of four alternative scenarios. Before applying sensitivity analysis, the reference scenario is presented and an overall ranking is carried out according to this scenario. The sensitivity analysis describes alterations of scores and rankings according to variations of criteria weights with regard to this scenario. Karger and Hennings (2009) investigated the advantages and disadvantages of decentralized electricity generation according to the overall concept of sustainable development on the basis of a hierarchically structured set of sustainability criteria. By applying an expanded AHP, a multi-criteria evaluation is conducted that identies dissent among the experts. The results demonstrate that decentralized electricity generation can contribute to climate protection. The extent to which it simultaneously guarantees security of supply is still a matter of controversy. 4.4 AHP and ANP in the transportation industry Among all of the industries, transport is the sector with the fastest growth of greenhouse gases emissions, both in developed and in developing countries. AHP has been utilized to conduct studies on improving ship registry, passenger security checks in airports, port security, and transportation investments. Tsai and Su (2005) conducted a study of the political risk assessment process and designed a case study of business environment evaluations of ve East Asian ports under political inuences, including Hong Kong, Singapore, Busan, Kaohsiung, and Shangha. This system approach consists of political risk factor identication, risk measurement, and assessment processes using the three methods of Delphi, AHP, and Wards clustering. A total of 15 high-ranking managers from ve leading global carriers presented their viewpoints for analysis. It was concluded that the residual risks resulting from port development and management policies were considered to be more signicant than the risks from the integrated political and economical conditions. Tudela et al. (2006) compared the output of cost-benet and multi-criteria analyses by considering an application to urban transport investments. A main conclusion from these results is that the decision-making process needs to formally incorporate other aspects, apart from the economic ones. Furthermore, public opinion should be taken into account, explicitly into the decision-making, particularly when information regarding the projects that will affect them can be provided by the authority in an accurately and timely fashion. In transportation investment studies, Caliskan (2006) applied decision-making methods such as the cognitive map and AHP. The cognitive map is a process based on a chain of interviews held with transportation experts. The data obtained from the cognitive map were utilized to determine the fundamental and

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 791

MD 48,5

792

sub-criteria, and then an AHP model was established. Yoo and Choi (2006) used the AHP approach for identifying important factors to improve passenger security checks at airports. The researchers prepared a survey questionnaire to gather data from experienced screeners and supervisors working at screening points around the airport. The gathered data was analyzed by using the AHP methodology to formulate a model. Kandakoglu et al. (2009) proposed a structured multi-methodological approach based on the systematic application of SWOT analysis, AHP, and TOPSIS methods to support the critical decision process of shipping registry selection. Park et al. (2009) applied AHP to evaluate the competitiveness of air cargo express services. They explored the relative importance of factors that inuence the adoption of an air express delivery service, and evaluated the competitiveness of air cargo express carriers in the Korean market. They reported that AHP analysis shows that accuracy and promptness are the two most inuential factors for competitiveness, and that DHL is most competitive in the Korean market, followed by FedEx, TNT, EMS, and UPS. Chang et al. (2009) used ANP priorities with applied fuzzy delphi, and zero-one goal programming for revitalization strategies in a case study of the Alishan Forest Railway for the solution of real-world, multi-criteria revitalization strategies. The proposed ANP model consists of a control hierarchy and a network of connections between clusters of alternatives, factors, and criteria. 4.5 AHP in health In medical and healthcare studies, AHP method was mostly used for cost/benet analysis, hospital location selection, nutrition, risk assessment, and rehabilitation problems. Hummel et al. (2005) applied the AHP to support evaluation by a rehabilitation team of the performance of two treatment options designed to improve arm-hand function in subjects with sixth cervical vertebra (C6) level Motor Group 2: tetraplegia. AHP was used by the rehabilitation team, and potential recipients, to quantitatively compare a new technology, Functional Electrical Stimulation (FES), with conventional surgery. Performance was measured by functional improvement, treatment load, risks, user-friendliness, and social outcomes. Functional improvement after FES was considered better than that after conventional surgery. However, the rehabilitation teams overall rating for conventional surgery was slightly higher than that for FES (57 per cent vs 44 per cent). As compared to the rehabilitation team, potential recipients gave greater weight to burden of treatment and less weight to functional improvement. The study showed that evaluation of new technology must be more comprehensive than evaluation of functional improvement alone, and that patient preferences may differ from those of the rehabilitation team. Cieslik et al. (2006) studied the process of polyphenol supplied to human organisms from fruit and vegetables. On this basis, plant raw materials that supply polyphenols to the organism to the greatest extent (and thus contribute to an improvement in health of people in Poland) were identied. Wu et al. (2007) used AHP for a hospital location, selection problem. The subjective factor was measured using AHP. Throughout the analysis, the various criteria and sub-criteria were identied while considering optimal selection of location to ensure a competitive advantage as a means of setting up hospitals. A detailed sensitivity analysis was performed to identify the variation in behavior of the alternatives.

Hsu et al. (2008b) used AHP to select medical disposal companies based on the results of interviews with experts in the eld, thus reducing overhead costs and enhancing medical waste management in order to efciently dispose of large amounts of medical waste to ensure sanitation and personal hygiene; doing so efciently reduces potential environmental hazards and decreases operational expenses. However, hospitals lack objective criteria to select the most appropriate waste disposal rm and evaluate performance, instead relying on their own subjective judgments and previous experiences. An appropriate weight criterion based on AHP was derived to assess the effectiveness of a medical waste disposal rms qualications, a contractors service capability and equipment, and economic factors. Baykasoglu et al. (2009) carried out a case study to evaluate cost and benets of gowns and drapes, used in considerable amounts at a hospital. The aim was to form a basis for making effective selection decisions between disposable and reusable products. The literature was reviewed, and interviews were conducted with doctors, nance personnel, and the administrators of the hospital to determine the factors associated with gown and drape use. AHP was used as the main instrument in developing the cost/benet analysis model. They concluded that single-use products were very strong in terms of benets, but their costs were still expensive as a replacement for reusable products. If the cost of single-use products was reduced by some technological advancement in production as well as in distribution, these products would gain a very competitive position in the gown and drape market. This would lead to better infection control in the hospitals. 5. Conclusion This study aims to present a detailed literature review of the recent applications of AHP and ANP during the years 2005-2009. Prior AHP related literature review studies covered different time periods and not considered ANP methodology. In their study, Omkarprasad and Sushil (2006) predicted that the use of AHP as a decision support tool would keep increasing worldwide. Our study supports the accuracy of this prediction. During the years 2005-2009, the use of the AHP technique has continued to increase exponentially. In this study, country and geographical-based classications were used to demonstrate the widespread use of the method. AHP has been used as a managerial decision tool in many industries for strategy evaluation, performance assessment, product and process design, risk evaluation, system selection, cost/benet analysis, quality evaluation, and measurement of objectives. During the years 2005-2009, applications of AHP have been dominant in manufacturing, followed by the environmental management and agriculture eld, power and energy industry, transportation industry, construction industry, and healthcare. Other remarkable application elds include education, logistics, e-business, IT, R&D, telecommunication industry, nance and banking, urban management, defense industry and military, politics, government, marketing, tourism and leisure, sport, archaeology, auditing, and the mining industry. Supplier selection, supply chain evaluation, location selection, system selection or evaluation, and strategy evaluation are the most common problems solved in manufacturing. AHP is used in the construction industry for technical assessment, construction safety, project evaluation, project risk analysis and intelligent building design evaluation. In the transportation industry, AHP has been utilized to conduct studies in improving ship registry,

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 793

MD 48,5

794

passenger security checks in airports, port security, and transportation investments. Also AHP methodology has been becoming increasingly important tool in different decision-making situations in education. It has been used for measurement of university objectives, dean selection, electronic library performance evaluation, optimum selection of educational materials, university design, and web-based e-learning system evaluation. It is assumed that AHP will continue to be used as an effective decision method in education sector. With increasing governmental emphasis on preventive health initiatives in the world, a wide use of decision-making techniques is expected in the public health area. Moreover, the internationally recognized urgency of the need for renewable energy and smart grid initiatives is a sure bet to create a surge in the number of decision-making articles published in the coming years. Even though the widespread use of the method demonstrates that AHP is still a powerful decision tool for assisting managers in many decision situations, AHP does not take into account dependencies and interrelations among factors. However, real world problems usually consist of dependence or feedback between elements. Compared to AHP, the ANP methodology makes it possible to consider all kinds of dependence and feedback in the decision problem. For this reason, the ANP method is better to provide a exible model to solve real world situations as compared to the AHP method. It is thus expected that ANP will gain more popularity in the future, as the benets of ANP become better understood. Especially in developed countries, it is expected that ANP will be used predominantly. Furthermore, in Hos study (2008), it was estimated that the growth in the use of integrated AHP methodologies would continue in the coming years. Our study expressly reports the accuracy of this foresight. It was observed that besides the use of AHP as a stand-alone method, researchers have been continuing to use a combination of AHP with other decision-making techniques. During the years 2005-2009, simulation has been the most frequently used integrated method, followed by TOPSIS and GIS. Other signicant tools that are commonly combined with AHP have been goal programming, DEA, Delphi method, balanced scorecard, factor analysis, fuzzy logic model, genetic algorithm, and SWOT analysis. Simulation is an effective methodology, in that it examines the uncertainty in AHP and helps to reduce the uncertainty to some extent. Regarding the growing use of the AHP-Simulation models, it is expected that this trend will keep continuing in the coming years. AHP and ANP have been applied in a wide variety of areas as a useful and practical multi-criteria decision-making tool. However, in this study, it was also observed a signicant number of studies related to Fuzzy AHP. Country-based classications reported that the use of the fuzzy AHP methodology has been rising especially in Taiwan and Turkey. Even though the use of the fuzzy AHP methodology is rising in some regions, the accuracy of the fuzzy approach in AHP or ANP has been strongly criticized by authorities (Saaty, 2006). Therefore the authors presume that in the context of better decision-making, the implementation of the Fuzzy AHP, would be awed by experts, in the future. It is hoped that this study can be used by managers, and academics as a foundation for further research, help practitioners to make better decisions by the use of these techniques, and guide scholars towards advancement of these methodologies.

References Abildtrup, J., Audsley, E., Fekete-Farkas, M., Guipponi, C., Gylling, M., Rosatao, P. and Rounsevell, M. (2006), Socio-economic scenario development for the assessment of climate change impacts on agricultural land use: a pairwise comparison approach, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 101-15. lez Huerta, M.A. (2009), Aguilar-Lasserre, A.A., Bautista Bautista, M.A., Ponsich, A. and Gonza An AHP-based decision-making tool for the solution of multiproduct batch plant design problem under imprecise demand, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 711-36. Ahn, B.S. and Choi, S.H. (2008), ERP system selection using a simulation-based AHP approach: a case of Korean home-shopping company, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 322-30. Alkahtani, A.M.S., Woodward, M.E. and Al-Begain, K. (2006), Prioritised best effort routing with four quality of service metrics applying the concept of the analytic hierarchy process, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 559-80. Ananda, J. and Herath, G. (2008), Multi-attribute preference modeling and regional land-use planning, Ecological Economics, Vol. 65 No. 2, pp. 325-35. Angelou, G.N. and Economides, A.A. (2008), A decision analysis framework for prioritizing a portfolio of ICT infrastructure projects, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 479-95. An, S., Kim, G.H. and Kang, K.I. (2007), A case-based reasoning cost estimating model using experience by analytic hierarchy process, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 2573-9. Apostolou, B. and Hassell, J.M. (1993), An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its use in accounting research, Journal of Accounting Literature, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 1-28. Arshinder, A.K. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2007), Coordination in supply chains: an evaluation using fuzzy logic, Production Planning & Control, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 420-35. Arslan, T. and Khisty, J. (2006), A rational approach to handling fuzzy perceptions in route choice, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 168 No. 2, pp. 571-83. Ayag, Z. (2005), An integrated approach to evaluating conceptual design alternatives in a new product development environment, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 4, pp. 687-713. Ayag, Z. (2007), A hybrid approach to machine-tool selection through AHP and simulation, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 2029-50. zdemir, R.G. (2007), An intelligent approach to ERP software selection through Ayag, Z. and O fuzzy ANP, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 2169-94. zdemir, R.G. (2009), A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy Ayag, Z. and O analytic network process, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 368-79. Bahinipati, B.K., Kanda, A. and Deshmukh, S.G. (2009), Horizontal collaboration in semiconductor manufacturing industry supply chain: an evaluation of collaboration intensity index, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 880-95. uelas, R. and Antony, J. (2007), Application of stochastic analytic hierarchy process within a Ban domestic appliance manufacturer, Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 29-39. Baykasoglu, A., Dereli, T. and Ylankrkan, N. (2009), Application of cost/benet analysis for surgical gown and drape selection: a case study, American Journal of Infection Control, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 215-26.

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 795

MD 48,5

796

Berrittella, M., La Franca, L. and Zito, P. (2009), An analytic hierarchy process for ranking operating costs of low cost and full service airlines, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 249-55. Bertolini, M. and Bevilacqua, M. (2006), A combined goal programming-AHP approach to maintenance selection problem, Reliability Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 91 No. 7, pp. 839-48. Bozbura, F.T. et al., (2007), Prioritization of human capital measurement indicators using fuzzy AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 1100-12. Buyukozkan, G. et al., (2008), Selection of the strategic alliance partner in logistics value chain, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 113 No. 1, pp. 148-58. Cakir, O. and Canbolat, M.S. (2008), A web-based decision support system for multi-criteria inventory classication using fuzzy AHP methodology, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1367-78. Caliskan, N. (2006), A decision support approach for the evaluation of transport investment alternatives, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 175 No. 3, pp. 1696-704. Carlucci, D. and Schiuma, G. (2007), Knowledge assets value creation map: assessing knowledge assets value drivers using AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 814-21. Carnero, M.C. (2005), Selection of diagnostic techniques and instrumentation in a predictive maintenance program. A case study, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 539-55. Carrion, J.A. et al., (2008), Environmental decision-support systems for evaluating the carrying capacity of land areas: optimal site selection for grid-connected photovoltaic power plants, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 12 No. 9, pp. 2358-80. Cebeci, U. (2009), Fuzzy AHP-based decision support system for selecting ERP systems in textile industry by using balanced scorecard, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 8900-9. Celik, M. (2009), A hybrid design methodology for structuring an integrated environmental management system (IEMS) for shipping business, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 1469-75. Celik, M. et al., (2009), An integrated fuzzy QFD model proposal on routing of shipping investment decisions in crude oil tanker market, Part 2, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 6227-35. Chan, F.T.S., Chung, S.H. and Wadhwa, S. (2005), A hybrid genetic algorithm for production and distribution, Omega, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 345-55. Chan, F.T.S. et al., (2006), Optimization of order fulllment in distribution network problems, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 307-19. Chan, F.T.S. et al., (2008), Global supplier selection: a fuzzy-AHP approach, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 14, pp. 3825-57. Chan, F.T.S. and Chung, S.H. (2005), Multi-criterion genetic optimization for due date assigned distribution network problems, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 661-75. Chan, F.T.S. and Kumar, N. (2007), Global supplier development considering risk factors using fuzzy extended AHP-based approach, Omega, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 417-31. Chan, Y.L. (2006), An analytic hierarchy framework for evaluating balanced scorecards of healthcare organizations, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 85-104. Chang, C. (2007a), An application of AHP and sensitivity analysis for selecting the best slicing machine, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 296-307.

Chang, C. (2007b), Evaluating digital video recorder systems using analytic hierarchy and analytic network processes, Information Sciences, Vol. 177 No. 16, pp. 3383-96. Chang, C. et al., (2009), Applying fuzzy hierarchy multiple attributes to construct an expert decision making process, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 7363-8. Chang, K. et al., (2007), Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005-searching for suitability in Taiwan, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 310-6. Chang, N. et al., (2009), Fair fund distribution for a municipal incinerator using GIS-based fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 441-54. Chang, Y. et al., (2009), Using ANP priorities with goal programming for revitalization strategies in historic transport: a case study of the Alishan Forest Railway, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 8682-90. Chao, R. and Chen, Y. (2009), Evaluation of the criteria and effectiveness of distance e-learning with consistent fuzzy preference relations, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 7, pp. 10657-62. Chatzimouratidis, A.I. and Pilavachi, P.A. (2007), Objective and subjective evaluation of power plants and their non-radioactive emissions using the analytic hierarchy process, Energy Policy, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 4027-38. Chatzimouratidis, A.I. and Pilavachi, P.A. (2008), Multicriteria evaluation of power plants impact on the living standard using the analytic hierarchy process, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 1074-89. Chatzimouratidis, A.I. and Pilavachi, P.A. (2009a), Sensitivity analysis of technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process, Energy Policy, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 788-98. Chatzimouratidis, A.I. and Pilavachi, P.A. (2009b), Technological, economic and sustainability evaluation of power plants using the analytic hierarchy process, Energy Policy, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 778-87. Che, Z.H. et al., (2007), A multi-criterion interaction-oriented model with proportional rule for designing supply chain networks, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 1042-53. Chen, C. and Liu, Y. (2007), A methodology for evaluation and classication of rock mass quality on tunnel engineering, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 377-87. Chen, H.H. et al., (2007), Prioritization and operations NPD mix in a network with strategic partners under uncertainty, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 337-46. Cheng, E.W.L. and Li, H. (2007), Application of ANP in process models: an example of strategic partnering, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 278-87. Cheng, J. (2008), Optimization of injection mold based on fuzzy moldability evaluation, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, Vol. 208 Nos 1-3, pp. 222-8. Cheng, S. (2005), A semantic learning for content-based image retrieval using analytical hierarchy process, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 495-505. Chiang, D.M. et al., (2008), Improved customer satisfaction with a hybrid dispatching rule in semiconductor back-end factories, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 17, pp. 4903-23. Chin, K. et al., (2008), Group-based ER-AHP system for product project screening, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 1909-29.

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 797

MD 48,5

798

Chiueh, P. et al., (2008), A GIS-based system for allocating municipal solid waste incinerator compensatory fund, Waste Management, Vol. 28 No. 12, pp. 2690-701. Chou, T. and Cheng, S. (2006), Design and implementation of a semantic image classication and retrieval of organizational memory information systems using analytical hierarchy process, Omega, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 125-34. Chougule, R.G. and Ravi, B. (2005), Variant process planning of castings using AHP-based nearest neighbour algorithm for case retrieval, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 1255-73. Chung, E. and Lee, K.S. (2009), Prioritization of water management for sustainability using hydrologic simulation model and multi-criteria decision making techniques, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90 No. 3, pp. 1502-11. Cicone, D. et al., (2008), Functionality of the approach of hierarchical analysis in the full cost accounting in the IRP of a metropolitan airport, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 991-8. Cieslik, E. et al., (2006), Contents of polyphenols in fruit and vegetables, Food Chemistry, Vol. 94 No. 1, pp. 135-42. Cooper, J.R. and Qiu, F. (2006), Expediting and standardizing stone artifact retting using a computerized suitability model, Journal of Archaeological Science, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 987-98. Cortes-Aldana, F.A. et al., (2009), University objectives and socioeconomic results: a multi-criteria measuring of alignment, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 199 No. 3, pp. 811-22. Dagdeviren, M. et al., (2009), Weapon selection using the AHP and TOPSIS methods under fuzzy environment, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 8143-51. ksel, I. (2008), Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) Dagdeviren, M. and Yu model for behavior-based safety management, Information Sciences, Vol. 178 No. 6, pp. 1717-33. Demirtas, E.A. and Ustun, O. (2009), Analytic network process and multi-period goal programming integration in purchasing decisions, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 2, pp. 677-90. Dey, P.K. (2006), Integrated project evaluation and selection using multiple-attribute decision-making technique, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 103 No. 1, pp. 90-103. Dey, P.K. and Ramcharan, E.K. (2008), Analytic hierarchy process helps select site for limestone quarry expansion in Barbados, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 88 No. 4, pp. 1384-95. Diamantopoulos, N.K. (2007), Managerial assessments of export performance: conceptual framework and empirical illustration, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1-31. Dikmen, I. and Birgonul, M.T. (2006), An analytic hierarchy process based model for risk and opportunity assessment of international construction projects, Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 33 No. 1, pp. 58-68. Erensal, Y.C. et al., (2006), Determining key capabilities in technology management using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process: a case study of Turkey, Information Sciences, Vol. 176 No. 18, pp. 2755-70. Erol, I. et al., (2009), Sustainability in the Turkish retailing industry, Sustainable Development, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 49-67.

Ertay, T. et al., (2006), Integrating data envelopment analysis and analytic hierarchy for the facility layout design in manufacturing systems, Information Sciences, Vol. 176 No. 3, pp. 237-62. Ertugrul, I. and Karakasoglu, N. (2009), Performance evaluation of Turkish cement rms with fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS methods, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 702-15. Firouzabadi, A.K. et al., (2008), A multiple stakeholders approach to strategic selection decisions, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 851-65. Gabriel, S.A. et al., (2006), A multiobjective optimization model for project selection with probabilistic considerations, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 297-313. Garcia, E. et al., (2008), A new model to evaluate the dynamic adaptation of an electric distribution system, Energy Economics, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 1648-58. Garcia-Cascales, M.S. and Lamata, M.T. (2009), Selection of a cleaning system for engine maintenance based on the analytic hierarchy process, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 1442-51. Gerdsri, N. and Kocaoglu, D.F. (2007), Applying the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to build a strategic framework for technology roadmapping, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 46 Nos 7-8, pp. 1071-80. Gibney, R. and Shang, J. (2007), Decision making in academia: a case of the dean selection process, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1030-40. Giokas, D.I. and Pentzaropoulos, G.C. (2008), Efciency ranking of the OECD member states in the area of telecommunications: a composite AHP/DEA study, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 32 Nos 9-10, pp. 672-85. Gol, H. and Catay, B. (2007), Third-party logistics provider selection: insights from a Turkish automotive company, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 379-84. Golec, A. and Taskin, H. (2007), Novel methodologies and a comparative study for manufacturing systems performance evaluations, Information Sciences, Vol. 177 No. 23, pp. 5253-74. Hafeez, K. et al., (2007), Outsourcing non-core assets and competences of a rm using analytic hierarchy process, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 3592-608. Ho, W. (2008), Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications: a literature review, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 186 No. 1, pp. 211-28. Ho, W. and Emrouznejad, A. (2009), Multi-criteria logistics distribution network design using SAS/OR, part 2, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 7288-98. Hsieh, L. et al., (2006), Performance evaluation for university electronic libraries in Taiwan, The Electronic Library, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 212-24. Hsu, P. et al., (2008a), Optimizing resource-based allocation for senior citizen housing to ensure a competitive advantage using the analytic hierarchy process, Building and Environment, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 90-7. Hsu, P. et al., (2008b), Selection of infectious medical waste disposal rms by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis, Waste Management, Vol. 28 No. 8, pp. 1386-94. Hsu, S.H. et al., (2009), Design facial appearance for roles in video games, part 1, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 4929-34. Hsu, T. and Pan, F.F.C. (2009), Application of Monte Carlo AHP in ranking dental quality attributes, part 1, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 2310-6.

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 799

MD 48,5

Hu, A.H. et al., (2009), Risk evaluation of green components to hazardous substance using FMEA and FAHP, part 2, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 7142-7. Hu, H. et al., (2008), Automated management and evaluation system for community health service, Kybernetes, Vol. 37 Nos 9/10, pp. 1359-66. Huang, C. et al., (2008), A fuzzy AHP application in government-sponsored R&D project selection, Omega, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1038-52. Huang, H. (2009), Designing a knowledge-based system for strategic planning: a balanced scorecard perspective, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 209-18. Huang, L. et al., (2009), What kind of marketing distribution mix can maximize revenues: the wholesaler travel agencies perspective?, Tourism Management, Vol. 30 No. 5, pp. 733-9. Huang, Y. and Bian, L. (2009), A Bayesian network and analytic hierarchy process based personalized recommendations for tourist attractions over the internet, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 933-43. Hughes, W.R. (2009), A statistical framework for strategic decision making with AHP: probability assessment and Bayesian revision, Omega, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 463-70. Hummel, J.M.M. et al., (2005), A multi-criteria decision analysis of augmentative treatment of upper limbs in persons with tetraplegia, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 635-44. Hwang, H.S. et al., (2007), Web-based multi-attribute analysis model for make-or-buy decisions, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 46 Nos 7-8, pp. 1081-90. Isiklar, G. and Buyukozkan, G. (2007), Using a multi-criteria decision making approach to evaluate mobile phone alternatives, Computer Standards & Interfaces, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 265-74. Islam, R. (2007), MBNQA criteria in education: assigning weights from a Malaysian perspective and proposition for an alternative evaluation scheme, International Transactions in Operational Research, Vol. 14 No. 5, pp. 373-94. Ismayilova, N.A. et al., (2007), A multi-objective faculty-course-time slot assignment problem with preferences, Mathematical and Computer Modeling, Vol. 46 Nos 7-8, pp. 1017-29. Kahraman, C. et al., (2006), A fuzzy optimization model for QFD planning process using analytic network approach, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 171 No. 2, pp. 390-411. Kahraman, C. et al., (2007), Prioritization of e-government strategies using a SWOT-AHP analysis: the case of Turkey, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 284-98. Kandakoglu, A. et al., (2009), A multi-methodological approach for shipping registry selection in maritime transportation industry, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 49 Nos 3-4, pp. 586-97. Kang, H. and Lee, A.H.I. (2007), Priority mix planning for semiconductor fabrication by fuzzy AHP ranking, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 560-70. Karami, E. (2006), Appropriateness of farmers adoption of irrigation methods: the application of the AHP model, Agricultural Systems, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 101-19. Karger, C.R. and Hennings, W. (2009), Sustainability evaluation of decentralized electricity generation, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 583-93. Kayakutlu, G. and Buyukozkan, G. (2008), Assessing knowledge-based resources in a utility company: identify and prioritise the balancing factors, Energy, Vol. 33 No. 7, pp. 1027-37.

800

Kengpol, A. (2008), Design of a decision support system to evaluate logistics distribution network in Greater Mekong sub-region countries, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 388-99. Khorramshahgol, R. and Djavanshir, G.R. (2008), The application of analytic hierarchy process to determine proportionality constant of the taguchi quality loss function, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 340-8. Kim, S. et al., (2005), Development of a housing performance evaluation model for multi-family residential buildings in Korea, Building and Environment, Vol. 40 No. 8, pp. 1103-16. Kinra, A. and Kotzab, H. (2008), A macro-institutional perspective on supply chain environmental complexity, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 115 No. 2, pp. 283-95. Korhonen, P. et al., (2006), A nancial alliance compromise between executives and supervisory authorities, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 175 No. 2, pp. 1300-10. Korhonen, P. and Voutilainen, R. (2006), Finding the most preferred alliance structure between banks and insurance companies, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 175 No. 2, pp. 1285-99. Korkmaz, I. (2008), An analytic hierarchy process and two-sided matching based decision support system for military personnel assignment, Information Sciences, Vol. 178 No. 14, pp. 2915-27. Korpela, J. et al., (2007), Warehouse operator selection by combining AHP and DEA methodologies, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 108 Nos 1/2, pp. 135-42. Krajnc, D. and Glavic, P. (2005), How to compare companies on relevant dimensions of sustainability, Ecological Economics, Vol. 55 No. 4, pp. 551-63. Kreng, V.B. and Wu, C. (2007), Evaluation of knowledge portal development tools using a fuzzy AHP approach: the case of Taiwanese stone industry, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 176 No. 3, pp. 1795-810. Kulak, O. and Kahraman, C. (2005), Fuzzy multi-attribute selection among transportation companies using axiomatic design and analytic hierarchy process, Information Sciences, Vol. 170 Nos 2/4, pp. 191-210. Kull, T.J. and Talluri, S. (2008), A supply risk reduction model using integrated multi-criteria decision making, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 409-19. Kuo, Y. and Chen, P. (2006), Selection of mobile value-added services for system operators using fuzzy synthetic evaluation, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 612-20. Kuo, Y. et al., (2008), Using simulation and multi-criteria methods to provide robust solutions to dispatching problems in a ow shop with multiple processors, Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 40-56. Kwak, N.K. et al., (2005), An MCDM model for media selection in the dual consumer/industrial market, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 166 No. 1, pp. 255-65. Lai, W. and Tsai, C. (2009), Fuzzy rule-based analysis of rms technology transfer in Taiwans machinery industry, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 12012-22. Lam, P. and Chin, K. (2005), Identifying and prioritizing critical success factors for conict management in collaborative new product development, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 761-72.

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 801

MD 48,5

802

Lee, A.H.I. (2009), A fuzzy supplier selection model with the consideration of benets, opportunities, costs and risks, part 2, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 2879-93. Lee, A.H.I. et al., (2008), A fuzzy AHP and BSC approach for evaluating performance of IT department in the manufacturing industry in Taiwan, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 96-107. Lee, A.H.I. et al., (2009a), A green supplier selection model for high-tech industry, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 7917-27. Lee, A.H.I. et al., (2009b), Fuzzy multiple goal programming applied to TFT-LCD supplier selection by downstream manufacturers, part 2, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 6318-25. Lee, D.K. et al., (2007), Development of assessment model for demand-side management investment programs in Korea, Energy Policy, Vol. 35 No. 11, pp. 5585-90. Lee, G.K.L. and Chan, E.H.W. (2008), The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach for assessment of urban renewal proposals, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 89 No. 1, pp. 155-68. Lee, S.K. et al., (2008), The competitiveness of Korea as a developer of hydrogen energy technology: the AHP approach, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 1284-91. Lee, Y. and Kozar, K.A. (2006), Investigating the effect of web site quality on e-business success: an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1383-401. Leung, L.C. et al., (2006), Implementing the balanced scorecard using the analytic hierarchy process and the analytic network process, The Journal of the Operational Research Society, Vol. 57 No. 6, pp. 682-91. Levary, R.R. (2007), Ranking foreign suppliers based on supply risk, Supply Chain Management, Vol. 12 No. 6, pp. 392-4. Levary, R.R. (2008), Using the analytic hierarchy process to rank foreign suppliers based on supply risks, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 535-42. Li, J. et al., (2008), A multi-objective fuzzy graph approach for modular formulation considering end-of-life issues, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 46 No. 14, pp. 4011-33. Li, S. and Li, J.Z. (2009), Hybridising human judgment, AHP, simulation and a fuzzy expert system for strategy formulation under uncertainty, part 1, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 5557-64. Liang, Z. et al., (2006), Decision support for choice optimal power generation projects: fuzzy comprehensive evaluation model based on the electricity market, Energy Policy, Vol. 34 No. 17, pp. 3359-64. Liao, S. and Chang, K. (2009), Select televised sportscasters for Olympic Games by analytic network process, Management Decision, Vol. 47 No. 1, pp. 14-23. Liberatore, M.J. and Nydick, R.L. (2008), The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: a literature review, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 189 No. 1, pp. 194-207. Lin, C. and Hsu, M. (2007), A GDSS for ranking a rms core capability strategies, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, Vol. 47 No. 4, pp. 111-30. Lin, C. and Juan, P. (2009), Developing a hierarchy relation with an expert decision analysis process for selecting the optimal resort type for a Taiwanese international resort park, part 1, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 1706-19.

Lin, H. et al., (2009), Evaluation of factors inuencing knowledge sharing based on a fuzzy AHP approach, Journal of Information Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 25-44. Lin, L.C. (2009), An integrated framework for the development of radio frequency identication technology in the logistics and supply chain management, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 832-42. Liou, J.J.H. and Tzeng, G. (2007), A non-additive model for evaluating airline service quality, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 131-8. Liu, F.F. and Hai, H.L. (2005), The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 97 No. 3, pp. 308-17. Liu, Y. and Chen, C. (2007), A new approach for application of rock mass classication on rock slope stability assessment, Engineering Geology, Vol. 89 Nos 1-2, pp. 129-43. Ma, J. (2005), Siting analysis of farm-based centralized anaerobic digester systems for distributed generation using GIS, Biomass and Bioenergy, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 591-600. Ma, M. (2007), A design decision-making support model for customized product color combination, Computers in Industry, Vol. 58 No. 6, pp. 504-18. Mansar, S.L. et al., (2009), Development of a decision-making strategy to improve the efciency of BPR, part 2, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 3248-62. Martinez-Olvera, C. (2008), Methodology for realignment of supply-chain structural elements, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 114 No. 2, pp. 714-22. Masozera, M.K. et al., (2006), Assessing the suitability of community-based management for the Nyungwe Forest Reserve, Rwanda, Forest Policy and Economics, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 206-16. Michnik, J. and Lo, M. (2009), The assessment of the information quality with the aid of multiple criteria analysis, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 195 No. 3, pp. 850-6. Naesens, K. et al., (2009), A swift response framework for measuring the strategic t for a horizontal collaborative initiative, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 121 No. 2, pp. 550-61. Nagesha, N. and Balachandra, P. (2006), Barriers to energy efciency in small industry clusters: multi-criteria-based prioritization using the analytic hierarchy process, Energy, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 1969-83. Naghadehi, M.Z. et al., (2009), The application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (FAHP) approach to selection of optimum underground mining method for Jajarm Bauxite Mine, Iran, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 8218-26. Nekhay, O. et al., (2009), Spatial analysis of the suitability of olive plantations for wildlife habitat restoration, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, Vol. 65 No. 1, pp. 49-64. Ngai, E.W.T. and Chan, E.W.C. (2005), Evaluation of knowledge management tools using AHP, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 889-99. Niaraki, A.S. and Kim, K. (2009), Ontology based personalized route planning system using a multi-criteria decision making approach, part 1, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 2250-9. Oconnor, T. and Kuyler, P. (2009), Impact of land use on the biodiversity integrity of the moist sub-biome of the grassland biome, South Africa, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 90 No. 1, pp. 384-95. Oddershede, A. et al., (2007), Rural development decision support using the analytic hierarchy process, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1107-14.

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 803

MD 48,5

804

Okudan, G. (2006), A multi-criteria decision-making methodology for optimum selection of a solid modeller for design teaching and practice, Journal of Engineering Design, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 159-75. Omkarprasad, S.V. and Sushil, K. (2006), Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 169 No. 1, pp. 1-29. Ozgen, D. (2008), A two-phase possibilistic linear programming methodology for multi-objective supplier evaluation and order allocation problems, Information Sciences, Vol. 178 No. 2, pp. 485-500. Paralikas, A.N. and Lygeros, A.I. (2005), A multi-criteria and fuzzy logic based methodology for the relative ranking of the re hazard of chemical substances and installations, Process Safety and Environmental Protection, Vol. 83 No. 2, pp. 122-34. Park, S. and Rothrock, L. (2007), Systematic analysis of framing bias in missile defense: implications toward visualization design, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 182 No. 3, pp. 1383-98. Park, Y. et al., (2009), Evaluating competitiveness of air cargo express services, Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Vol. 45 No. 2, pp. 321-34. Parra-Lopez, C. et al., (2008), A systemic comparative assessment of the multifunctional performance of alternative olive systems in Spain within an AHP-extended framework, Ecological Economics, Vol. 64 No. 4, pp. 820-34. Partovi, F.Y. (2006), An analytic model for location facilities strategically, Omega, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 41-55. Partovi, F.Y. (2007), An analytical model of process choice in the chemical industry, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105 No. 1, pp. 213-27. Peniwati, K. and Brenner, W. (2008), Multi-decisions rating model: establishing rescue policies for regional drinking water companies (PDAMs) in Indonesia, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 186 No. 3, pp. 1127-36. Peters, M.L. and Zelewski, S. (2007), Assignment of employees to workplaces under consideration of employee competences and preferences, Management Research News, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 84-99. Quintero, J. et al., (2008), Fuel ethanol production from sugarcane and corn: comparative analysis for a Colombian case, Energy, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 385-99. Rabelo, L. et al., (2007), Value chain analysis using hybrid simulation and AHP, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 105 No. 2, pp. 536-47. Ravi, B. and Mukherjee, N.P. (2007), Rapid tooling manufacturability evaluation using fuzzy-AHP methodology, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 5, pp. 1161-81. Richman, M.B. (2005), A novel computer based expert decision-making model for prostate cancer disease management, The Journal of Urology, Vol. 174 No. 6, pp. 2310-8. Saaty, T.L. (1990), How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 9-26. Saaty, T.L. (2001a), The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA. Saaty, T.L. (2001b), Decision Making for Leaders, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA. Saaty, T.L. (2006), There is no mathematical validity for using fuzzy number crunching in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 457-64.

Saaty, T.L. and Vargas, L.G. (2001), Models, Methods, Concepts and Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA-Dordrecht-London. Sale, R.S. and Sale, M.L. (2005), Lending validity and consistency to performance measurement, Managerial Auditing Journal, Vol. 20 Nos 8/9, pp. 915-27. Sasmal, S. and Ramanjaneyulu, K. (2008), Condition evaluation of existing reinforced concrete bridges using fuzzy based analytic hierarchy approach, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 1430-43. Scholl, A. et al., (2005), Solving multiattribute design problems with analytic hierarchy process and conjoint analysis: an empirical comparison, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 164 No. 3, pp. 760-77. Secme, N.Y. et al., (2009), Fuzzy performance evaluation in Turkish banking sector using analytic hierarchy process and TOPSIS, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 11699-709. Sevkli, M. et al., (2007), An application of data envelopment analytic hierarchy process for supplier selection: a case study of BEKO in Turkey, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 45 No. 9, pp. 1973-2003. Sharma, S. and Agrawal, N. (2009), Selection of a pull production control policy under different demand situations for a manufacturing system by AHP-algorithm, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 36 No. 5, pp. 1622-32. Shee, D.Y. and Wang, Y. (2008), Multi-criteria evaluation of the web-based e-learning system: a methodology based on learner satisfaction and its applications, Computers & Education, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 894-905. Shin, C. et al., (2007), Applying the analytic hierarchy process to evaluation of the national nuclear R&D projects: the case of Korea, Progress in Nuclear Energy, Vol. 49 No. 5, pp. 375-84. Shin, T. et al., (2009), The comparative evaluation of expanded national immunization policies in Korea using an analytic hierarchy process, Vaccine, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 792-802. Srdjevic, B. (2007), Linking analytic hierarchy process and social choice methods to support group decision-making in water management, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 2261-73. Strager, M.P. and Rosenberger, R.S. (2006), Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: weights and measures in spatial MCA, Ecological Economics, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 79-92. Su, C. and Chou, C. (2008), A systematic methodology for the creation of Six Sigma projects: a case study of semiconductor foundry, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 2693-703. Sueyoshi, T. et al., (2009), A decision support framework for internal audit prioritization in a rental car company: a combined use between DEA and AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 199 No. 1, pp. 219-31. Sun, C. et al., (2009), The evaluation of cluster policy by fuzzy MCDM: empirical evidence from HsinChu Science Park, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 9, pp. 11895-906. Sun, Y. et al., (2007), Syndicating web services: a QoS and user-driven approach, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 243-55. Sun, Y. et al., (2008), A group decision support approach to evaluate experts for R&D project selection, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 158-70.

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 805

MD 48,5

806

Teo, E.A.L. and Ling, F.Y.Y. (2006), Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety management systems of construction sites, Building and Environment, Vol. 41 No. 11, pp. 1584-92. Tiryaki, F. and Ahlatcioglu, B. (2009), Fuzzy portfolio selection using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, Information Sciences, Vol. 179 Nos 1-2, pp. 53-69. Tolga, E. (2005), Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 97 No. 1, pp. 89-117. Tsai, T. (2005), Development of an integrated reow soldering control system using incremental hybrid process knowledge, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 681-92. Tsai, W. and Hung, S. (2009), Dynamic pricing and revenue management process in internet retailing under uncertainty: an integrated real options approach, Omega, Vol. 37 No. 2, pp. 471-81. Tsai, M. and Su, C.H. (2005), Political risk assessment of ve East Asian ports: the viewpoints of global carriers, Marine Policy, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 291-8. Tseng, F. et al., (2009), Measuring business performance in the high-tech manufacturing industry: a case study of Taiwans large-sized TFT-LCD panel companies, Omega, Vol. 37 No. 3, pp. 686-97. Tudela, A. et al., (2006), Comparing the output of cost benet and multi-criteria analysis: an application to urban transport investments, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 414-23. Valente, R.O.A. and Vettorazzi, C.A. (2008), Denition of priority areas for forest conservation through the ordered weighted averaging method, Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 256 No. 6, pp. 1408-17. Vargas, L.G. (1990), An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 2-8. Vashishtha, S. and Ramachandran, M. (2006), Multicriteria evaluation of demand side management (DSM) implementation strategies in the Indian power sector, Energy, Vol. 31 No. 12, pp. 2210-25. Wan, N. et al., (2009), Application of analytic hierarchy process-based model of ratio of comprehensive cost to comprehensive prot (RCCCP) in pest management, Ecological Economics, Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 888-95. Wang, J. and Yang, D. (2007), Using a hybrid multi-criteria decision aid method for information systems outsourcing, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 3691-700. Wang, J. et al., (2008a), A fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making model for tri-generation system, Energy Policy, Vol. 36 No. 10, pp. 3823-32. Wang, J. et al., (2008b), Integrated evaluation of distributed triple-generation systems using improved grey incidence approach, Energy, Vol. 33 No. 9, pp. 1427-37. Wang, K. et al., (2005), Analytic hierarchy process with fuzzy scoring in evaluating multidisciplinary R&D projects in China, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 119-29. Wang, T. and Chang, T. (2007), Application of consistent fuzzy preference relations in predicting the success of knowledge management implementation, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 182 No. 3, pp. 1313-29. Wang, X. et al., (2008c), Regional assessment of environmental vulnerability in the Tibetan Plateau: development and application of a new method, Journal of Arid Environments, Vol. 72 No. 10, pp. 1929-39.

Wang, Y. et al., (2008d), An integrated AHP-DEA methodology for bridge risk assessment, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 513-25. Wang, Y. and Chin, K. (2008), A linear goal programming priority method for fuzzy analytic hierarchy process and its applications in new product screening, International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 451-65. Wattage, P. and Mardle, S. (2005), Stakeholder preferences towards conservation versus development for a wetland in Sri Lanka, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 77 No. 2, pp. 122-32. Wei, C. et al., (2005), An AHP-based approach to ERP system selection, International Journal of Production Economics, Vol. 96 No. 1, pp. 47-62. Wolfslehner, B. et al., (2005), Application of the analytic network process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management, Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 207 Nos 1-2, pp. 157-70. Wong, J.K.W. and Li, H. (2008), Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems, Building and Environment, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 108-25. Wong, J. et al., (2008a), Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building systems: part 1: development of key intelligent indicators and conceptual analytical framework, Automation in Construction, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 284-302. Wong, J. et al., (2008b), Evaluating the system intelligence of the intelligent building systems: part 2: construction and validation of analytical models, Automation in Construction, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 303-21. Wu, C. et al., (2007), Optimal selection of location for Taiwanese hospitals to ensure a competitive advantage by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis, Building and Environment, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 1431-44. Wu, H. et al., (2009), A fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating banking performance based on Balanced Scorecard, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 10135-47. Yan, W. et al., (2008), An integration of bidding-oriented product conceptualization and supply chain formation, Computers in Industry, Vol. 59 Nos 2-3, pp. 128-44. Yang, C. et al., (2009), Manufacturing evaluation system based on AHP/ANP approach for wafer fabricating industry, Expert Systems with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 8, pp. 11369-77. Yang, D. et al., (2007), Developing a decision model for business process outsourcing, Computers & Operations Research, Vol. 34 No. 12, pp. 3769-78. Ying, X. et al., (2007), Combining AHP with GIS in synthetic evaluation of eco-environment quality: a case study of Hunan Province, China, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 209 Nos 2-4, pp. 97-109. Yoo, K.E. and Choi, Y.C. (2006), Analytic hierarchy process approach for identifying relative importance of factors to improve passenger security checks at airports, Journal of Air Transport Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 135-42. Yu, J. and Tsai, C. (2008), A decision framework for supplier rating and purchase allocation: a case in the semiconductor industry, Computers & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 55 No. 3, pp. 634-46. Yuksel, I. and Dagdeviren, M. (2007), Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis: a case study for a textile rm, Information Sciences, Vol. 177 No. 16, pp. 3364-82. Yuniarto, M.N. and Labib, A.W. (2006), Fuzzy adaptive preventive maintenance in a manufacturing control system: a step towards self-maintenance, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 159-80.

AHP and ANP: an overview of applications 807

MD 48,5

808

Yurdakul, M. and Ic, Y.T. (2005), Development of a performance measurement model for manufacturing companies using the AHP and TOPSIS approaches, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 21, pp. 4609-41. Zaerpour, N. et al., (2008), Make-to-order or make-to-stock decision by a novel hybrid approach, Advanced Engineering Informatics, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 186-201. Zeng, G. et al., (2007), Optimization of wastewater treatment alternative selection by hierarchy grey relational analysis, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 82 No. 2, pp. 250-9. Zhang, Y. et al., (2006), Measurement and evaluation of interactions in complex urban ecosystem, Ecological Modelling, Vol. 196 Nos 1/2, pp. 77-89. Zhao, Y. et al., (2006), Assessing the ecological security of the Tibetan plateau: methodology and a case study for Lhaze County, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 120-31. Zoffer, J. et al., (2008), Synthesis of complex criteria decision making: a case towards a consensus agreement for a Middle East conict resolution, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 363-85. Further reading Saaty, T.L. et al., (2007), The analytic hierarchy process and human resource allocation: half the story, Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 46 Nos 7/8, pp. 1041-53. About the authors Seyhan Sipahi is an assistant professor of quantitative methods at School of Business, Istanbul University. She earned her BS in Business Administration from the Istanbul University and her MA and PhD in quantitative methods from the Social Science Institute of the Istanbul University. Her PhD thesis was on Ranking cities of Turkey by livability using analytic hierarchy process. In 2007, she was visiting research scholar at Operations and Decision Technologies Department at Kelley School of Business, Indiana University. Her primary elds of research are spreadsheet modeling, multi-attribute decision making in business, simulation optimization, and management science applications in tourism and sport. She has several national and international articles published in reputed academic journals. She is associate editor of the Journal of the School of Business Administration, Istanbul University. She works for School of Business Quantitative Methods Department since 1997. Mehpare Timor is an associate professor of School of Business at Istanbul University. She earned her BS in Business Administration from the School of Business at Istanbul University, and her MS and PhD in Quantitative Methods Department, the Institute of Social Sciences at Istanbul University. Her MS thesis was on Computer aided assignment problem, and PhD thesis was on Lagrangean relaxation algorithm for optimal connection and ow costs on a computer network model. She has worked for the School of Business Quantitative Methods Department since 1987. Her primary elds of research are operations research algorithms, data envelopment analysis, data mining, multi-criteria decision-making and analytical hierarchy process. She has several national and international articles published in reputed academic journals, and she has written a book on Operations Research with Business Applications. Professor Timor is the area editor of European Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics (EJPAM).

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Você também pode gostar