BASE CLOSURE: AN APPLICATION OF THE

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS^

SHINN SUN
Department of Business Administration, National Defence Management College
National Defence University, PO Box 90046-15, Chung-Ho, Taipei 235, Taiwan
Shinn@rs590. ndmc. edu. tw

ABSTRACT
This paper describes the use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) by the Taiwanese
Combined Service's appointed Defence Base Closure Commission when selecting military logistic bases for closure. The Defence Base Closure Commission was appointed in
1996 to study the military, fiscal, and environmental impacts of diflferent alternatives
for base closure. This application illustrates how military decision making can be supported intellectually through AHP. Various implications regarding the debate on AHP
are discussed.
Keywords: AHP, base closure, military decision making

Ce rapport decrit l'utilisation du Processus Hierarchique Analytique (AHP) par la Commission de la Defense pour la Fermeture de Base autorisee par les Services Combines de
Taiwan lors de la selection des bases logistiques militaires pour la fermeture. La Commission de la Defense pour la Fermeture de Base fut autorisee en 1996 pour etudier les
impacts miltaires, fiscaux et ecologiques des diflEerentes alternatives pour la fermeture
de la base. Cette application illustre comme la prise de decision militaire peut etre
supportee intellectuellement par l'AHP. De nombreuses implications sont analysees lors
du debat sur l'AHP.

1. INTRODUCTION
Defence budgets have declined over past years and is predicted to decline further. To
ensure that scare defence resources are devoted to the most pressing operational and
investment needs rather than maintaining unneeded property and facilities, the Department of Defence (DoD) developed and implemented a base closure program in 1996. The
criteria governing the selection criteria were established primarily within the headquarters of the DoD, with minimal consultation with the Service Forces. Closing military
installations is a difficult decision making process. Whether closures are designed to
reduce military overheads, enhance readiness and modernisation, or reflect the realities
of changing threats, the impact of these decisions on local communities can be dramatic
and painful. Therefore, the Service Forces are required to use quantitative decision
methods to justify the recommendations they made when dealing with the closure of
military installations.
This paper describes how the Combined Service Force (CSF), a defence logistics
agency, applied the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) proposed by Saaty (1980) to the
selection of a military base for closure. The base closure program is one of the complex
tasks facing defence decision makers, since there is no well written guidance to assist the
military services and defence agencies on how to select bases for possible closure. The
use of the AHP decision aid in this study could ensure the conduct of a fair selection
process in assessing all reasonable options for possible closure. It was clear to us that
the decision analytic approach could be useful in structuring the problem by providing
means of reaching group consensus which is required for the eventual success of this
study.
June 2000.

INFOR vol. 39, no. 1, Feb. 2001

17

18

S. SUN

1.1 The Defence Base Closure Commission

In 1997, we were called upon the CSF to help a defence committee, the Defence Base
Closure Commission (DBCG), and used a decision aid to select a military base for
closure. The DBCC was appointed by the CSF in November 1996 to assess military bases
in terms of the military, fiscal, and environmental impact and make recommendations.
The DBCC staff were drawn from divergent backgrounds encompassing government,
academia, and the military. There were three senior military personnel, three academic
researchers, and two officials from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). DBCC
submitted its recommendation in June 1997 (CSF, 1997).
According to DoD base closure guidelines, the DBCC was required to develop recommendations based exclusively upon the force structure plan and DoD's selection criteria.
DBCC has to consider all CSF's military base equally, analyse their base structure using
similar categories of base, use objective measures for the selection criteria wherever possible, and allow for the exercise of military judgment when selecting bases for closure.
In this regard, a decision analysis method can be used to help choose the right base
for closure. It was agreed that this was an appropriate approach and, therefore, the
project was started giving DBCC the opportunity to carry out the analysis with the
cooperation of the Department of Business Administration.
1.2 The selection of the AHP
A number of considerations affected the choice of the decision analysis method. Because
the aid was to be used by military senior officials, academic researchers, and EPA
officials, the clarity of the analysis process was a major concern. The method was to be
easily and quickly understood by people with minimal mathematical background and
no experience in decision analysis.
The well know preference decision analysis methods were identified as appropriate,
namely, multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) by Keeney and Raiffa (1976), multiattribute value theory (MAVT) by Keeney and Raiffa (1979) and Dyer and Sarin (1979),
simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART) by von Winterfeldt and Edwards
(1986), and the AHP. After further consideration the DBCC turned down the first
three methods because (1) these methods cannot provide a check on the group members' consistency with respect to their subjective judgments; and (2) these methods
are uncapable of supporting group decision making with the available decision support
softwares. So AHP was selected.
We decided to use Saaty's AHP because of its distinguished features and the availability of decision support software. Three features of the AHP differentiate it from
other decision-making methods. First, it can handle both tangible and intangible factors. Second, it can support group decision making. And third, it can monitor the
consistency with which a decision-maker makes her/his judgments.
According to Saaty (1980), the AHP consists of four stages. The first is to construct
a hierarchy where the overall goal is divided into criteria and subcriteria. The decision
alternatives are at the lowest level. The second stage consists ofthe pairwise weighting of
the criteria and alternatives. For each level of the hierarchy the pairwise prioritization
process of AHP results in a set of local priority vectors, one for each element of the
adjacent upper level. The final global weights or priorities with respect to the focus
of the hierarchy are obtained by multiplying down the branches of the hierarchy and
summing those elements to which there is more than one path from the focus. The
vector of global weights sums to unity for each level, and fraction received by an element
represents its relative contribution to the overall goal. The priority vector of the lowest
level specifies the prioritization of the alternative with respect to the overall goal of
decision making.

BASE CLOSURE

19

This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 describes the decision making process.
Section 3 presents the procedure adopted. Section 4 reports the results of sensitivity
analyses. Section 5 presents the recommendation made by this study. Section 6 discusses
the important implications regarding to the debate on the AHP. Finally, Section 7
concludes this paper.
2. APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM
Since all of the DBCC members were not familiar with the AHP, we made every effort
to work very closely with them from the very beginning. The DBCC members were
grouped into three subgroups (military, fiscal, and environmental) based upon their
related expertise. A series of working sessions were held in the conference room within
the CSF.
The working sessions were conducted in three steps. In Step 1, the effort was directed towards identifying criteria, subcriteria and alternatives for the analysis. Criteria
were identified by the DBCC members based on military, fiscal, and environmental considerations which the DoD documented in the guidelines for base closure programs.
Subcriteria with respect to each corresponding criterion were identified by each subgroup of the DBCC. Three military bases were identified by all members of the DBCC
based on similar missions. The CSF then collected data on its installations which took
several months to complete. The data contained an analysis on military, fiscal, and
environmental impacts for three identified bases.
In Step 2, we introduced decision analysis and support. The focus of this step
was not on the mathematical aspects of the AHP but rather on understanding how to
structure any problem hierarchically and to make a pairwise comparison of activities in
a given hierarchy level in relation to an objective or activity at a higher level using a
9-point scaling procedure.
In Step 3, the focus is on the application of the AHP process to the decision problem.
First, the DBCC members developed a decision hierarchy process using the identified
criteria, subcriteria, and alternatives. All members of the DBCC agreed on this preliminary hierarchy representing the decision problem. The final hierarchy process was
approved by the Chief of the CSF. Second, each subgroup member, based on their
knowledge and experience, established priorities of criteria and corresponding subcriteria in terms of their relative importance. For example, the military subgroup made
pairwise comparisons among criteria and among subcriteria associated with the military criterion. But they were allowed to make pairwise comparisons among fiscal or
environmental subcriteria. Geometric means of individuals were used to arrive at group
consensus on priorities. Third, each subgroup conducted synthesis to obtained overall
priorities of three bases. This was done by taking relative and objective measurements
against these bases based on supporting data collected. HIPRE 3+ decision support
software developed by Hamalainen and Lauri (1995) was used for the mathematical
computations and sensitivity analysis.
The selection of a base for closure involved group decision making and required group
judgments to make the decision collectively. It is desirable to have a synthesis mechanism
for supporting group decision making. The AHP is well suited to group decision making.
Aczel and Saaty (1983) show that geometric mean is the uniquely appropriate rule for
combining judgments in AHP since it preserves the reciprocal property of the judgment
matrix.
There were two approaches considered for aggregating the decision participants'
cardinal preferences. The first approach is called individual prioritizations. In this
approach, each group member enters judgments into a separate model. The priorities

S. SUN

20

ILeve1 1
I Focus

I Leve1 2
ICriteria!

I Level 3"
ISub-critl

I Opt ions

Figure 1: The Decision Hierarchy

resulting from these models can be averaged. An application of individual prioritizations
can be found in Marttunen and Hamalainen (1995). This approach was seen to have a
number of drawbacks. It would be difficult for member of the DBCC to complete the
comparisons and evaluation of the relative importance of factors across different disciplines. In order to provide meaningful input into the decision making process, members
of the DBCC would need to spend large amounts of time making pairwise comparisons.
It was uncertain whether members of the DBCC could make their judgments on alternati-ve bases in terms of the other two criteria which demanded special expertise to do
so. Finally, it was not sure how reliable would their judgments be. For these reasons,
we rejected this approach.
The second approach uses a geometric mean of individuals' judgments to find a
compromise on a judgment. In this study, aggregation over individuals' judgments
was done in two ways. First, the aggregation of individuals' judgments over criteria
was done within the DBCC. Second, the aggregation of individuals' judgments over
subcriteria under corresponding criterion was done within each subgroup. Finally, the
aggregated judgments were i:ised as entering elements in each comparison matrix to
derive a preference order of alternatives. Due to the involvement of different expertise
in assessing military bases, each subgroup was not allowed to conduct assessments across
the other subgroups. Consequently, the number of comparisons made would be smaller
here. In order to avoid a danger that a group will just 'go along with' the loudest or
most interested person's view, members of the DBCC had equal weights to reflect their
relative importance when making judgments.
3. PROCEDURE ADOPTED
3.1 Structuring the hierarchy
In the study, three subgroups were involved in the listing of criteria and corresponding
subcriteria and the structure of the hierarchy. Each subgroup used brainstorming and
discussions with its members to generate criteria and related subcriteria All members
of the DBCC found it easy to identify four major criteria, because the DoD explicitly
demanded the selection criteria include a range of military, fiscal, and environmental
considerations. It was also easy for the DBCC members to generate alternatives. Three

BASE CLOSURE

21

(1) Military criteria:

Mission scope. How well does the present base meet future force structure requirements?
Operational efficiency. How efficient does the present base operate?
Expandability. How well can the present base expand it capacity in support of
future military mission?
(2) Fiscal criteria:
Return on investment (ROI). What return on investment will be for closing current
base? (This is measured in New Taiwan dollar)
Job losses. How many job losses will be for closing the current base? (This is
measured in terms of number of people)
Community infrastructure. How well is the current base in receiving community
infrastructure for supporting forces, mission, and personnel?
(3) Environment criteria:
Pollution control. Is the current base needed to improve its pollution control?
Land tise. Is the current base needed to have more land for future expansion?
Programmed environmental cost. Is the current base needed to spend more money
on Improving current environment? (This is measured in terms of cost)
Table 1: Descriptions of Criteria and Subcriteria

military bases were identified according to their similar missions. When listing subcriteria within the corresponding criterion, each subgroup encountered a problem of having
a large number of subcriteria.
To reduce the size of the hierarchy further, subcriteria which would have a trivial
impact on the decision were discussed. Also, discussion about precise meaning of
subcriteria revealed that others could be drooped or merged. Once the preliminary
hierarchy was constructed by the group members, the DBCC then presented it to the
Chief of the CSF for approval. Figure 1 illustrates the final decision hierarchy.
The decision hierarchy consists of four levels representing the focus, criteria, subcriteria, and decision options. The top level of the hierarchy is "Choosing the right base
for closure". The major factors of assessing the decision options are listed at Level 2.
The factors were labelled: "Mission", "Fiscal", and "Environment". Subcriteria are
listed at Level 3 of the hierarchy. Table 1 gives full descriptions of the meanings of the
subcriteria. Three bases (referred to A, B, and C to protect their identify) are listed at
Level 4.
3.2 Weighting the criteria and subcriteria
After construction of the hierarchy, the next step was to assess the relative importance
of Level 2 criteria to Level 1 focus, and of Level 3 subcriteria to each of Level 2 criteria.
Establishing priorities among criteria and subcriteria was based on pairwise comparisons. A four-hour meeting with members of the DBCC was scheduled to make pairwise
comparisons among criteria and subcriteria. Table 2 is the completed pairwise comparison matrix for Level 2 criteria. Table 3 is the completed pairwise comparisons matrix
for Level 3 subcriteria.
On the basis of Table 2, the most important criterion was found to be the mission
factor with the weight of 0.818. The weight indicated that the mission was considered

S. SUN

22

Criterion
Mission factor (X)
Fiscal factor (Y)
Environmental factor (Z)
Consistency rate 0

Priority weight

1
1/9
1/9

9
1
1

9
1
1

0.818
0.090
0.090

Table 2: Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Level 2 Criteria

Mission factor

XI

X2

X3

Mission scope {XI)

Operation efficiency {X2)
Expandabihty {X3)
Ccmsistency rate = 0.046
Fiscal factor

1
1/2
1

2
1
1

1
1
1

Fl

Y2

YS

ROI (Yl)
Job losses {Y2)
Community infrastructure (F3)
Consistency rate = 0.025
Environmental factor

1
1/9
1/9

5
1
1

3
1
1

Zl

Z2

Z3

Mission factor (Zl)

Fiscal factor (Z2)
Programmed environmental cost (Z3)
Consistency rate = 0.063

1
1/4
1/3

4
1
3

3
1/3
1

Priority
weight
0.338
0.213
0.268

Composite
priority

Priority
weight
0.659
0.156
0.185

Composite
priority

Priority
weight
0.614
0.117
0.268

Composite
priority

0.338
0.213
0.268

0.059
0.014
0.016

0.055
0.010
0.024

Table 3: Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Level 3 Criteria

by the DBCC to be much more important than the fiscal factor (weight=0.090) or
environmental factor (weight=0.090).
In the Level 3 subcriteria under mission factor, the most important factor is scope
of (weight=0.413) compared to expandability (weight=0.327), and operation efficiency
(weight=0.26). For subcriteria regarding the fiscal factor, the most important factor
is ROI (weight=0.659) compared to community infrastructure (weight=0.185) or job
losses (weigh=0.185). Priorities for Level 3 corresponding to environmental factor were:
pollution control (0.614), programmed environmental cost (0.268), and land use (0.117).
3.3 Scoring the option bases
After the development of the relative importance of the criteria and subcriteria, the
next step was to score the option bases in terms of subcriteria and aggregate the bases'
pairwise scorings with respect to the bottom subcriteria. Only alternative scorings
regarding ROI, job losses, and programmed environmental cost were based on objective

BASE CLOSURE

Measurement
ROI
Job losses
Programmed environmental cost

23

Base A

BaseB

NT$2,500,000
500 job losses
NT$3,000,000

NT$2,100,000
450 job losses
NT$2,000,000

BaseC
NT$3,000,000
650 job losses
NT$4,000,000

Table 4: Objective Measurements of the Three Bases regarding Quantitative Subcriteria

ROI (Yl):
2500000 + 2100000+3000000=7600000
Yl: A=2500000/7600000=0.33
Yl: B=2100000/7600000=0.28
Yl: 0=3000000/7600000=0.39
Job losses (Y2):
F2: A=450/500=0.9
Y2: B=450/450=l
F2: C=450/650=0.69

After normalization
F2: A=0.9/2.59=0.35
Y2: B=l/2.59=0.39
Y2: C=0.69/2.59=0.26

Programmed environmental cost (Z3):

Z3: A=2/3=0.67
Z3: B=2/2=l
Z3: C=2/4=0.5

After normalization
Z3: A=0.67/2.17=0.31
Z3: B=0.5/2.17=0.23
Z3: C=l/2.17=0.46

Table 5: Priority Weights for the Three Bases regarding Quantitative Subcriteria

measurement. Table 4 shows the results of the objective measurements. Table 5 presents
the development of priority weights for the three bases regarding these quantitative
subcriteria. Table 6 is the completed pairwise comparison of the option bases with
respect to Level 3 subcriteria. The overall priorities of the three bases are reported in
the bottom of Table 6.
The results in Table 6 indicate Base C (0.184) should be considered as the right base
for closure. Base A is ranked the flrst preferred base with the weight of 0.419, followed
by Base (weight=0.397).
4. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
Sensitivity analysis assists with questions about the relative importance of information
or how possible changes in information will affect results. Sensitivity analysis is also
conducted in order to gain a better understanding of a decision analysis. With sensitivity
analysis it is possible to study the effect of a change in local weights of the alternatives
and in the order of preference of the alternatives. Dyer and Forman (1992) state that
one may investigate sensitivity through "gradient sensitivity". The gradient sensitivity
shows the degree of slope of the priorities of the alternatives with respect to changes in
the priority of each criterion. Figure 2 show a sensitivity of the alternative priorities
with respect to changes in the importance of the mission criterion. The vertical line
in the middle of the chart shows the original weight (0.818) in the model. The height

S. SUN

24

XI

Weight

1 0.327
1
1
A
2 0.413
1
1
B
1/2 1 0.260
1
C
Consistency rate -= 0.046
B
A
C Weight
X2
1
3
6 0.635
A
5 0.287
1/3
B
1
C 1//6 1/5 1 0.078
Consistency rate == 0.081
B
C Weight
A
X3
1/2 5 0.364
1
A
1
4 0.537
2
B
1/5 1/4 1 0.098
C
Consistency rate := 0.081
Weight
Subcriteria
Yl
Y2
Z3
Composite priority

F3

A
1
1/2
1

A
B
C
Consistency

Weight

2
1
1

1
1
1

0.413
0.260
0.327

rate = 0.046
Weight
A
B
C
Zl
1
4
3
0.630
A
1
2
0.218
B 1/4
1
0.151
C 1/3 1/2
Consistency rate = 0.093
Weight
A
B
C
Z2
1
1/2 1/4
0.136
A
1/3
2
1
0.238
B
1
4
3
0.625
C
Consistency rate = 0.015

Base A
0.33
0.35
0.31
0.419

Base B
0.28
0.39
0.46
0.397

Base C
0.39
0.26
0.23
0.184

Table 6: Local Priority Weights of the Three Bases regarding subcriteria

of the intersection of this line with the alternative line determines the alternatives'
priorities, if the importance of the mission criterion remains unchanged. Thus Base B is
the preferred alternative for closure. If the mission were to become less important (i.e.
the vertical line moved to the right), the overall preference for Base B would increase.
By the same token, we performed a series of sensitivity analyses for the two other
criteria. Figure 3 shows that the priorities of Base A and Base B dip gradually, as the
importance of "Fiscal" factor increases. The only exception is that the priority of Base
C increases gradually. Finally, Figure 4 shows that a ranking of alternative bases never
changes in response to changes in the importance of "Environment". When the weight
of "Environment" increases, the priorities of Base A and Base C increase gradually and
the priority of Base B dips gradually.
To sum up. Base A is considered as the most important base. Bases A and B dominates Base C, when either mission factor or environmental factor is the most important
criterion. When the fiscal factors is most important with the weight near to 1, Base C
dominates Bases A and B.
4.1 Weight implications on the final decision
In this study, with final priority weights of 0.419, 0.397, and 0.184, we felt confident in
saying that there was clearly a loser. Results from the sensitivity analysis support that

BASE CLOSURE

25

O.5^

Base A
Base B
Base C

0.^4

O.3^ ^
O.2

_ ^

O.I

O.I D..2 O.3 O.'4 O.5 O.6 O.7 O.8 O.9

Kb

ueight of elenent Mission

Figure 2: Gradient Sensitivity of Mission Factor

O.5

Base A
Base B
Base C

O.A
O.3
O.2
O.I

O.I O.2 O.3 0.^4 O.5 O.6 O.7 O.8 O.9

weight of elenent Fiscal
Figure 3: Gradient Sensitivity of Fiscal Factor

S. SUN

26

O.5Base A
Base B
Base C

O.A-^
O.3
O.2O.l

O.1O.2O.3O.-4O.5 0T60T70T80T9

weight of elenent Environ.

Figure 4: Gradient Sensitivity of Environmental Factor

Base C is the potential option and should be selected for base closure. However, do the
scores mean that Base A is definitely a winning option? With what confidence could
one say that Base A was the best? The AHP may not provide a statistical method for
identifying the significance of results, and hence the process yields scores which may
not be precisely interpreted. This issue has not been answered by any AHP advocate.
A fundamental point is worthy of note here. Our goal for the decision support was
not actually to solve the problem for the group. We only provided a structured method
for thinking about the problem. Any structure so developed is not unique to the problem
and so there is no unique solution. Furthermore, any 'solution' is highly dependent n
those participants who have the knowledge.
5. RECOMMENDATION
Upon the completion of the decision analysis, the DBCC presented results of the analysis
to the Chief of the CSF for his review. The review was based exclusively upon the
force structure plan and the DoD selection criteria. The review was done at the top
management level of the CSF in two ways. First, the management personnel reviewed
the detailed analysis of military, fiscal, environmental impacts on three military bases.
The impact analysis was provided by the CSF staff. Secondly, the checked the DBCC
decision making process by calling upon us to present a briefing. We showed them
how the DBCC applied the selection process and reached the final decision by using
HIPRE 3+ to facilitate our presentation. Finally, the management personnel accepted
the DBCC's report and asked the DBCC to submit to its recommendations with the
AHP analysis, summaries of impact analyses and reasons for base closure to the DoD.
In June 1997, the DoD accepted the CSF recommendation.
Concluding the meeting the Chief made several points expressing the positive view
to the DBCC. His remarks were as follows:

BASE CLOSURE

27

1. The decision support analj^is process and AHP helped DBCC develop a more
systematic assessment of military bases.
2. The decision support analysis process and AHP were useful in helping top management to better understand DBCC's decision analysis, review, and selection
process.
3. The decision support analysis process and AHP could be used in a similar decision
problem faced by the CSF.
4. The decision support analysis process and AHP provided a useful tool for supporting decision making.
6. DISCUSSION
In order to appropriately apply the AHP to our decision problem, we need to understand
some criticisms of this technique which provided important implications in this case
study. In this section we discuss these implications.
Since 1982, there have been a number of criticisms of the technique, including ambiguity in pairwise comparisons (Watson and Freeling, 1982; Belton, 1986; Dyer, 1990),
criteria weight (Belton and Cear, 1983), ratio scales (Dyer, 1990; Lootsma, 1991), identifled problem of rank reversal (Belton and Gear, 1983, 1985; Schoner and Wedley,
1989; Schoner, Wedley and Choo, 1993), and the prohibitive complexity of the supermatrix approach (Salo and Hanialainen, 1999). However, the reply to these criticisms,
for example in Saaty et al. (1983), Saaty and Vargas (1984), Saaty (1990, 1999), and
the corresponding counterreplies show that no consensus has been reached. We do not
intend to extend the debate on the AHP here.
6.1 Pairwise comparisons
As Dyer (1990) claimed, the questions asked in the AHP are ambiguous. This implies
that (1) the criterion must always involve a point of reference; and (2) for questions
to be meaningful, the paired comparisons must be performed on a homogeneous basis.
In this case, we asked appropriate questions for making pairwise comparisons. For
example, these questions included (1) "with respect to base closure, which of the two
criteria (mihtary or environmental) is more important and by how much?"; (2) "with
respect to the military criterion, which of the subcriteria (mission scope or operation
efficiency) is more important and by how much?"; and (3) "with respect to the mission
scope subcriterion, which of the military bases (A or B) is more important and by how
much?". We found that the DBCC members were happy to answer these questions and
provided meaningful responses. There did not exist any ambiguity in the use of absolute
measurement to compare the military bases on some subcriteria.
We used a method of absolute measurement in our case, which is different than the
pairwise AHP procedure. This method consists of two stages. The flrst is to calculate
a value of a tangible criterion for an alternative. This value represents how well an
alternative rate on this criterion. For a criterion which is to be maximized (i.e. ROI),
a value of this criterion for an alternative is computed by dividing the raw value for
this alternative by the raw value for the best alternative under this criterion. And for a
criterion which is to be minimized (i.e. job losses and programmed environmental cost),
a value of this criterion for an alternative is obtained by dividing the raw value for the
best alternative by the raw value for this alternative under this criterion. The second is
to normalize these values obtained in the flrst step in order to obtain absolute weights
of all tangible criteria for all alternatives where sum of absolute weights is added to one.

S. SUN

28
I ESC 1 PRIORITIES

The decision hierarchy for base closure

0-1
mo-

- I.

nission
Fiscal
Environ.

EU.

CR =

is

uerv strtmflly pref.

CMN LANOIMaE FOR
strongly preferred
THE COMPARISONS
slightlw preferred
<see the sEtup>
ll preferred

7
6
5
4
3
2
1

[Clear

Figure 5: Evaluation of Preference Weights in the HIPRE Software

This does not involve comparisons with other alternatives, which is different than the
pairwise comparison procedure of AHP.
Finally, we did directing weighting by assigning absolute weights in the model. This
was done by using the direct weight mode provided in HIPRE 3+.
6.2 Criteria weights
In their discussion of criteria weights, Bel ton and Gear (1983), Saaty (1983), Schnoer
and Wedley (1989), and Schoner et al. (1993) assert that in the AHP the criteria
weights should be proportional to the average contribution of the alternatives on the
respective criteria. Thus, criteria weights should be derived from judgments about the
relative importance of the criteria, which in turn depend on the relative values of the
alternatives. This leads to an important question about how the weights are explained
and understood. The resolution of this question was use the HIPRE3+ interactive
graphical comparison procedure to establish a weight for each criterion and subcriterion
by the DBCC members, ask them too review these weights, and adjust the weights if
necessary. Figure 5 gives an example of how results of AHP can be illustrated in an
interactive situation. Along with the final weights, their composition from the lowestlevel decision criteria is shown as well.
6.3 Ratio scales
As pointed out in Saaty (1990), the 9 point scale for judgments is not required by
the basic AHP axioms, but rather is based on empirical studies (Saaty, 1980). Harker
and Vargas (1990) show that the order of magnitude scale for the judgments does not
constrain the resulting scale for the priorities to an order of magnitude or less. Further
discussion on this issues can be found in Saaty (1999). In this study, the, use of the
1-9 scale and understanding its implications were sometimes considered a bit difficult.
However, the scale is one which is commonly used and these feelings of unease are
generally overcome with familiarity.

BASE CLOSURE

29

6.4 Rank reversals

According to Satty et al. (1989), rank reversals may occur in the AHP due to the
addition or deletion of alternatives. Schoner (1991) shows it may be caused by the
eigenvector normalisation procedure of the AHP. It implies the decision participants
should be aware of this possibility of rank reversal when using the AHP. In order to
avoid the possibility in this study, we identified all possible alternatives, decision criteria,
and subcriteria in Step 1. This might lead to avoidance of rank reversals. However,
rank reversals might occur if a new criterion or extra alternative was introduced in Step
3. An abundance or dilution (or what uis called a substitution effect), as is discussed by
Huber and Puto (1983), will allow rank reversals regardless of whether it uses pairwise
comparisons, eigenvector calculations, or demands perfect consistency. In the author's
view, when scarcity or abundance are relevant, rank reversals is a natural occurrence
and a desirable phenomena.
6.5 The supermatrix approach
As pointed out in Saaty (1987), the supermatrix approach is used to deal with a problem
involving dependencies between attributes in the AHP. Roper-Lowe and Sharp (1990)
suggest that more rigorous solutions require abandoning the simplicity of the AHP. In
this case, no participant expressed any surprise or concern at structuring a problem as
a hierarchy perhaps it is intuitively the right thing to do. We found that attributes
on the same level are mutually independent and no feedback features such as impact
alternatives might have upon decision criteria. This observation led to the use of the
hierarchy approach.
7. CONCLUSIONS
The results of the AHP analysis were used as background information in conjunction
with other supplementary information in selecting bases for closure. In the selection
process, DBCC has used the results with the military, fiscal, and environmental analyses to make recommendations for bas closure. The results have been useful in giving
information on the importance of the impacts and this project also helped to ensure
that the assessment was done by taking into account of all the relevant issues.
When we are using decision aids in practice the model or the method, such as the
AHP, is not a value in itself but a tool to enhance the value and clarity of decision aiding
to the decision participants. The AHP is a general tool for decision structuring and
decision analysis. The AHP was used in the decision problem to facilitate a systematic
approach.
Our base closure case example clearly shows that careful use of the AHP can indeed
provide help in problem structuring. Especially, when the decision problem is complex and when group decision making is involved. The clear definition of the problem
and criteria improved communication and understanding. From the working sessions,
the participants learned how to get a clear overall picture and information from impacts of different alternatives. In the prioitization procedure, one can learn about their
importance under individual or group value system.
Our conclusion from the application of the AHP to the selection of a military base for
closure is that this technique provides a useful, fiexible and powerful tool for supporting
the base closure decision in military decision making contexts. However, it is apparent
that the AHP based model is just a way of formalizing common sense. It gives no
magical formulas for correct decisions. In fact, the model forces the DBCC members to
rely more strongly than ever on their own judgments but does give them a framework
in which to work, a framework that is adaptive in principle to all military decision
problems.

30

S. SUN

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to thank the two anonymous referees for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks also go to Professor Charles Newton for
his suggestions which improve the exposition of the paper.
REFERENCES
1. Aczel, A. and Saaty, T.L. (1983), Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal
of Mathematical Psychology 27, 93-102.
2. Belton, V. (1986), A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multiattribute value function, European Journal of Operational Research 26, 7-21.
3. Belton, V. and Gfear, A.E. (1985), The legitimacy of rank reversal A comment,
Omegal3{3), 143-144.
4. Combined Service Force (1997), Recommendations for Base Closures, Nankang, Taipei
(in Chinese).
5. Dyer, J.S. (1990), Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science 36(3),
249-258.
6. Dyer, J.S. and Saxin, R.K. (1979), Measurable multiattribute utility functions. Operations Research 17, 801-822.
7. Dyer, R.F. and Forman, E.F. (1992), Croup decision support with analytic hierarchy
process. Decision Support Systems 8, 99-124.
8. Hamalainen, R.P. and Lauri, F. (1995), HIPRE 3-h Decision Support Software, Systems
Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University.
9. Harker, P.T. and Vargas, L.G. (1990), Rply to 'Remarks on the analytic hierarchy
process' by J.S. Dyer, Management Science 36(3), 269-273.
10. Huber, J. and Puto, C. (1983), Market boundaries and product choice: Illustrating
attraction and substitution effects. Journal of Consumer Research 10 (June), 31-44.
11. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976), Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and
Value Tradeoffs, Wiely, New York.
12. Lootsma, F.A. (1991), Scale sensitivity and rank preservation in a multiplicative variant
of the AHP and Smart, Report 91-67, Faculty of Technical Mathematics and Informatics,
Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands.
13. Marttunen, M. and Hamalainen, R.P. (1995), Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment, European Journal of Operational of Operational Research 87,
551-563.
14. Roper-Lowe, G.C. and Shaxp, J.A. (1990), The analytic hierarchy process and its application to information technology decisions. Journal of Operational Research Society
41(1), 49-59.
15. Saaty, T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York.
16. Saaty, T.L. (1987), How to handle dependence with the analytic hierarchy process. Mathematical Modelling 9(3), 369-376.
17. Saaty, T.T. (1990), An exposition of the AHP in reply to the paper 'Remarks on the
analytic hierarchy process'. Management Science 36(3), 259-268.
18. Saaty, T.L. (1999), That is not the analytic hierarchy process: What the AHP is and
what is not. Journal of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 324-339.
19. Saaaty, T.L. and Vargas, L. V. (1984), The Legitimacy of rank reversal. Omega 12(5),
513-516.

BASE CLOSURE

31

20. Saaty, T.L., Vargas, L.V., and Wendell, R.E. (1983), Assessing attribute weights by
ratios. Omega 11(1), 9-13.
21. Salo, A.A. and Hamalainen, R.P. (1999), On the measurement of preferences in the
analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 309-319.
22. Schoner, B. (1991), Relative priority shifts and rank reversals in the AHP. In L.G. Vargas
(ed.). Proceedings of the 2nd International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process,
University of Pitsburgh, 121-131.
23. Shoner, B. and Wedley, W.C. (1989), Ambiguous criteria weights in AHP: consequences
and solutions. Decision Sciences 20, 462-475.
24. Schoner, B., Wedley, W.C. and Choo, E.C. (1993), A unified approach to AHP with
liriking pins, European Journal of Operational Research 66 (3), 291-304.
25. Von Winterfedt, D. and Edwards, W. (1986), Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
26. Watson, S.R. and Freeling, A.N.S. (1982), Assess attribute weights. Omega 11(1), 9-13.
Shinn Sun is an Assistant Professor of Operations Research in the
Department of Business Administration and Graduate School of Logistics Management at National Defence Management College, National Defence University, Taiwan. He received a Ph.D. in Operations Research
from the University of New South Wales, Australia. He is an ad hoc reviewer for Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Dr. Sun lectures
undergraduate courses in Decision Analysis, Operations Research, Production/Operations Management, and postgraduate courses in Decision
Sciences and Systems Analysis. His research interests include applications
of DEA, AHP, MCDM, and other operations research techniques to management and military
decision making. His works in these fields earned him the Distinguished Research Award in
1997 from National Science Council, Taiwan.