Sangiorgio, V; Uva, G and Fatiguso, F (2018) Optimized AHP to overcome limits in weight calculation: Building performance application. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 144(2): 04017101, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Multicriteria decision making methods, in particular the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), are widely used in many sectors, and increasingly in the field of construction. The AHP is easily adaptable to many decision problems, but it presents great difficulties when the number of criteria or alternatives is large. This issue affects the consistency of the judgment matrix, which is related to the acceptability of the results. To overcome such a drawback of basic importance in the construction field, this paper proposes a novel optimized-AHP (O-AHP) method that redefines the judgment assignments and the generation of the judgment matrix by using a mathematical programming formulation. The validation benchmark tests show that the O-AHP exhibits the same effectiveness of the standard AHP, and it can be applied successfully when the number of alternatives is more than nine. Furthermore, the presented technique is applied to the building performance assessment in the field of antiseismic behavior. The results show that the O-AHP is an approach to simplify the decision-maker operations by defining a numerical value of the building pathology criticality index, which is useful for large-scale applications.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | analytic hierarchy process; building performance; optimization; quantitative methods |
| Index terms: | building performance, effectiveness, mathematical programming, building pathology, judgment, validation, decision-making, quantitative method |
| Subjects: | performance management, decision analysis, data analysis and analytics, dispute resolution, algorithms, professional development, quality assurance, professional practice |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Digital Applications, Risk Management, Design Practice, Research Practice, Information Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here