30 Chapter III Research Methodology The Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a research methodology widely used in decision-making and prioritization studies. Developed by Thomas L. Saaty, AHP offers a systematic and structured approach to address complex decision problems by breaking them down into hierarchical components and quantifying subjective judgments. This methodology usually combines qualitative and quantitative analysis, allowing decision-makers to compare and evaluate multiple criteria or alternatives based on their relative importance. By employing pairwise comparisons and mathematical calculations, AHP provides a rigorous framework for decision-making that enhances objectivity and supports informed choices. In this research methodology, we will explore the principles, application, and steps involved in utilizing AHP to investigate and solve decision-making problems across various domains. 3.1 Analytical Hierarchy Process Method and Technique Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as a structured technique for organizing and analyzing complex decisions. AHP utilizes mathematical and psychological principles to measure and compare the relative importance of different criteria or alternatives. AHP is based on the concept of pairwise comparisons, where experts compare two elements at a time and assess the dominance of one element over the other in relation to a specific attribute (Saaty, 2008). The comparisons are made using a scale of absolute judgments, where each element is assigned a numerical value that represents its relative importance or dominance. The process involves experts providing their judgments and opinions through special questionnaires. Each respondent compares the relative importance of two items at a time based on the given attribute. The responses are then used to estimate the relative magnitudes or weights of the factors being evaluated. A key feature of AHP is the use of a unique scale ranging from 1 to 9, which allows for more precise measurement and differentiation between alternatives. This scale enables experts to provide more nuanced and detailed judgments, capturing the relative importance of the factors being compared more accurately. Overall, AHP provides a rigorous and systematic 31 approach to decision-making by quantifying the weights of decision criteria and incorporating the judgments of experts. Figure 5 Hierarchy of Criteria and Alternatives Figure 5 describes that to achieve goal, AHP criteria and sub criteria(s) to decides the ranking or priority. When dealing with complex decision-making situations, it's common to consider multiple criteria that contribute to the overall objective. However, not all criteria have the same level of importance, and some criteria may be more abstract and encompassing than others. Multi-level criteria or multi-hierarchy in AHP allows for a structured approach to handle such situations. AHP starts by constructing a hierarchical structure that represents the decision problem. The structure usually consists of three levels: Level 0: The top level, which represents the overall objective or goal of the decision-making process. Level 1: The middle level, which consists of criteria that contribute to achieving the objective in Level 1. Level 2: The bottom level, which includes alternatives or options that are evaluated based on the criteria in Level 2. The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is widely applied in various fields and decision-making contexts, including government, business, industry, healthcare, and education. It provides a flexible framework that can be tailored to suit the specific needs and goals of decision-makers. AHP does not aim to prescribe a single "correct" decision but rather helps decision-makers find the best possible solution based on their goals and understanding of the problem. It offers a comprehensive and rational approach to structuring decision-making problems, 32 quantifying and representing their elements, aligning them with overall objectives, and evaluating alternative solutions. One of the key strengths of AHP is its ability to break down complex decision problems into a hierarchy of more manageable sub-problems. Each sub-problem can then be analyzed independently, making the decision-making process more structured and manageable. The hierarchical elements can encompass various aspects of the decision problem, including concrete and intangible factors, well-defined or loosely estimated variables, and known or uncertain information. By providing a systematic and structured approach, AHP enables decision-makers to evaluate and compare different alternatives based on their relative importance and contribution to the overall objectives. This allows for a more informed and well-grounded decision-making process that takes into account the various dimensions and considerations of the problem at hand. If a hierarchy has been developed, decision-makers regularly analyze its different elements by comparing them to each other at a time, with regard to their effect on an element above them in the hierarchy. The decision- makers may use concrete data about the elements in making the distinctions, but they usually use their assumptions about the relative value and relevance of the elements. It is the substance of the AHP that human decisions, and not simply the hidden data, can be utilized in playing out the assessments. The AHP converts these assessments to numerical values that can be processed and compared over the entire range of issues. The numerical weight or priority is derived for each element of the hierarchy, allowing the comparison of diverse and often incommensurable elements in a rational and consistent manner. This capability distinguishes AHP from other decision-making techniques. The numerical priorities for each alternative decision are calculated at the final stage of the process. These figures represent the relative capacity of the alternatives to achieve the decision objective, so that the various courses of action can be taken into account in a straightforward manner. While it can be used by individuals working on simple decisions, the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) is most useful when teams of people work on complex issues, particularly those with high stakes, involving human perceptions and judgments whose resolution has long-term implications. It has unique 33 advantages when important elements of the decision are difficult to quantify or compare, or when communication between the members of the team is hindered by their different specializations, terminology or perspectives. Decision situations to which the AHP can be applied include:  Choice – The selection of one alternative from a given set of alternatives, usually where there are multiple decision criteria involved.  Ranking – Putting a set of alternatives in order from most to least desirable.  Prioritization – Determining the relative merit of members of a set of alternatives, as opposed to selecting a single one or merely ranking them  Resource allocation – Apportioning resources among a set of alternatives  Benchmarking – Comparing the processes in one's own organization with those of other best-of-breed organizations  Quality management – Dealing with the multidimensional aspects of quality and quality improvement  Conflict resolution – Settling disputes between parties with apparently incompatible goals or positions The procedure for using the AHP can be summarized as:  Model the problem as a hierarchy containing the decision goal, the alternatives for reaching it, and the criteria for evaluating the alternatives.  Establish priorities among the elements of the hierarchy by making a series of judgments based on pairwise comparisons of the elements. For example, when comparing potential purchases of commercial real estate, the investors might say they prefer location over price and price over timing.  Synthesize these judgments to yield a set of overall priorities for the hierarchy. This would combine the investors' judgments about location, price and timing for properties A, B, C, and D into overall priorities for each property.