Improving decision quality in the analytic hierarchy process implementation through knowledge management strategies.

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a multi-attribute decision making method that structures a decision problem hierarchically in terms of its objective, attributes, sub-attributes, and alternatives.AHP model selection methodology. Two AHP hierarchies were developed to advance knowledge with respect to AHP application. (1) A decision hierarchy comprised of four attributes and fifteen sub-attributes was developed and can be used by organizations to assess capital investment projects. (2) The application of the capital investment decision hierarchy produced cost and quality measurement data that can be used to evaluate alternative AHP models. (3) An AHP model selection methodology, including a decision hierarchy comprised of cost and quality attributes and sub-attributes was developed. The methodology can be used to select the most appropriate AHP model to use in prioritizing capital investment projects from the three AHP models used in this experimental process. AHP model alternative priority weightings with respect to sub-attributes were established through AHP implementation cost and decision quality data obtained through this experimental research. (4) An AHP model selection decision tree was developed to determine the most appropriate AHP model based on cost and quality attribute and sub-attribute priority weightings. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)This dissertation research made contributions in two categories: (1) analysis of AHP decision cost and quality, and (2) AHP model selection methodology. The specific contributions within each category are:The goals of this dissertation were to evaluate the impact of knowledge management strategies on AHP decision cost and quality outcomes and to develop an AHP model selection methodology.Analysis of AHP decision cost and quality. Based on the relative importance of quality and cost, recommendations are made for the use of knowledge management strategies and group size. (1) The use of knowledge management strategies did not significantly improve decision quality with respect to group consistency, individual consensus or group consensus. (2) A group size of seven versus a group size of five significantly improved decision quality with respect to group consistency. (3) The use of knowledge management strategies did not significantly increase mental workload; tasks performed using electronic meeting technology resulted in significantly lower mental workload