A comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process with multiattribute utility-theory-A case-study

This paper presents the results of a study in which two prominent multicriteria methodologies were used to evaluate a discrete set of technological alternatives. The first is Saaty’s Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), and the second is Keeney and Raiffa’s Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT). A case study designed to select the next generation of rough terrain cargo handlers for the U.S. Army provided the backdrop. Three alternatives were identified and ultimately ranked using the two methodologies. The intent was to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each, and to characterize the conditions under which one might be more appropriate than the other. The evaluation team consisted of five program managers and engineers from the Belvoir Research, Development & Engineering Center. The objective hierarchy used in both cases contained twelve attributes. In general, the AHP was found to be more accessible and conducive to consensus building. Once the attributes were defined, the decision makers had little difficulty in furnishing the necessary data and discussing the intermediate results. The same could not be said for the MAUT analysis. The need to juggle twleve attributes at a time produced a considerable amount of frustration among the participants. In addition, the lottery question posed during the data collection phase had an unsettling effect that was never satisfactorily resolved.