MyAspRepo

MyAspRepo

POL The content of this repository is a web application implementing one of the most popular decision support algorithms, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The AHP algorithm and model are used to structure the selected decision criteria and then evaluate them in relation to the designated alternatives.

The simplest way to represent this model is to use the following levels:

1. Goal - the overriding motive for making a decision (e.g. buying a car)

2. Alternatives - pre-selected proposals consistent with the chosen goal (e.g. Honda Civic, VW Golf)

3. Criteria - factors that will guide us when choosing an alternative (e.g. equipment, price, space)

4. Further sub-levels of individual criteria, e.g. sub-criteria (e.g. for equipment: air conditioning, sound system, seats with massage function)

The user evaluates the criteria in pairs (each with each) on a 9-point Saat's scale, where a score of 1 means comparable importance of both criteria, and 9 means a strong advantage of one criterion over the other. In the example four-stage model (goal, alternatives, criteria, sub-criteria), the following comparisons should be made:

1. Evaluating all criteria together in relation to the decision objective

2. Assessment of all sub-criteria together in relation to the primary criterion

3. Evaluate all alternatives against each other for each criterion

4. Evaluation of all alternatives against each other for each sub-criterion.

You can finish the assessment at stage 3, but a more correct and accurate decision-making result will be achieved by analyzing the assessments at the lowest, i.e. level 4

At each stage, the so-called local and global (more important) priorities, as a result of which we obtain an appropriate classification of all alternatives selected at the beginning.

ENG The content of this repository is a web application that implements one of the most popular decision making algorithms. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The Algorithm and AHP model are used to structure the selected decision criteria and then evaluate them With respect to the alternatives.

The easiest way to do this is by using the following levels:

1. Objective|GOL - overriding motive for decision making (eg car purchase)

2. Alternatives - Pre-selected proposals for the chosen target (eg Honda Civic, VW Golf)

3. Criteria - the factors we will guide when choosing an alternative (eg equipment, price, generosity)

4. Subsequent sub-criteria, such as sub-criteria (eg: air conditioning, sound system, massage chairs)

The user evaluates the criteria (each with each) in a 9-step scale Saat, where rating 1 is comparable to both criteria and 9 This is strong over one criterion over another. In the of the four-stage model (target, alternatives, criteria, sub-criteria) the following comparisons should be made:

1. Evaluate all criteria with each other in relation to the decision goal

2. Evaluate all subtypes with each other in relation to the upper convention

3. Evaluate all alternatives with each other for each criterion

4. Evaluate all alternatives with each other for each sub-criterion.

You can finish the assessment at stage 3. However, a more accurate decision result will be obtained by analyzing the scores on the lowest, That is on level 4

At each stage are calculated so-called local and global priorities (more important), resulting in an appropriate classification of all Selected early alternatives.