Fig. 1:
Hierarchy structure for AHP.
Fig. 2:
Flowchart of using traditional AHP.
Fig. 3:
Flowchart of using SPM and game-theoretic selection. SPM, successful project management.
Tab. 1:
AHP attribute pairwise comparison table also presented as a matrix M for calculations.
| Attributes | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1.00 | 7.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 |
| B | 3.00 | 1.00 | 5.00 | 7.00 | 4.00 |
| C | 2.00 | 0.20 | 1.00 | 3.00 | 1.00 |
| D | 0.20 | 1.00 | 0.30 | 1.00 | 0.30 |
| E | 0.20 | 0.20 | 1.00 | 4.00 | 1.00 |
Tab. 2:
a, m, and b values to estimate comparison values for attribute A to B, C, and D.
| a | m | B | Attributes ratio | Pairwise comparison value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.00 | 7.00 | 9.00 | A/B | 7.00 |
| 5.00 | 6.00 | 7.00 | A/C | 6.00 |
| 4.00 | 5.00 | 6.00 | A/D | 5.00 |
| 1.00 | 3.00 | 5.00 | A/E | 3.00 |
Tab. 3a:
AHP attribute pairwise comparison with SPM setup.
| Attributes | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 1.00 | 7.00 | 6.00 | 5.00 | 3.00 |
| B | 0.10 | 1.00 | 0.90 | 0.70 | 0.40 |
| C | 0.20 | 1.20 | 1.00 | 0.80 | 0.50 |
| D | 0.20 | 1.40 | 1.20 | 1.00 | 0.60 |
| E | 0.30 | 2.30 | 2.00 | 1.70 | 1.00 |
Tab. 3b:
AHP attribute pairwise comparison normalised data with SPM setup.
| Attributes | A | B | C | D | E |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 0.543 | 0.543 | 0.543 | 0.543 | 0.543 |
| B | 0.078 | 0.078 | 0.078 | 0.078 | 0.078 |
| C | 0.090 | 0.090 | 0.090 | 0.090 | 0.090 |
| D | 0.109 | 0.109 | 0.109 | 0.109 | 0.109 |
| E | 0.181 | 0.181 | 0.181 | 0.181 | 0.181 |
Tab. 4:
Pairwise project-to-project comparison per attribute A.
| Projects | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.00 | 0.33 | 1.00 |
| 2 | 0.10 | 1.00 | 2.00 |
| 3 | 1.00 | 0.50 | 1.00 |
Tab. 5:
Normalised pairwise project-to-project comparison per attribute A.
| Projects | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.20 | 0.180 | 0.250 |
| 2 | 0.60 | 0.550 | 0.500 |
| 3 | 0.20 | 0.270 | 0.250 |
Tab. 6:
Final output from SPM.
| Weights i/project J | 0.543 | 0.078 | 0.090 | 0.109 | 0.181 | Alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Project 1 | 0.210 | 0.120 | 0.500 | 0.630 | 0.620 | 0.349 |
| Project 2 | 0.550 | 0.550 | 0.250 | 0.300 | 0.240 | 0.440 |
| Project 3 | 0.240 | 0.330 | 0.250 | 0.070 | 0.140 | 0.211 |
Tab. 7:
Contractor J’s valuation of projects.
| Project j | Alpha |
|---|---|
| Project 1 | 0.411 |
| Project 2 | 0.340 |
| Project 3 | 0.249 |
Tab. 8:
Contractors K and J payoff data.
| J | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| K | Alpha values | Project 1 | Project 2 | Project 3 |
| Project 1 | 0.349/0.411 | 0.349/0.340 | 0.349/0.249 | |
| Project 2 | 0.440/0.411 | 0.440/0.340 | 0.440/0.249 | |
| Project 3 | 0.211/0.411 | 0.211/0.340 | 0.211/0.249 | |
Tab. 9:
Contractors K and J reduced payoff data.
| J | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| K | Alpha values | Project 1 | Project 2 |
| Project 1 | 0.349/0.411 | 0.349/0.340 | |
| Project 2 | 0.440/0.411 | 0.440/0.340 | |