Using AHP-generated weights with option scores

The essential distinction

AHP-generated weights and user-entered scores are different inputs to the same decision.

AHP does not score auction houses, repair orders, or suppliers. It establishes the relative importance of the criteria. Likewise, an option’s high score does not make that criterion more important.

How the calculation works

1. Establish what matters

The client compares every criterion pair using business judgments such as “quality is somewhat more important than cost.” AHP converts the complete comparison set into normalized weights totaling 100%.

2. Describe candidate performance

The client enters comparable evidence for every option. The same criterion weight applies across all options; each option has its own performance value.

3. Normalize values and respect direction

DecisioQ makes unlike units—such as dollars, kilometres, days, percentages, and scores—comparable. It also follows the catalog direction: higher is preferred for a maximize criterion; lower is preferred for a minimize criterion.

4. Apply weights and rank

The showcases use TOPSIS. It considers each option’s closeness to the best attainable combination and distance from the least-desirable combination. A heavily weighted criterion has greater influence, but it does not decide the result by itself.

Worked auction example

Suppose the AHP exercise assigns vehicle quality a weight of 30%, availability 25%, buyer fee 18%, reputation 15%, distance 8%, and title speed 4%.

Auction C leads on quality and fee; Auction A leads on availability and reputation; Auction B leads on distance and title speed. TOPSIS evaluates the complete weighted pattern. It does not merely choose the option with the most first-place values.

Two ways the result can change

Using AHP in a showcase

1. Open the auction-house, repair-order, or parts-supplier showcase.
2. Find How should the factors be weighted?
3. Select Help me generate weights (AHP).
4. Complete all 15 pairwise comparisons.
5. Optionally load the balanced starter judgments and adjust them.
6. Select Generate AHP weights.
7. Review the percentages and consistency ratio.
8. Enter or review each candidate’s performance values.
9. Select Get Recommendation.

If any priority judgment changes, generate the AHP weights again before updating the recommendation.

Consistency ratio

Pairwise judgments can contradict one another. A client might say quality matters more than cost, cost matters more than delivery, but delivery matters more than quality. AHP measures this with a consistency ratio.

Consistency does not prove that the priorities are correct. It indicates that the judgments are reasonably coherent. The showcase will not use an inconsistent comparison set for the final recommendation.

Request structure

When AHP is selected, the final decision request includes both the priority comparisons and option-performance data:

{
  "decisionId": "AUTO-AUCT-006",
  "weightStrategy": "AHP",
  "ahp": {
    "criteria": [
      "vehicle_availability_score",
      "buyer_fee_level",
      "average_vehicle_quality"
    ],
    "comparisons": [
      {
        "criterionA": "average_vehicle_quality",
        "criterionB": "buyer_fee_level",
        "importance": 3
      }
    ]
  },
  "options": [
    {
      "optionId": "AUCT-NATIONAL",
      "name": "Northline Vehicle Exchange",
      "values": {
        "vehicle_availability_score": 96,
        "buyer_fee_level": 850,
        "average_vehicle_quality": 88
      }
    }
  ]
}

The shortened example shows the relationship between the two inputs. An executable request includes every authoritative criterion, every required pairwise comparison, and at least two options. DecisioQ derives the weights during execution; the browser does not substitute a hard-coded weight vector.

Common mistakes

Recommended client workshop process

1. Agree on each criterion’s business meaning and measurement method.
2. Discuss priorities separately from candidate performance.
3. Have accountable stakeholders complete the AHP comparisons.
4. Resolve consistency warnings.
5. Record the source and date of option values.
6. Review the full ranking and tradeoffs.
7. Test plausible changes to important values and priorities.
8. Retain judgments, evidence, assumptions, and approval decisions.