A Modified AHP for Large-scale MCDM: a Case of Power Station Construction Project Selection


  • Arnat Watanasungsuit Hydrocarbon Solutions (Thailand) Company Limited, Thawi Wattana, Bangkok 10170, Thailand
  • Noppakun Sangkhiew Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand
  • Choat Inthawongse Department of Industrial Technology, Muban Chombueng Rajabhat University, Ratchaburi 70150, Thailand
  • Peerapop Jomtong Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Engineering and Industrial Technology, Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand, Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Health Sciences, Christian University, Nakhon Pathom 73000, Thailand


Analytical hierarchy process, Multi-criteria decision, Site selection


This article proposes a novel technique to alter the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to deal with large-scale multi-criteria decision making. Since the AHP has been a fruitful tool for decades, it has been advised that up to seven aspects should be considered. However, realistically, real-world decision problems very often have more than that. We propose assigning a significant scale from 1 to 9, like a survey questionnaire; then, we present the relative criteria scoring and modify the way of constructing the relative criteria scoring matrix. It is called the large- scale AHP. To illustrate the performance of the novel method, we conducted the experimental study by working with a regional electricity provider. The problem was deciding on selecting the power station construction project with 10 choices and 7 criteria. The result was compared with the classical AHP with a clustering technique. The outcome showed that both approaches yielded the same decision and chose the same alternative A8. Furthermore, both methods yielded the same order on weighted criteria. However, the new technique could save decision-making time by 77.08%.


Download data is not yet available.


Cabrerizo FJ, Pedrycz W, Pérez IJ, Alonso S, Herrera- Viedma E. Group decision making in linguistic contexts: an information granulation approach. Procedia Computer Science. 2016 Jan 1;91:715-24.

Litvaj I, Stancekova D. Decision-making, and their relation to the knowledge management, use of knowledge management in decision- making. Procedia economics and finance. 2015 Jan 1;23:467-72.

Abubakar AM, Elrehail H, Alatailat MA, Elçi A. Knowledge management, decision-making style and organizational performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. 2019 Apr 1;4(2):104-14.

Ishizaka A, Nemery P. Multi- criteria decision analysis: methods and software. John Wiley & Sons; 2013 Jun 10.

Greco S, Figueira J, Ehrgott M. Multiple criteria decision analysis. New York: Springer; 2016.

Pornsing C, Jomtong P, Kanchana- anotai J, Tonglim T. Solving supplier selection problem using fuzzy-ahp for an electronic manufacturer. In2019 IEEE 6th International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Applications (ICIEA) 2019 Apr 12 (pp. 824-7). IEEE.

Abastante F, Corrente S, Greco S, Ishizaka A, Lami IM. A new parsimonious AHP methodology: assigning priorities to many objects by comparing pairwise few reference objects. Expert Systems with Applications. 2019 Aug 1;127:109-20.

Saaty TL. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International journal of services sciences. 2008 Jan 1;1(1):83-98.

Gnanavelbabu A, Arunagiri P. Ranking of MUDA using AHP and Fuzzy AHP algorithm. Materials Today: Proceedings. 2018 Jan 1;5(5):13406-12.

Nayak SC, Tripathy C. Deadline sensitive lease scheduling in cloud computing environment using AHP. Journal of King Saud University- Computer and Information Sciences. 2018 Apr 1;30(2):152-63.

Garbuzova- Schlifter M, Madlener R. AHP- based risk analysis of energy performance contracting projects in Russia. Energy Policy. 2016 Oct 1;97:559-81.

Zhang L. Comparison of classical analytic hierarchy process ( AHP) approach and fuzzy AHP approach in multiple- criteria decision making for commercial vehicle information systems and networks (CVISN) project.

Breaz RE, Bologa O, Racz SG. Selecting industrial robots for milling applications using AHP. Procedia computer science. 2017 Jan 1;122:346-53.

Alonso JA, Lamata MT. Consistency in the analytic hierarchy process: a new approach. International journal of uncertainty, fuzziness and knowledgebased systems. 2006 Aug;14(04):445-59.

Galankashi MR, Helmi SA, Hashemzahi P. Supplier selection in automobile industry: A mixed balanced scorecard– fuzzy AHP approach. Alexandria Engineering Journal. 2016 Mar 1;55(1):93-100.

Weiss EN, Rao VR. AHP design issues for large‐ scale systems. Decision Sciences. 1987 Jan;18(1):43-61.




How to Cite

Watanasungsuit, A., Sangkhiew, N., Inthawongse, C. ., & Peerapop Jomtong. (2023). A Modified AHP for Large-scale MCDM: a Case of Power Station Construction Project Selection. Science & Technology Asia, 28(3), 220–230. Retrieved from https://ph02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/SciTechAsia/article/view/248219