Abstract
This paper presents the results of a study in which two prominent multicritena 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 detennine 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 di...
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
