Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-1
CARVER 2.0: integrating the Analytical Hierarchy Process’s multi-attribute decision-making weighting scheme for a center of gravity vulnerability analysis for US Special Operations Forces
This article examines the use of a weighting scheme with a multi-attribute decision-making (MADM) process to improve the CARVER center of gravity analysis that is currently used by Special Operations Forces. We employ Saaty’s Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) pairwise comparison method to obtain initial decision maker weights for the decision-making process as an example for a generalizable mission. Firstly, we show the standard current CARVER method, as outlined in FM 34-36. Next, we apply several MADM methods using our suggested AHP weighting scheme to obtain the rankings of the alternatives. We compare the results and provide sensitivity analysis to examine the robustness of each MADM analysis. We conclude that any decision methodology for CARVER that includes a weighting scheme by each decision maker is better than not using any weighting scheme.
Headquarters, Department of the Army. FM 34–36: Special Operations Forces Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Operations, Appendix D, 30September1991.
2.
BennettBT.Understanding, assessing, and responding to terrorism: protecting critical infrastructure and personnel. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007, p.466.
3.
Headquarters Department of the Army. Special operations (ARDP 3–05). Washington, DC, Chapter 4, 31August2012, pp.4-1–4-8.
4.
Department of the Army. Psychological operations process tactics, techniques, and procedures (FM 3–05.301), August2007.
5.
Headquarters Department of the Army. Special Operation Intelligence, ATP 3–05.20 (FM 3–05.120), Chapter 2, 2013, pp.2-1–2-14.
6.
LoerchAGKouryRRMaxwellDT. Value added analysis for army equipment modernization. Technical Report, Concept Analysis Agency, July1995.
7.
SaatyRW. The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model1987; 9: 161–176.
8.
PeniwatiK. Criteria for evaluating group decision making. Math Comput Model2007; 46: 935–947.
9.
GaoSZhangZCaoC. Calculating weights methods using complete matrices and incomplete matrices. J Software2010; 5: 304–311.
10.
SongBKanS. A method of assigning weights using a ranking and nonhierarchical comparison. Adv Decis Sci. 2016; 2016: 8963214.
11.
FoxW. TOPSIS in business analytics. Chapter 221. In: WangJ (ed.) Encyclopedia of business analytics and optimization. V(5). Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 2014, pp.281–291.
12.
FoxWEvertonS. Mathematical modeling in social network analysis: using data envelopment analysis and analytical hierarchy process to find node influences in a social network. J Defense Model Simulat2014; 12(2): 1–9.
13.
FoxWEvertonS. Using mathematical models in decision making methodologies to find key nodes in the Noordin dark network. Am J Oper Res2014; 4: 255–267.
14.
FoxWThompsonN. Phase targeting of terrorist attacks: simplifying complexity with analytical hierarchy process. Int J Decis Sci2014; 5: 57–64.
15.
FoxW. Using multi-attribute decision methods in mathematical modeling to produce an order of merit list of high valued terrorists. Am J Oper Res2014; 4: 365–374.
16.
GiordanoFRFoxWHortonS. A first course in mathematical modeling. 5th ed.Boston, MA: Cengage Publishing, 2013.
17.
GerdesJSperoE. A compact review of multi-criteria decision analysis uncertainty techniques. ARL-TR-6340, Army Research Laboratories, February2013.
18.
Capabilities-Based Assessment (CBA) Guide. Version 3.1, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, 10May2010.
19.
SaatyT. The analytic hierarchy process. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1980.
20.
BurdenR. and Faires D. Numerical analysis. 9th ed.Boston, MA: Cengage Publishers, 2011, p.576.
21.
FoxW. Mathematical modeling of the analytical hierarchy process using discrete dynamical systems in decision analysis. Comput Educ J2012; 3: 27–34.
22.
AlinezhadAAminiA. Sensitivity analysis of TOPSIS technique: the results of change in the weight of one attribute on the final ranking of alternatives. J Optimiz Ind Eng2011; 7: 23–28.
