The Department of Defense utilizes complex technologies in numerous fields; each technology must comply with specific parameters and system capabilities. In this selection of a complex technology best meeting prescribed capabilities, the parameter set includes nine areas, which have sub-areas. To handle the complexity of the process, the team identified the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a methodology providing a reliable solution. The AHP produced an importance coefficient for each area and sub-area, which were combined in the final phase of the ranking process. Users and technical support personnel agreed that the selected system met the requirements, field operational needs, and maintenance requisites. The AHP approach represents a viable tool to handle group decisions in support of technology management and related selection processes.
BevilacquaMBragliaM.The analytic hierarchy process applied to maintenance strategy selection. Reliab Eng Syst Saf2000; 70: 71–83.
2.
KurttilaMPesonenMKangasJ, et al. Utilizing the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in SWOT analysis—a hybrid method and its application to a forest-certification case. Forest Pol Econ2000; 1: 41–52.
3.
ChengEWLiH.Information priority-setting for better resource allocation using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Inform Manag Comput Secur2001; 9: 61–70.
4.
VaidyaOSKumarS.Analytic hierarchy process: an overview of applications. Eur J Oper Res2006; 169: 1–29.
5.
GuptaSKumarU.An analytical hierarchy process (AHP)-guided decision model for underground mining method selection. Int J Mining Reclam Environ2012; 26: 324–336.
6.
OuyangXGuoF.Paradigms of mangroves in treatment of anthropogenic wastewater pollution. Sci Tot Environ2016; 544: 971–979.
7.
WilhiteALordR.Estimating the risk of technology development. Eng Manag J2006; 18: 3–10.
8.
MoraMPhillips-WrenGWangF.An integrative evaluation framework for determining the value of group decision support systems. Eng Manag J2014; 26: 24–38.
9.
MustafaAJia-PeiFSiaw-PengL, et al. The evaluation of airline service quality using the hierarchy process (AHP). In: international conference of tourism, Grand Plaza Parkroyal, Penang, 9–11 January 2005, pp.382–390.
10.
KumarSGuptaSGhodratiB, et al. An approach for risk assessment of rail defects. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng2010; 17: 291–311.
11.
WongJKLiH.Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Build Environ2008; 43: 108–125.
12.
LeeYKozarKA.Investigating the effect of website quality on e-business success: an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach. Decis Supp Syst2006; 42: 1383–1401.
13.
SchniederjansMJGarvinT.Using the analytic hierarchy process and multi-objective programming for the selection of cost drivers in activity-based costing. Eur J Oper Res1997; 100: 72–80.
14.
FormanEPeniwatiK.Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res1998; 108: 165–169.
15.
AhmadiAGuptaSKarimR, et al. Selection of maintenance strategy for aircraft systems using multi-criteria decision making methodologies. Int J Reliab Qual Saf Eng2010; 17: 223–243.
16.
MonDLChengCHLinJC.Evaluating weapon system using fuzzy analytic hierarchy process based on entropy weight. Fuzzy Set Syst1994; 62: 127–134.
17.
DağdevirenMYükselI.Developing a fuzzy analytic hierarchy process (AHP) model for behavior-based safety management. Inform Sci2008; 178: 1717–1733.
18.
DelgadoMGSendraJB.Sensitivity analysis in multicriteria spatial decision-making: a review. Hum Ecol Risk Assess2004; 10: 1173–1187.
19.
WuCRLinCTChenHC.Optimal selection of location for Taiwanese hospitals to ensure a competitive advantage by using the analytic hierarchy process and sensitivity analysis. Build Environ2007; 42: 1431–1444.
20.
IvancoMHouGMichaeliJ.Sensitivity analysis method to address user disparities in the analytic hierarchy process. Exp Syst Appl2017; 90: 111–126.
21.
BayazitO.Use of AHP in decision-making for flexible manufacturing systems. J Manuf Technol Manag2005; 16: 808–819.
22.
ChenYYuJShahbazK, et al. A GIS-based sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria weights. In: proceedings of the 18th world IMACS/MODSIM congress, Cairns, Australia, 13–17 July 2009, pp.3137–3143.
23.
MillerWVLusherJA.Advanced material handling equipment controls (No. NCEL-R-931). Naval Civil Engineering Lab Port Hueneme CA, 1991.
24.
NietoE.25K Halvorsen Loader automation report (No. AFRL-RX-TY-TR-2012-0085). Air Force Research Lab Tyndall AFB FL Materials and Manufacturing Directorate, 2013.
25.
AllenLBirrellMBorowskiK, et al. Technologies for the detection and monitoring of clandestine underground tunnels, fall 2007-Project 07-03. Global Innovation and Strategy Center Omaha NE Intern Program, 2008.
26.
LarsonJOkornBPastoreT, et al. Counter tunnel exploration, mapping, and localization with an unmanned ground vehicle. In: SPIE Proc. 9084: Unmanned systems technology XVI, International Society for Optics and Photonics, Baltimore, MD, 6–8 May 2014.
27.
BruemmerDJMarbleJLDudenhoefferDD, et al. Intelligent robots for use in hazardous DOE environments. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Lab Idaho Falls, 2002.
28.
GrusyJW.Air Force research laboratory robotics technology demonstration. Range clearance of unexploded ordnance at Massachusetts Military Reservation. Grusy and Associates LLC Albuquerque NM, 2009.
29.
SuhNP.Axiomatic design: advances and applications (The Oxford Series on Advanced Manufacturing). USA: Oxford University Press, 2001.
30.
FanLXCaiMYLinY, et al. Axiomatic design theory: further notes and its guideline to applications. Int J Mater Prod Technol2015; 51: 359–374.
31.
SaatyRW.The analytic hierarchy process—what it is and how it is used. Math Model1987; 9: 161–176.
32.
JacoffAMessinaEHuangHM, et al. Standard test methods for response robots. ASTM International Committee on Homeland Security Applications, 2010.
33.
HartwichF.Weighting of agricultural research results: strength and limitations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Universitat Hohenheim, 1999.
34.
RaharjoHEndahD.Evaluating relationship of consistency ratio and number of alternatives on rank reversal in the AHP. Qual Eng2006; 18: 39–46.
35.
GuptaSRahberAAhmadiA, et al. A vector-dissimilarity-based approach for multi-criteria decision making. Int J Syst Assur Eng Manag2013; 4: 249–261.
