Organizations often face a familiar dilemma: It’s not a shortage of good ideas, but a struggle to decide which one to pursue first. During project prioritization meetings, leaders are likely to present a wide range of perspectives. The finance team pushes for hard savings, while operations advocate for quick wins and lower variability. Compliance is concerned with mitigating regulatory risk, and quality teams, of course, look for systemic stability and sustainability.

These viewpoints, while valid, often create friction when brought together. Resulting discussions often become circular, political, or—worse—end up in limbo. This challenge, known as the Rashomon effect, is aptly named after Akira Kurosawa’s 1950 film, in which the same event is perceived in vastly different ways by multiple witnesses. The facts remain the same, but the interpretations vary widely.

‘It’s not what we look at that matters, it’s what we see.’
—Henry David Thoreau

The issue here isn’t the quality of the ideas; it’s the lack of alignment on what really matters. What’s needed is a way to structure and clarify the decision-making process, giving all perspectives a shared framework for evaluating options.

The role of AHP: Clarifying what matters most

This is where the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) comes in. AHP doesn’t replace human judgment—it refines it. Developed by Thomas Saaty during the 1970s, AHP is a structured decision-making tool that helps teams navigate complex, multicriteria problems. It does this by breaking down the decision into a hierarchy. At the very top is the overarching goal; for example, selecting the most effective project. Beneath that are the criteria—factors like cost, risk, time, and overall effect—that shape the decision. At the bottom are the alternatives themselves, such as competing projects, each evaluated systematically against the criteria. By structuring decisions this way, AHP makes it easier to compare trade-offs and align choices with organizational priorities.

But AHP is more than just a framework. It requires teams to engage in pairwise comparisons, evaluating one criterion at a time and deciding which one is more important and by how much. For instance, the team might need to choose between the importance of reducing time to market vs. ensuring regulatory compliance. This process doesn’t just identify priorities; it quantifies them on a 1-to-9 scale, turning subjective preferences into measurable data.

The strength of AHP lies in its ability to address inconsistencies in decision-making. Through a tool called the “consistency ratio,” it checks the internal logic of the team’s preferences. For example, if a team ranks one criterion as more important than a second, and the second as more important than a third, AHP ensures that the first criterion is also rated as more important than the third. If not, the consistency ratio flags this for further review. This checks for internal contradictions and ensures that the logic of the decision-making process holds.

The AHP process in action: Evaluating projects

To see how AHP works in practice, consider a leadership team evaluating six projects:
• Improving defect rates
• Digitizing audits
• Overhauling supplier scorecards
• Implementing predictive maintenance
• Reducing capital expenses
• Upgrading corrective action tracking

Each project offers different potential outcomes—some promise direct cost savings, others long-term operational improvements, and still others regulatory compliance or enhanced data handling.

The first step is to identify the criteria that matter most to the team. These might include:
• Duration of the project
• Potential hard savings
• Capital investment required
• Effects on compliance or customer risk
• Likelihood of success
• Availability of data to support decision-making.

Once the criteria are established, the team members engage in pairwise comparisons. For example, they might ask themselves which is more important: a project with a short duration or one with significant consequential effect, such as mitigating customer risk or ensuring compliance. After comparing all the criteria against each other, the team assigns weightings that reflect their relative importance.

The weightings might reveal that consequential effects are considered by far the most important criterion, accounting for more than 40% of the decision-making process. Hard savings, while important, might be assigned a lower weight, reflecting the team’s understanding that financial returns are only part of the equation. Other criteria, such as likelihood of success and data availability, come in lower but are still significant.

From discussion to decision: Scoring projects, applying AHP

Once the weights are established, the team can begin evaluating each project against the criteria. Each project is rated on a scale of 1–5 for each criterion. For instance, one project might score highly on hard savings but low on consequential effects. Another might excel in probability of success but fall short on data availability.

These ratings are then multiplied by the corresponding weight for each criterion, yielding a final weighted score for each project. This is where AHP provides the clarity needed to make difficult decisions. A project that might seem like a clear winner based on one criterion—say, hard savings—might not fare as well overall when evaluated across all factors.

For example, after running the numbers, the team may find that a corrective action-tracking overhaul project, despite not being the flashiest option, emerges as the top priority. Although it doesn’t promise the most immediate return or the fastest implementation, it offers a balanced solution with high consequential effects and solid probability of success. The results might surprise the team, but the scoring process has led them to a decision they can all support.

The value of AHP in quality and operations

In quality management and operations, AHP provides a structured method for making decisions that are transparent, traceable, and aligned with the team’s core values. It forces teams to define what truly matters and to quantify those priorities, thus eliminating the ambiguity that often plagues decision-making.

The benefits of AHP go beyond just achieving a decision. AHP also fosters alignment and buy-in from diverse stakeholders. Teams can confront trade-offs upfront, which makes it easier to identify the most strategic course of action.

Furthermore, AHP ensures that decisions are auditable. It reveals unspoken assumptions and surfaces implicit biases. Teams can go back and review the rationale behind each decision, following a clear trail of how priorities were set and why certain projects were chosen. As quality auditors would attest, this is especially important in quality-focused organizations where traceability and accountability are essential.

From Rashomon to resolution

The Rashomon effect highlights the fact that different perspectives can shape how we perceive the same situation. In leadership, this diversity of thought can be a source of tension. But it also provides an opportunity for deeper insight. Thus, AHP is a powerful tool for transforming differing perspectives into a coherent and defensible decision.

By structuring decision-making in this way, teams can avoid the paralysis of endless debates and instead focus on making decisions they can trust. In a world full of choices, the ability to slow down, structure thinking, and align on what truly matters is invaluable. Through AHP, teams don’t just reach a decision. They reach one with clarity, purpose, and confidence—together.