In Section 3.1, you state that pairwise comparisons for AHP are made using Saaty’s scale (1–9), as shown in Table 1. However, in the decision matrix (Table 4), the performance ratings for alternatives across criteria are given as 0, 2, 3, 4, 5. This appears to be a different scale, and it is not explained how these values were derived or normalized. Since the AHP weights are based on the Saaty scale, using a different scale for evaluating alternatives may misalign the weighting and scoring phases, potentially compromising the integrated model’s outcomes.
Could you please clarify:
1. What scale was used for the performance scores in Table 4, and how does it relate to the Saaty scale used in AHP?
2. Were the performance values obtained from expert judgments, provider documentation, or benchmarking? If so, how were they normalized to be compatible with the AHP-derived weights?
3. Is there a risk of methodological inconsistency when combining AHP (which uses relative importance) with TOPSIS (which uses absolute performance scores) without a clear bridging explanation?