1 1 Slide Chapter 10 Multicriteria Decision Making n A Scoring Model for Job Selection n Spreadsheet...
-
Upload
erick-herdman -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 1 Slide Chapter 10 Multicriteria Decision Making n A Scoring Model for Job Selection n Spreadsheet...
1 1 Slide
Slide
Chapter 10Chapter 10Multicriteria Decision MakingMulticriteria Decision Making
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection Spreadsheet Solution of the Job Selection Spreadsheet Solution of the Job Selection
Scoring ModelScoring Model The Analytic Hierarchy ProcessThe Analytic Hierarchy Process Establishing Priorities Using AHPEstablishing Priorities Using AHP Using AHP to Develop an Overall Priority Using AHP to Develop an Overall Priority
RankingRanking
2 2 Slide
Slide
Multicriteria Decision ProblemsMulticriteria Decision Problems
In this chapter we consider decision problems In this chapter we consider decision problems involving two or more criteria.involving two or more criteria.
These criteria are often in conflict as the decision These criteria are often in conflict as the decision maker attempts to identify the best decision maker attempts to identify the best decision alternative.alternative.
A trade-off among the multiple criteria is often A trade-off among the multiple criteria is often necessary.necessary.
Management science techniques can be used to:Management science techniques can be used to:• quantify the importance of each criterion, quantify the importance of each criterion, • evaluate how each decision alternative evaluate how each decision alternative
contributes to each criterion, andcontributes to each criterion, and• identify the decision alternative that comes identify the decision alternative that comes
closest to meeting the multiple criteria.closest to meeting the multiple criteria.
3 3 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
A graduating college student with a double A graduating college student with a double major in Finance and Accounting has received major in Finance and Accounting has received the following three job offers:the following three job offers:• financial analyst for an investment firm in financial analyst for an investment firm in
ChicagoChicago• accountant for a manufacturing firm in accountant for a manufacturing firm in
DenverDenver• auditor for a CPA firm in Houstonauditor for a CPA firm in Houston
4 4 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
The student made the following comments:The student made the following comments:• ““The financial analyst position provides the The financial analyst position provides the
best opportunity for my long-run career best opportunity for my long-run career advancement.”advancement.”
• ““I would prefer living in Denver rather than in I would prefer living in Denver rather than in Chicago or Houston.”Chicago or Houston.”
• ““I like the management style and philosophy I like the management style and philosophy at the Houston CPA firm the best.”at the Houston CPA firm the best.”
Clearly, this is a multicriteria decision problem.Clearly, this is a multicriteria decision problem.
5 5 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Considering only the Considering only the long-run career long-run career advancementadvancement criterion, the criterion, the financial analyst financial analyst position in Chicagoposition in Chicago is the best decision is the best decision alternative.alternative.
Considering only the Considering only the locationlocation criterion, the criterion, the accountant position in Denveraccountant position in Denver is the best is the best decision alternative.decision alternative.
Considering only the Considering only the stylestyle criterion, the criterion, the auditor auditor position in Houstonposition in Houston is the best alternative. is the best alternative.
6 6 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Steps Required to Develop a Scoring ModelSteps Required to Develop a Scoring Model• Step 1:Step 1: List the decision-making criteria. List the decision-making criteria.• Step 2:Step 2: Assign a weight to each criterion. Assign a weight to each criterion.• Step 3:Step 3: Rate how well each decision Rate how well each decision
alternative alternative satisfies each criterion.satisfies each criterion.• Step 4:Step 4: Compute the score for each decision Compute the score for each decision
alternative.alternative.• Step 5:Step 5: Order the decision alternatives from Order the decision alternatives from
highest highest score to lowest score. The score to lowest score. The alternative with alternative with the highest score is the the highest score is the recommended recommended alternative.alternative.
7 7 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Mathematical ModelMathematical Model
SSjj = = wwii r rijij
ii
where:where:
rrijij = rating for criterion = rating for criterion ii and decision and decision alternative alternative jj
SSjj = = score for decision alternativescore for decision alternative j j
8 8 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Step 1: List the criteria (important factors).Step 1: List the criteria (important factors).• Career advancement Career advancement • LocationLocation• ManagementManagement• SalarySalary• PrestigePrestige• Job SecurityJob Security• Enjoyable workEnjoyable work
9 9 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Five-Point Scale Chosen for Step 2Five-Point Scale Chosen for Step 2
ImportanceImportance WeightWeight
Very unimportantVery unimportant 11
Somewhat unimportantSomewhat unimportant 22
Average importanceAverage importance 33
Somewhat importantSomewhat important 44
Very importantVery important 55
10 10 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Step 2: Assign a weight to each criterion.Step 2: Assign a weight to each criterion.
CriterionCriterion ImportanceImportance WeightWeight
Career advancementCareer advancement Very importantVery important 55
LocationLocation Average importanceAverage importance 33
ManagementManagement Somewhat importantSomewhat important 44
SalarySalary Average importanceAverage importance 33
PrestigePrestige Somewhat unimportantSomewhat unimportant 22
Job securityJob security Somewhat importantSomewhat important 44
Enjoyable workEnjoyable work Very importantVery important 55
11 11 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Nine-Point Scale Chosen for Step 3Nine-Point Scale Chosen for Step 3
Level of SatisfactionLevel of Satisfaction RatingRating
Extremely lowExtremely low 11
Very lowVery low 22
LowLow 33
Slightly lowSlightly low 44
AverageAverage 55
Slightly highSlightly high 66
HighHigh 77
Very highVery high 88
Extremely highExtremely high 99
12 12 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Step 3:Step 3: RateRate how well each decision alternative how well each decision alternative satisfies each criterion.satisfies each criterion.
Decision AlternativeDecision Alternative
Analyst AccountantAnalyst Accountant Auditor Auditor
CriterionCriterion ChicagoChicago DenverDenver HoustonHouston
Career advancementCareer advancement 88 66 44
LocationLocation 33 88 77
ManagementManagement 55 66 99
SalarySalary 66 77 55
PrestigePrestige77 55 44
Job securityJob security 44 77 66
Enjoyable workEnjoyable work 88 66 55
13 13 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Step 4: Compute the score for each decision alternative.Step 4: Compute the score for each decision alternative.
Decision Alternative 1Decision Alternative 1 - - Analyst in ChicagoAnalyst in Chicago
CriterionCriterion Weight ( Weight (wwii) Rating () Rating (rrii11) ) wwiirrii11
Career advancementCareer advancement 5 5 x x 8 8 = = 4040
LocationLocation 3 3 3 3 9 9
ManagementManagement 4 4 5 5 2020
SalarySalary 3 3 6 6 1818
PrestigePrestige 2 2 7 7 1414
Job securityJob security 4 4 4 4 1616
Enjoyable workEnjoyable work 5 5 8 8 4040
ScoreScore 157 157
14 14 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Step 4: Compute the score for each decision Step 4: Compute the score for each decision alternative.alternative.
SSjj = = wwii r rijij
II
SS11 = 5(8)+3(3)+4(5)+3(6)+2(7)+4(4)+5(8) = 157 = 5(8)+3(3)+4(5)+3(6)+2(7)+4(4)+5(8) = 157
SS22 = 5(6)+3(8)+4(6)+3(7)+2(5)+4(7)+5(6) = 167 = 5(6)+3(8)+4(6)+3(7)+2(5)+4(7)+5(6) = 167
SS33 = 5(4)+3(7)+4(9)+3(5)+2(4)+4(6)+5(5) = 149 = 5(4)+3(7)+4(9)+3(5)+2(4)+4(6)+5(5) = 149
15 15 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Step 4: Compute the Step 4: Compute the scorescore for each decision for each decision alternative.alternative.
Decision AlternativeDecision Alternative
Analyst AccountantAnalyst Accountant Auditor Auditor
CriterionCriterion ChicagoChicago DenverDenver HoustonHouston
Career advancementCareer advancement 4040 3030 2020
LocationLocation 9 9 2424 2121
ManagementManagement 2020 2424 3636
SalarySalary 1818 2121 1515
PrestigePrestige1414 1010 8 8
Job securityJob security 1616 2828 2424
Enjoyable workEnjoyable work 4040 3030 2525
ScoreScore 157 157 167 167 149 149
16 16 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Step 5:Step 5: Order the decision alternatives from Order the decision alternatives from highest highest score to lowest score. The score to lowest score. The alternative with the alternative with the highest score is the highest score is the recommended alternative.recommended alternative.
• The The accountant position in Denveraccountant position in Denver has the has the highest score and is the highest score and is the recommended decision recommended decision alternativealternative..
• Note that the analyst position in Chicago ranks Note that the analyst position in Chicago ranks first in 4 of 7 criteria compared to only 2 of 7 for first in 4 of 7 criteria compared to only 2 of 7 for the accountant position in Denver.the accountant position in Denver.
• But when the weights of the criteria are But when the weights of the criteria are considered, the Denver position is superior to the considered, the Denver position is superior to the Chicago job.Chicago job.
17 17 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Partial Spreadsheet Showing Steps 1 - 3Partial Spreadsheet Showing Steps 1 - 3
A B C D E1 RATINGS2 Analyst Accountant Auditor3 Criteria Weight Chicago Denver Houston4 Career Advancement 5 8 6 45 Location 3 3 8 76 Management 4 5 6 97 Salary 3 6 7 58 Prestige 2 7 5 49 Job Security 4 4 7 610 Enjoyable Work 5 8 6 5
18 18 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Partial Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Step 4Partial Spreadsheet Showing Formulas for Step 4
11 A B C D E F12 SCORING CALCULATIONS1314 Analyst Accountant Auditor15 Criteria Chicago Denver Houston16 Career Advancement =B4*C4 =B4*D4 =B4*E417 Location =B5*C5 =B5*D5 =B5*E518 Management =B6*C6 =B6*D6 =B6*E619 Salary =B7*C7 =B7*D7 =B7*E720 Prestige =B8*C8 =B8*D8 =B8*E821 Job Security =B9*C9 =B9*D9 =B9*E922 Enjoyable Work =B10*C10 =B10*D10 =B10*E1023 Score =sum(C16:C22)24 =sum(D16:D22)25 =sum(E16:E22)
19 19 Slide
Slide
A Scoring Model for Job SelectionA Scoring Model for Job Selection
Partial Spreadsheet Showing Results of Step 4Partial Spreadsheet Showing Results of Step 4
11 A B C D E12 SCORING CALCULATIONS1314 Analyst Accountant Auditor15 Criteria Chicago Denver Houston16 Career Advancement 40 30 2017 Location 9 24 2118 Management 20 24 3619 Salary 18 21 1520 Prestige 14 10 821 Job Security 16 28 2422 Enjoyable Work 40 30 2523 Score 157 167 149
20 20 Slide
Slide
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessAnalytic Hierarchy Process
The The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), is a , is a procedure designed to quantify managerial procedure designed to quantify managerial judgments of the relative importance of each of judgments of the relative importance of each of several conflicting criteria used in the decision several conflicting criteria used in the decision making process.making process.
21 21 Slide
Slide
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessAnalytic Hierarchy Process
Step 1: List the Overall Goal, Criteria, and Step 1: List the Overall Goal, Criteria, and Decision Decision Alternatives Alternatives
Step 2: Develop a Pairwise Comparison MatrixStep 2: Develop a Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Rate the relative importance between each Rate the relative importance between each pair of decision alternatives. The matrix lists the pair of decision alternatives. The matrix lists the alternatives horizontally and vertically and has the alternatives horizontally and vertically and has the numerical ratings comparing the horizontal (first) numerical ratings comparing the horizontal (first) alternative with the vertical (second) alternative.alternative with the vertical (second) alternative.
Ratings are given as follows:Ratings are given as follows:
. . . continued. . . continued
For each criterion, perform steps 2 through 5For each criterion, perform steps 2 through 5For each criterion, perform steps 2 through 5For each criterion, perform steps 2 through 5
22 22 Slide
Slide
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessAnalytic Hierarchy Process
Step 2: Pairwise Comparison Matrix (continued)Step 2: Pairwise Comparison Matrix (continued)
Compared to the secondCompared to the second
alternative, the first alternative isalternative, the first alternative is: : Numerical Numerical ratingrating
extremely preferred extremely preferred 99
very strongly preferred very strongly preferred 77
strongly preferred strongly preferred 55
moderately preferred moderately preferred 33
equally preferred equally preferred 11
Intermediate numeric ratings of 8, 6, 4, 2 can be Intermediate numeric ratings of 8, 6, 4, 2 can be assigned. A reciprocal rating (i.e. 1/9, 1/8, etc.) is assigned. A reciprocal rating (i.e. 1/9, 1/8, etc.) is assigned when the second alternative is preferred to assigned when the second alternative is preferred to the first. The value of 1 is always assigned when the first. The value of 1 is always assigned when comparing an alternative with itself. comparing an alternative with itself.
23 23 Slide
Slide
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessAnalytic Hierarchy Process
Step 3: Develop a Normalized Matrix Step 3: Develop a Normalized Matrix
Divide each number in a column of the Divide each number in a column of the pairwise comparison matrix by its column sum.pairwise comparison matrix by its column sum.
Step 4: Develop the Priority Vector Step 4: Develop the Priority Vector
Average each row of the normalized Average each row of the normalized matrix. These row averages form the priority matrix. These row averages form the priority vector of alternative preferences with respect vector of alternative preferences with respect to the particular criterion. The values in this to the particular criterion. The values in this vector sum to 1.vector sum to 1.
24 24 Slide
Slide
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessAnalytic Hierarchy Process
Step 5: Calculate a Consistency RatioStep 5: Calculate a Consistency Ratio
The consistency of the subjective input in the The consistency of the subjective input in the pairwise comparison matrix can be measured by pairwise comparison matrix can be measured by calculating a consistency ratio. A consistency ratio of calculating a consistency ratio. A consistency ratio of less than .1 is good. For ratios which are greater less than .1 is good. For ratios which are greater than .1, the subjective input should be re-evaluated.than .1, the subjective input should be re-evaluated.
Step 6: Develop a Priority MatrixStep 6: Develop a Priority Matrix
After steps 2 through 5 has been performed for After steps 2 through 5 has been performed for all criteria, the results of step 4 are summarized in a all criteria, the results of step 4 are summarized in a priority matrix by listing the decision alternatives priority matrix by listing the decision alternatives horizontally and the criteria vertically. The column horizontally and the criteria vertically. The column entries are the priority vectors for each criterion. entries are the priority vectors for each criterion.
25 25 Slide
Slide
Analytic Hierarchy ProcessAnalytic Hierarchy Process
Step 7: Develop a Criteria Pairwise Development Step 7: Develop a Criteria Pairwise Development Matrix Matrix
This is done in the same manner as that This is done in the same manner as that used to construct alternative pairwise used to construct alternative pairwise comparison matrices by using subjective ratings comparison matrices by using subjective ratings (step 2). Similarly, normalize the matrix (step 3) (step 2). Similarly, normalize the matrix (step 3) and develop a criteria priority vector (step 4). and develop a criteria priority vector (step 4).
Step 8: Develop an Overall Priority VectorStep 8: Develop an Overall Priority Vector
Multiply the criteria priority vector (from Multiply the criteria priority vector (from step 7) by the priority matrix (from step 6).step 7) by the priority matrix (from step 6).
26 26 Slide
Slide
Determining the Consistency RatioDetermining the Consistency Ratio
Step 1: Step 1:
For each row of the pairwise comparison For each row of the pairwise comparison matrix, determine a weighted sum by summing matrix, determine a weighted sum by summing the multiples of the entries by the priority of its the multiples of the entries by the priority of its corresponding (column) alternative.corresponding (column) alternative.
Step 2:Step 2:
For each row, divide its weighted sum by For each row, divide its weighted sum by the priority of its corresponding (row) alternative.the priority of its corresponding (row) alternative.
Step 3:Step 3:
Determine the average, Determine the average, maxmax, of the results , of the results of step 2.of step 2.
27 27 Slide
Slide
Determining the Consistency RatioDetermining the Consistency Ratio
Step 4: Step 4:
Compute the consistency index, CI, of the Compute the consistency index, CI, of the nn alternatives by: CI = (alternatives by: CI = (maxmax - - nn)/()/(nn - 1). - 1).
Step 5:Step 5:
Determine the random index, RI, as follows:Determine the random index, RI, as follows:
Number of RandomNumber of Random Number of RandomNumber of Random
Alternative (Alternative (nn)) Index (RI)Index (RI) Alternative (Alternative (nn)) Index (RI)Index (RI)
3 0.583 0.58 6 6 1.24 1.24
4 0.904 0.90 7 7 1.32 1.32
5 1.125 1.12 8 8 1.41 1.41 Step 6:Step 6:
Determine the consistency ratio, CR, as follows:Determine the consistency ratio, CR, as follows:
CR = CR/RI.CR = CR/RI.
28 28 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Designer Gill Glass must decide which of Designer Gill Glass must decide which of three manufacturers will develop his "signature" three manufacturers will develop his "signature" toothbrushes. Three factors seem important to toothbrushes. Three factors seem important to Gill: (1) his costs; (2) reliability of the product; and, Gill: (1) his costs; (2) reliability of the product; and, (3) delivery time of the orders.(3) delivery time of the orders.
The three manufacturers are Cornell The three manufacturers are Cornell Industries, Brush Pik, and Picobuy. Cornell Industries, Brush Pik, and Picobuy. Cornell Industries will sell toothbrushes to Gill Glass for Industries will sell toothbrushes to Gill Glass for $100 per gross, Brush Pik for $80 per gross, and $100 per gross, Brush Pik for $80 per gross, and Picobuy for $144 per gross. Gill has decided that in Picobuy for $144 per gross. Gill has decided that in terms of terms of priceprice, Brush Pik is moderately preferred to , Brush Pik is moderately preferred to Cornell and very strongly preferred to Picobuy. In Cornell and very strongly preferred to Picobuy. In turn Cornell is strongly to very strongly preferred to turn Cornell is strongly to very strongly preferred to Picobuy.Picobuy.
29 29 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Hierarchy for the Manufacturer Selection ProblemHierarchy for the Manufacturer Selection Problem
Select the Best Toothbrush Manufacturer
Cost Reliability Delivery Time
CornellBrush PikPicobuy
CornellBrush PikPicobuy
CornellBrush PikPicobuy
Overall Goal
Criteria
DecisionAlternatives
30 30 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Forming the Pairwise Comparison Matrix For CostForming the Pairwise Comparison Matrix For Cost• Since Brush Pik is moderately preferred to Since Brush Pik is moderately preferred to
Cornell, Cornell's entry in the Brush Pik row is Cornell, Cornell's entry in the Brush Pik row is 3 and Brush Pik's entry in the Cornell row is 3 and Brush Pik's entry in the Cornell row is 1/3.1/3.
• Since Brush Pik is very strongly preferred to Since Brush Pik is very strongly preferred to Picobuy, Picobuy's entry in the Brush Pik row Picobuy, Picobuy's entry in the Brush Pik row is 7 and Brush Pik's entry in the Picobuy row is is 7 and Brush Pik's entry in the Picobuy row is 1/7.1/7.
• Since Cornell is strongly to very strongly Since Cornell is strongly to very strongly preferred to Picobuy, Picobuy's entry in the preferred to Picobuy, Picobuy's entry in the Cornell row is 6 and Cornell's entry in the Cornell row is 6 and Cornell's entry in the Picobuy row is 1/6.Picobuy row is 1/6.
31 31 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Pairwise Comparison Matrix for CostPairwise Comparison Matrix for Cost
Cornell Brush Pik PicobuyCornell Brush Pik Picobuy
CornellCornell 1 1/3 1 1/3 6 6
Brush PikBrush Pik 3 3 1 1 7 7
PicobuyPicobuy 1/6 1/6 1/7 1/7 1 1
32 32 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Normalized Matrix for CostNormalized Matrix for Cost
Divide each entry in the pairwise Divide each entry in the pairwise comparison matrix by its corresponding column comparison matrix by its corresponding column sum. For example, for Cornell the column sum = sum. For example, for Cornell the column sum = 1 + 3 + 1/6 = 25/6. This gives:1 + 3 + 1/6 = 25/6. This gives:
Cornell Brush Pik PicobuyCornell Brush Pik Picobuy
CornellCornell 6/25 7/31 6/25 7/31 6/14 6/14
Brush PikBrush Pik 18/25 21/31 18/25 21/31 7/14 7/14
PicobuyPicobuy 1/25 3/31 1/25 3/31 1/14 1/14
33 33 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Priority Vector For CostPriority Vector For Cost
The priority vector is determined by The priority vector is determined by averaging the row entries in the normalized averaging the row entries in the normalized matrix. Converting to decimals we get:matrix. Converting to decimals we get:
Cornell: ( 6/25 + 7/31 + 6/14)/3 Cornell: ( 6/25 + 7/31 + 6/14)/3 = .298 = .298
Brush Pik: (18/25 + 21/31 + 7/14)/3 Brush Pik: (18/25 + 21/31 + 7/14)/3 = .632 = .632
Picobuy: ( 1/25 + 3/31 + 1/14)/3 Picobuy: ( 1/25 + 3/31 + 1/14)/3 = .069 = .069
34 34 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Checking ConsistencyChecking Consistency• Multiply each column of the pairwise comparison Multiply each column of the pairwise comparison
matrix by its priority:matrix by its priority:
1 1/3 6 .923 1 1/3 6 .923
.298 3 + .632 1 + .069 7 = .298 3 + .632 1 + .069 7 = 2.009 2.009
1/6 1/7 1 .209 1/6 1/7 1 .209 • Divide these number by their priorities to get:Divide these number by their priorities to get:
.923/.298 = 3.097.923/.298 = 3.097
2.009/.632 = 3.1792.009/.632 = 3.179
.209/.069 = 3.029.209/.069 = 3.029
35 35 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Checking ConsistencyChecking Consistency
• Average the above results to get Average the above results to get maxmax..
maxmax = (3.097 + 3.179 + 3.029)/3 = 3.102 = (3.097 + 3.179 + 3.029)/3 = 3.102
• Compute the consistence index, CI, for two terms Compute the consistence index, CI, for two terms by:by:
CI = (CI = (maxmax - - nn)/()/(nn - 1) = (3.102 - 3)/2 = .051 - 1) = (3.102 - 3)/2 = .051
• Compute the consistency ratio, CR, by CI/RI, Compute the consistency ratio, CR, by CI/RI, where RI = .58 for 3 factors:where RI = .58 for 3 factors:
CR = CI/RI = .051/.58 = .088CR = CI/RI = .051/.58 = .088
Since the consistency ratio, CR, is less than .10, this Since the consistency ratio, CR, is less than .10, this is well within the acceptable range for consistency. is well within the acceptable range for consistency.
36 36 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Gill Glass has determined that for Gill Glass has determined that for reliabilityreliability, Cornell is very strongly preferable to , Cornell is very strongly preferable to Brush Pik and equally preferable to Picobuy. Brush Pik and equally preferable to Picobuy. Also, Picobuy is strongly preferable to Brush Pik.Also, Picobuy is strongly preferable to Brush Pik.
37 37 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Pairwise Comparison Matrix for ReliabilityPairwise Comparison Matrix for Reliability
Cornell Brush Pik PicobuyCornell Brush Pik Picobuy
CornellCornell 1 7 1 7 2 2
Brush PikBrush Pik 1/7 1/7 1 1 5 5
PicobuyPicobuy 1/2 1/2 1/5 1/5 1 1
38 38 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Normalized Matrix for ReliabilityNormalized Matrix for Reliability
Divide each entry in the pairwise Divide each entry in the pairwise comparison matrix by its corresponding column comparison matrix by its corresponding column sum. For example, for Cornell the column sum = sum. For example, for Cornell the column sum = 1 + 1/7 + 1/2 = 23/14. This gives:1 + 1/7 + 1/2 = 23/14. This gives:
Cornell Brush Pik PicobuyCornell Brush Pik Picobuy
CornellCornell 14/23 35/41 14/23 35/41 2/8 2/8
Brush PikBrush Pik 2/23 5/41 2/23 5/41 5/8 5/8
PicobuyPicobuy 7/23 1/41 7/23 1/41 1/8 1/8
39 39 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Priority Vector For ReliabilityPriority Vector For Reliability
The priority vector is determined by averaging The priority vector is determined by averaging the row entries in the normalized matrix. Converting the row entries in the normalized matrix. Converting to decimals we get:to decimals we get:
Cornell: (14/23 + 35/41 + 2/8)/3 = .571 Cornell: (14/23 + 35/41 + 2/8)/3 = .571
Brush Pik: ( 2/23 + 5/41 + 5/8)/3 = .278 Brush Pik: ( 2/23 + 5/41 + 5/8)/3 = .278
Picobuy: ( 7/23 + 1/41 + 1/8)/3 = .151 Picobuy: ( 7/23 + 1/41 + 1/8)/3 = .151
Checking ConsistencyChecking Consistency
Gill Glass’ responses to reliability could be Gill Glass’ responses to reliability could be checked for consistency in the same manner as was checked for consistency in the same manner as was cost.cost.
40 40 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Gill Glass has determined that for Gill Glass has determined that for delivery delivery timetime, Cornell is equally preferable to Picobuy. , Cornell is equally preferable to Picobuy. Both Cornell and Picobuy are very strongly to Both Cornell and Picobuy are very strongly to extremely preferable to Brush Pik.extremely preferable to Brush Pik.
41 41 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Pairwise Comparison Matrix for Delivery TimePairwise Comparison Matrix for Delivery Time
Cornell Brush Pik PicobuyCornell Brush Pik Picobuy
CornellCornell 1 8 1 8 1 1
Brush PikBrush Pik 1/8 1/8 1 1 1/8 1/8
PicobuyPicobuy 1 1 8 8 1 1
42 42 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Normalized Matrix for Delivery TimeNormalized Matrix for Delivery Time
Divide each entry in the pairwise Divide each entry in the pairwise comparison matrix by its corresponding column comparison matrix by its corresponding column sum. sum.
Cornell Brush Pik PicobuyCornell Brush Pik Picobuy
CornellCornell 8/17 8/17 8/17 8/17 8/17 8/17
Brush PikBrush Pik 1/17 1/17 1/17 1/17 1/17 1/17
PicobuyPicobuy 8/17 8/17 8/17 8/17 8/17 8/17
43 43 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Priority Vector For Delivery TimePriority Vector For Delivery Time
The priority vector is determined by averaging The priority vector is determined by averaging the row entries in the normalized matrix. the row entries in the normalized matrix. Converting to decimals we get:Converting to decimals we get:
Cornell: (8/17 + 8/17 + 8/17)/3 = .471 Cornell: (8/17 + 8/17 + 8/17)/3 = .471
Brush Pik: (1/17 + 1/17 + 1/17)/3 = .059 Brush Pik: (1/17 + 1/17 + 1/17)/3 = .059
Picobuy: (8/17 + 8/17 + 8/17)/3 = .471 Picobuy: (8/17 + 8/17 + 8/17)/3 = .471
Checking ConsistencyChecking Consistency
Gill Glass’ responses to delivery time could be Gill Glass’ responses to delivery time could be checked for consistency in the same manner as was checked for consistency in the same manner as was cost.cost.
44 44 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
The accounting department has The accounting department has determined that in terms of determined that in terms of criteriacriteria, cost is , cost is extremely preferable to delivery time and very extremely preferable to delivery time and very strongly preferable to reliability, and that strongly preferable to reliability, and that reliability is very strongly preferable to delivery reliability is very strongly preferable to delivery time.time.
45 45 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Pairwise Comparison Matrix for CriteriaPairwise Comparison Matrix for Criteria
Cost Reliability DeliveryCost Reliability Delivery
CostCost 1 7 1 7 9 9
ReliabilityReliability 1/7 1/7 1 1 7 7
DeliveryDelivery 1/9 1/9 1/7 1/7 1 1
46 46 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Normalized Matrix for CriteriaNormalized Matrix for Criteria
Divide each entry in the pairwise Divide each entry in the pairwise comparison matrix by its corresponding column comparison matrix by its corresponding column sum. sum.
Cost Reliability DeliveryCost Reliability Delivery
CostCost 63/79 49/57 63/79 49/57 9/17 9/17
ReliabilityReliability 9/79 7/57 9/79 7/57 7/17 7/17
DeliveryDelivery 7/79 1/57 7/79 1/57 1/17 1/17
47 47 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Priority Vector For CriteriaPriority Vector For Criteria
The priority vector is determined by The priority vector is determined by averaging the row entries in the normalized averaging the row entries in the normalized matrix. Converting to decimals we get:matrix. Converting to decimals we get:
Cost: Cost: (63/79 + 49/57 + 9/17)/3 (63/79 + 49/57 + 9/17)/3 = .729 = .729
Reliability: Reliability: ( 9/79 + 7/57 + 7/17)/3 ( 9/79 + 7/57 + 7/17)/3 = .216 = .216
Delivery: Delivery: ( 7/79 + 1/57 + 1/17)/3 ( 7/79 + 1/57 + 1/17)/3 = .055= .055
48 48 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Overall Priority VectorOverall Priority Vector
The overall priorities are determined by The overall priorities are determined by multiplying the priority vector of the criteria by multiplying the priority vector of the criteria by the priorities for each decision alternative for the priorities for each decision alternative for each objective.each objective.
Priority VectorPriority Vector
for Criteriafor Criteria [ .729 .216 [ .729 .216 .055 ] .055 ]
Cost Reliability DeliveryCost Reliability Delivery
Cornell Cornell .298 .571 .298 .571 .471 .471
Brush PikBrush Pik .632 .278 .632 .278 .059 .059
PicobuyPicobuy .069 .151 .069 .151 .471 .471
49 49 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Overall Priority Vector (continued)Overall Priority Vector (continued)
Thus, the overall priority vector is:Thus, the overall priority vector is:
Cornell:Cornell: (.729)(.298) + (.216)(.571) + (.055)(.729)(.298) + (.216)(.571) + (.055)(.471) = .366(.471) = .366
Brush Pik: (.729)(.632) + (.216)(.278) + (.055)Brush Pik: (.729)(.632) + (.216)(.278) + (.055)(.059) = .524(.059) = .524
Picobuy: (.729)(.069) + (.216)(.151) + (.055)Picobuy: (.729)(.069) + (.216)(.151) + (.055)(.471) = .109(.471) = .109
Brush Pik appears to be the overall Brush Pik appears to be the overall recommendation.recommendation.
50 50 Slide
Slide
Example: Gill GlassExample: Gill Glass
Spreadsheet LayoutSpreadsheet Layout
Pairwise Compar. Normalized Pairwise Compar. Normalized Wgt. Wgt. Consist.Consist.
MatricesMatrices MatricesMatrices PriorityPriority SumSum Meas.Meas.
Prior. SummaryPrior. Summary Overall Prior. Overall Prior.
Criteria (3x3)
Cost (3x3)
Reliability (3x3)
Deliv. Time (3x3)
Criteria (3x3)
(3x3)
Cost (3x3)
Reliability (3x3)
Deliv. Time (3x3)
(3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)
Consist. Ratio
Consist. Ratio
Consist. Ratio
Consist. Ratio
(3x1) (3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)
(3x1)