Downloadable - About University

336 Resource allocation and negotiation problems
100
75
50
25
0
East
region
Best strategy
Worst strategy
100
50
0
West
region
Best strategy
Worst strategy
Figure 13.2 – A comparison of the East and West regions’ value scales for market share
For short-term profit the weights were calculated directly from the
group’s original monetary estimates. Thus the largest swing between
the worst and best short-term profits offered by the different strategies
was in the East (a difference of $33 million) and this swing was allocated
a weight of 100. The swing between the worst and best level of profits
in the North was only $9 million. Since this was only 27.3% of the
largest swing (i.e. 9/33 × 100) the within-criterion weight allocated to
short-term profits in the North was 27.3. The other profit weights were
calculated in a similar way.
For the other benefits the within-criterion weights were elicited using
a different approach. In the case of ‘Market share’, for example, the
group was asked to imagine the package which would have the least
desirable effect on market share. This would be the package which
involved reducing the operation in the North to three outlets, closing
down the operation in the West and maintaining the status quo in the
other regions. They were then asked: if they could choose to change
just one of the strategies in this package, which change would lead
to the greatest improvement in market share? After some debate, the
group thought that this improvement would be achieved if a switch was