02.03.2013 Views

Downloadable - About University

Downloadable - About University

Downloadable - About University

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

The main stages of the analysis 339<br />

Weight<br />

100<br />

0<br />

30<br />

Profit<br />

100<br />

Market<br />

share<br />

50<br />

Risk<br />

Profit<br />

0.167<br />

Normalized weights<br />

Market share<br />

0.556<br />

Risk<br />

0.278<br />

Figure 13.4 – The across-criteria weights for the furniture company problem<br />

each of the other benefit scales. The resulting weights are known as the<br />

across-criteria weights.<br />

To derive the weights (which are shown in Figure 13.4) the facilitator<br />

looked for a region where a benefit had a within-criterion weight of 100,<br />

since this would show where there was the largest swing from the best<br />

to the worst position for that benefit. In fact, in this case all three benefits<br />

have their biggest swing in the East region (see Figure 13.3). He therefore<br />

asked the group to consider this region and asked them to imagine a<br />

strategy which offered the worst short-term profit (−$30 million), the<br />

poorest prospect for expanding market share and the highest (i.e. least<br />

desirable) level of risk. The managers were then asked: if they could<br />

change just one of these benefits to its best possible value, which would<br />

they choose? The group were unanimous that they would be most<br />

concerned to move to the best possible value for market share. This<br />

benefit was therefore given an across-criteria weight of 100.<br />

The group’s second choice was to move to the best possible position<br />

for risk. In fact, a move from the most risky to the least risky position<br />

was regarded as only 50% as important as the swing from the worst to<br />

the best market share position. ‘Risk’ was therefore allocated a weight<br />

of 50. A move from the lowest to the highest short-term profit (i.e. a<br />

move from −$30 million to $3 million) was the least preferred out of the<br />

possible swings and, after some discussion, this benefit was assigned a<br />

weight of 30. The three across-criteria weights were then normalized (see<br />

Chapter 3) and these normalized weights are also shown in Figure 13.4.<br />

Identifying the costs and benefits of the packages<br />

It was now possible to identify the overall benefits and costs of any of<br />

the packages. At this point the group were asked to propose a package

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!