Logical Decisions - Classweb
Logical Decisions - Classweb Logical Decisions - Classweb
similar but more complicated if the goal has a multiplicative MUF formula. You can use representatives in all the weight assessment methods except the smarter method and the direct entry method. The AHP method has a tradition of not using representatives, while representatives are often used in the tradeoff and pairwise weight ratios methods. Formulas for MUFs The simplest MUFs compute an alternative's utility for a goal using a weighted average. These are called additive MUFs, since the weighted utilities for each active member are added to obtain the goal utility. LDW allows you to define more complicated MUF formulas that allow interactions if necessary. MUFs with interactions will be discussed on page 9-55. Approaches for Assessing MUFs To define an additive MUF, you must define a scaling constant (or weight) for each measure. Four general approaches have been developed for doing this. The first approach is to have the decision maker directly provide the scaling constants. The second approach is to have the decision maker order the active members from most to least important. The third approach is to have the decision maker provide "importance ratios" that imply the ratios of the weights for two or more active members. The fourth approach is to compute the scaling constants using pairs of simplified alternatives that the decision maker prefers equally. Because the decision maker prefers the alternatives equally, they should have equal overall utilities. If you define enough pairs, LDW can identify a unique set of weights -- the weights that result in all the pairs having equal overall utilities. LDW provides five different assessment methods that let you carry out these approaches: ! You can directly enter the scaling constants, 9-36 Section 9 -- In Depth
! You can use the "Smarter Method" to have LDW compute weights based on your ordering of the importances of the active members, ! You can use the "Smart Method" to have LDW compute the weights on "swing weights," ! You can define "Tradeoffs" between pairs of active members that LDW helps you select, ! You can define the "Weight Ratios" between pairs of active members, or ! You can use the "Analytic Hierarchy Process." The smarter method uses the importance ordering approach. The smart, weight ratios and analytic hierarchy process methods use the importance ratios approach. The tradeoff method uses the comparisons of alternatives approach. The direct entry method, of course, carries out the direct entry approach. However, you can also interpret the directly entered scaling constants as probabilities that partially define pairs of equally preferred alternatives. This interpretation is discussed further below. The importance ordering, importance ratios and alternative comparisons approaches are all discussed in more detail below. Assessing Weights Using Importance Orderings The "Smarter" method lets you define the weights for the active members using a simple ordering of their relative importances. The method is very easy for decision makers to use and results in a fairly robust set of weights. The Smarter method is often a good starting point before using a more sophisticated method. When using the smarter method, you can encourage the decision maker to think about the member's ranges by providing the following scenario: Suppose you had an alternative that had the least preferred level on all of the active members. And further suppose that you could improve just one active measure from its least preferred to its most preferred level. Which active member would you choose to improve. Section 9 -- In Depth 9-37
- Page 231 and 232: analysis with the skeleton analysis
- Page 233 and 234: Figure 8-55. Dialog box for File::I
- Page 235 and 236: the other measures. The measure nam
- Page 237 and 238: The idea of the Import Structure op
- Page 239 and 240: Next, LDW asks you if it should app
- Page 241 and 242: Other Options utility function for
- Page 243: In addition, the Window menu contai
- Page 247 and 248: In Depth Introduction This section
- Page 249 and 250: A third example is a portfolio deci
- Page 251 and 252: Each alternative has a raw score (c
- Page 253 and 254: into more specific goals continues
- Page 255 and 256: Measures in LDW You define measures
- Page 257 and 258: computed measure levels to common u
- Page 259 and 260: Converting the Measures to Common U
- Page 261 and 262: Figure 9-2. Example of linear (stra
- Page 263 and 264: For an example of the mid-level spl
- Page 265 and 266: Since U(L0) = U(80) = 0 and U(L1) =
- Page 267 and 268: Figure 9-5. Summary of SUF assessme
- Page 269 and 270: describe two alternatives: A, which
- Page 271 and 272: with equal chances of 40 and 70 per
- Page 273 and 274: In the original formulation of the
- Page 275 and 276: 1 Equal Importance Two activities c
- Page 277 and 278: You begin the process by selecting
- Page 279 and 280: Figure 9-7. Effects of goals with a
- Page 281: 0.5. Then the weight assigned to "P
- Page 285 and 286: allocates this weight before comput
- Page 287 and 288: nth root of the product of the rati
- Page 289 and 290: Figure 9-8. Summary of estimating t
- Page 291 and 292: on the decision maker's response, L
- Page 293 and 294: Figure 9-10. MUF assessment figure
- Page 295 and 296: Now think of adjusting P so that th
- Page 297 and 298: Another approach is to use the rang
- Page 299 and 300: Figure 9-12. Quantitative range vs.
- Page 301 and 302: If a measure’s range changes, LDW
- Page 303 and 304: Figure 9-14 is an example of the ov
- Page 305 and 306: Similarly, a single member can have
- Page 307 and 308: chance having 160 hp (the most pref
- Page 309 and 310: A probability of less than 0.5 for
- Page 311 and 312: Interpreting the Ranking Results LD
- Page 313: S E C T I O N Examples 10
- Page 316 and 317: the idea that other manufactures an
- Page 318 and 319: The completed goals hierarchy is sh
- Page 320 and 321: Buying a House The ranking results
- Page 322 and 323: Figure 10-5. Goals hierarchy for bu
- Page 324 and 325: Overall goal Quality goal Costs goa
- Page 326 and 327: The preference assessments were don
- Page 328 and 329: Figure 10-9. Goals hierarchy for re
- Page 330 and 331: ! Noise, ! Agricultural Impacts, an
! You can use the "Smarter Method" to have LDW<br />
compute weights based on your ordering of the<br />
importances of the active members,<br />
! You can use the "Smart Method" to have LDW compute<br />
the weights on "swing weights,"<br />
! You can define "Tradeoffs" between pairs of active<br />
members that LDW helps you select,<br />
! You can define the "Weight Ratios" between pairs of<br />
active members, or<br />
! You can use the "Analytic Hierarchy Process."<br />
The smarter method uses the importance ordering approach. The<br />
smart, weight ratios and analytic hierarchy process methods use<br />
the importance ratios approach. The tradeoff method uses the<br />
comparisons of alternatives approach.<br />
The direct entry method, of course, carries out the direct entry<br />
approach. However, you can also interpret the directly entered<br />
scaling constants as probabilities that partially define pairs of<br />
equally preferred alternatives. This interpretation is discussed<br />
further below.<br />
The importance ordering, importance ratios and alternative<br />
comparisons approaches are all discussed in more detail below.<br />
Assessing Weights Using Importance Orderings<br />
The "Smarter" method lets you define the weights for the active<br />
members using a simple ordering of their relative importances.<br />
The method is very easy for decision makers to use and results in<br />
a fairly robust set of weights. The Smarter method is often a good<br />
starting point before using a more sophisticated method.<br />
When using the smarter method, you can encourage the decision<br />
maker to think about the member's ranges by providing the<br />
following scenario:<br />
Suppose you had an alternative that had the least<br />
preferred level on all of the active members. And further<br />
suppose that you could improve just one active measure<br />
from its least preferred to its most preferred level. Which<br />
active member would you choose to improve.<br />
Section 9 -- In Depth 9-37