By -




W4_Eman_Using Multiattribute Decision Making with Compensatory and Non-Compensatory Model for Supply OF TARIFF METERS.




1.    Problem Definition

In our sector, the Electrical Energy meters are very important, because it is the basis of our payment to the Power Plant (Generators). To insure it is the right meter to be installed in the plant. I will use Non-Compensatory Model and compare which one is better and fit.

2.    Identify the Feasible Alternative

We are looking at 3 alternatives in the supply of tariff meters for the Energy in Oman market:

1.    Endress+Hauser

2.    SIEMENS

3.    EMERSON

Multiattribute Decision Making with Non-Compensatory Model will be made to choose the meters supply option in one of our Power Plant. 

3.    Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Comparative analysis is conducted for each proposed alternative to see the impact of cost, reliability, efficiency, and availability.

Below on Tabel-1 is the comparison for alternative:


Tabel-1 Data Alternative

Parameters
Energy Meters Alternatives
Endress+Hauser
(Alternative A)
SIEMENS
(Alternative B)
EMERSON
(Alternative C)
Reliability
Medium
High
Medium
Cost
2600,13 USD
4420,22 USD
3900,20 USD
Efficiency
Low
High
Medium
Availability
Within 4 months
Within 3 months or less
Within 2 months



to summary information on table-1 and make a paired comparison all attributes must be inspected, it shown and describe on tabel-2

Tabel-2 Checking Pairwise Comparisons of each attributes

Parameters
Energy Meters Alternatives
Endress+Hauser
(Alternative A)
SIEMENS
(Alternative B)
EMERSON
(Alternative C)
Reliability
Medium
High
Medium
Cost
2600,13 USD
4420,22 USD
3900,20 USD
Efficiency
Low
High
Medium
Availability
Within 4 months
Within 3 months or less
Within 2 months
    
Best Value
Worst Value
 We decided: High › Medium › Low, it means High is more preferred. (only for Efficiency and Reliability.
We decided: Low › Medium › High, it means Low is more preferred. (only for Availability and Cost)

After that we do satisficing for checking dominance among alternatives, it shown on tabel-2.

Tabel-3 Check for Dominance Among Alternatives

Attribute
Check for Dominance Among Alternatives
Alt. A vs Alt. B
Alt. A vs Alt. C
Alt. B vs Alt. C
Reliability
Worst
Equal  
Better
Cost
Better
Better
Worst
Efficiency
Worst
Worst
Better
Availability
Worst
Worst
Worst
Dominance
No
No
Yes



4.    Selection Criteria


Alternative with highest dimensionless value will be selected 


5.    Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative



Next step is analyzing by ordinal ranking of attributes, it shown on tabel-4

Tabel-4 Ordinal Ranking of Attributes

Result of Pairwise Comparisons

Reliability › Availability
Reliability is more impotent than Availability
Cost › Efficiency
Cost is more important than Efficiency
Efficiency › Reliability
Efficiency is more important than Reliability
Efficiency › Availability
Efficiency is more important than Availability



Attributes
Ranking
Reliability
3
Cost
2
Efficiency
4
Availability
1



By using Lexicography technic, we can define which selection is the best and fit, it shown on Tabel-5.



Tabel-5 Application of Lexicography

Attributes
Ranking
Alternative Ranking
Reliability
3
B › C › A
Cost
2
A › C › B
Efficiency
4
B › C › A
Availability
1
C › B › A



Regarding to Tabel-5 it can explain alternative B (SIEMENS) can be choose as the best option as Efficiency basis. if alternative C can enhance Efficiency, it can be chosen because Cost as basis.



6.    Selection of the Preferred Alternative

By using 2 technics Compensatory and Non-Compensatory Model it’s shown Alternative B or Using SIEMENS is preferred to choose.



7.     Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

It is recommended to see the market and the updates in technology very often and do the same analysis and see the result.



References



1.    Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., &Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes., pp.559-608.



2.    Decision Making Considering MultiAttributes (2015, March). Retrived from : https://garudaaace2015.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/w3_hi_decision-making-considering-multi-attributes/







Comments

  1. Dr. PDGNovember 21, 2017 at 5:20 AM

    AWESOME Eman... (But are you SURE that "Reliability is more impotent than Availability"??) Better check that one out again..... ;-)

    Really you did a great job on this analysis. Looking forward to seeing your COMPENSATORY example, with the note to be sure to compare what kinds of SCALES each of these methods produces http://www.mnestudies.com/research/types-measurement-scales and what does that mean about how you can use each method to the fullest?

    BR,
    Dr. PDG Jakarta

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W1_Thuraiya_Leadership Styles analysis Using Tuckman model

By -
Image
1-       Problem Recognition:          OPWP PMP team are currently at the stage of distance learning in the PMP course. The     team consist of 13 members and has started course from 29 th Oct and we’re aiming to be certified no later than 25 th Mar . During the current stage, every individual must submit a weekly blog related to a real work issue faced in the organization to determine the causes and the solutions. In  first blog Dr. Paul has requested  to measure the team development and behavior using   Tuckman’s Model. To insure the success of every project the  members must  understand the goals and the roles of each one to collaborate to achieve their goals. Further the team leader must understand his team behavior to know the most optimum leadership style must be adopted while managing the project.  2-      Identify the Feasible Alternative Tuckman model was established 5 decades ago. The model is dividing team behaviors into 4 stages the figure below
Read more
By -
Image
W1__Hamda__Tuckman Analysis Assignment__ 1-        Problem Definition After completion the first stage in PMP course which was conducted in Muscat from 29 th of October 2017 to 2 nd of November 2017 which was Face to Face stage, and following the formation of the OPWP-PMP team during this stage, the team is starting the second stage in this program which is the Distance Learning. Weekly Blog is one of the tasks in this stage. The first topic of the first weekly blog is suggested by Dr.Paul which is using Tuckman’s Model to know in which phase of this model the team is operated in and which style of leadership should be adopted in order to develop the team to achieve its goals. 2-        Identify the Feasible Alternative The Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing model of group development was first proposed by Bruce Tuckman in 1965 who maintained that these phases are all necessary in order to develop the team, to face up any challenges, to find the suitable
Read more

W1_MA_Tuckman Analysis Assignment

By -
Image
Problem Definition Bruce Tuckman model used to identify the team status and the development phase of the project team. As the team go through these phases, different strategies should be implemented by the team leader and managers. This assessment will provide enough information for the team leader and even for the team members that would give a good understand the team performance.   Identify the Feasible Alternative There were 4 stages model of "forming, storming, norming, and performing" introduced by Bruce Tuckman in 1965. However, a fifth stage was added “adjourning” which describe the phase that the team go through after the achievement of project tasks and completion of the project. Figure 1 , development stages [2] In each phase, the leadership style should be in alignment with that specific phase which enhance the development of the team and improve the performance of the team as well. There are different styles that could be used by the team le
Read more