W1_Thuraiya_Leadership Styles analysis Using Tuckman model

W8 _ Nasser_ Selecting the best 3 Methods for Calculating Fuel Oil Price (FOP) using MADM - Additive Weighting technique 

1.     Problem Definition

http://pmpopwp.blogspot.com/2017/12/w6nasser-selecting-best-3-optional.html

In W6 Blog, visit above link titled “Selecting the best 3 Optional Methodologies for Calculating Fuel Oil Price (FOP) of an Invoice”, I conducted Multi Attributes Decision Making (MADM) for comparing between 6 options for getting the FOP in RO/GJ. Accordingly, the 3 Options were selected using a straight forward Grid Analysis methodology.

This time, I am re-analyzing similar case and verify if I will get similar results applying Compensatory Model – Relative Weighting and Additive Weighting after turning each attribute/ criterion into a base 1 – scoring module Multi Attributes Decision Making (MADM).

2.     Identify the Feasible Alternative

-         Option 1: Diesel Price Billed in RO/GJ

-         Option 2: Diesel Price Billed in RO/MMBTU

-         Option 3: Diesel Price Billed in RO/Litter with (LHV & Density) at Act filled FO temp is available

-         Option 4: Diesel Price Billed in RO/Litter with (LHV & Density) at 15◦C of filled FO temp)

-         Option 5: Diesel Price Billed in RO/Litter without (LHV & Density) at Act filled FO temp available

-         Option 6: Diesel Price Billed in RO/Litter without (LHV & Density) at 15◦C of filled FO temp

3.     Development of the Outcome for Alternatives:

Sr.N	Attributes	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4	Option 5	Option 6
1	FOP in RO/GJ comes From FO Supplier	Yes	Energy conversion from MMBTU to GJ is required 1MMBTU=0.947817 GJ	calculated directly from a given LHV & Density	Calculated from a given LHV & corrected Density	Calculated from Lab Test result of LHV & given density	Calculated from Lab Test result LHV & corrected Density
2	Time Consumed Generator & OPWP to get the FOP in RO/GJ	Strongly None	Strongly None	Almost None	Requires much time	Requires some time	Requires much time
3	Cost incurred by OPWP to get the FOP in RO/GJ (estimated by time lost = 30$/hr)	None	None	None	30 $	15 $	30 $
4	Cost incurred by Generator to get the FOP in RO/GJ	None	None	None	Cost of time required to get actual temp of fuel filled	Cost for Lab test per fill	Cost for Lab test per fill + Cost of time required to get actual temp of fuel
5	3rd Party Cost for Lab Test to find out LHV & Density	Not required	Not required	Not required	Not required	Cost for Lab test per fill	Cost for Lab test per fill
6	Quality & accuracy of results	much Accurate	Much Accurate	Much Accurate	Less accurate	accurate	Less accurate
7	Frequency of repeating the process	Every fill	Every fill	Every fill	Every fill	Every fill	Every fill
8	Process complication	ZERO complication	ZERO complication	ZERO complication	High complication	complicated	High complication
9	Easy Tracking & Documentation	Strongly Yes	Strongly Yes	Strongly Yes	May lead for poor tracking	Can be tracked	May lead for poor tracking
10	Risk of Error to happen	Negligible	Negligible	Negligible	High risky	Medium risk	High risky

Table1: Development of the Outcome for the Alternatives (by the author)

4.     Selection Criteria:

The following selecting criteria, as shown in Tables 2 to 11, will be considered:

Criteria 1
FOP in RO/GJ comes From FO Supplier
Yes	5
Energy conversion from MMBTU to GJ is required 1MMBTU=0.947817 GJ	4
calculated directly from a given LHV & Density	4
Calculated from a given LHV & corrected Density	2
Calculated from Lab Test result of LHV & given LHV	3
Calculated from Lab Test result LHV & corrected Density	1

Table2: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 1 (by the author)

Criteria 2
Time Consumed Generator & OPWP to get the FOP in RO/GJ
Strongly None	4
Almost None	3
Requires much time	1
Requires some time	2

Table3: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 2 (by the author)

Criteria 3
Cost incurred by OPWP to get the FOP in RO/GJ (estimated by time lost = 30$/hr )
None	3
30 $	1
15 $	2

Table4: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 3 (by the author)

Criteria 4
Cost incurred by Generator to get the FOP in RO/GJ
None	4
Cost of time required to get actual temp of fuel filled	3
Cost for Lab test per fill	2
Cost for Lab test per fill + Cost of time required to get actual temp of fuel	1

Table5: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 4 (by the author)

Criteria 5
3rd Party Cost for Lab Test to find out LHV & Density
Not required	2
Cost for Lab test per fill	1

Table6: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 5 (by the author)

Criteria 6
Quality & accuracy of results
much Accurate	3
Less accurate	1
accurate	2

Table7: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 6 (by the author)

Criteria 7
Frequency of repeating the process
Every fill	1

Table8: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 7 (by the author)

Criteria 8
Process complication
ZERO complication	3
High complication	1
complicated	2

Table9: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 8 (by the author)

Criteria 9
Easy for Tracking & Documentation
Strongly Yes	3
May lead for poor tracking	1
Can be tracked	2

Table10: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 9 (by the author)

Criteria 10
Risk of Error to happen
Negligible	3
High risky	1
Medium risk	2

Table11: Compensatory Model – Relative weighting for Criteria 10 (by the author)

5.     Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative:

applying Compensatory Model – Relative Weighting and Additive Weighting after turning each attribute/ criterion into a base 1 – scoring module, the following results were found as shown in the below Table:

Attributes	Value	Formula	Dimensionless Value
Criteria 1	5	(5-1)/(5-1)	1
	4	(4-1)/(5-1)	0.75
	4	(4-1)/(5-1)	0.75
	2	(2-1)/(5-1)	0.25
	3	(3-1)/(5-1)	0.5
	1	(1-1)/(5-1)	0
Criteria 2	4	(4-1)/(4-1)	1
	4	(4-1)/(4-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(4-1)	0.67
	1	(1-1)/(4-1)	0
	2	(2-1)/(4-1)	0.33
	1	(1-1)/(4-1)	0
Criteria 3	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
	2	(2-1)/(3-1)	0.5
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
Criteria 4	4	(4-1)/(4-1)	1
	4	(4-1)/(4-1)	1
	4	(3-1)/(4-1)	1
	3	(1-1)/(4-1)	0.67
	2	(2-1)/(4-1)	0.33
	1	(1-1)/(4-1)	0
Criteria 5	2	(2-1)/(2-1)	1
	2	(2-1)/(2-1)	1
	2	(2-1)/(2-1)	1
	2	(2-1)/(2-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(2-1)	0
	1	(1-1)/(2-1)	0
Criteria 6	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
	2	(2-1)/(3-1)	0.5
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
Criteria 7	1	(1-1)/(1-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(1-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(1-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(1-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(1-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(1-1)	1
Criteria 8	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
	2	(2-1)/(3-1)	0.5
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
Criteria 9	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
	2	(2-1)/(3-1)	0.5
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
Criteria 10	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	3	(3-1)/(3-1)	1
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0
	2	(2-1)/(3-1)	0.5
	1	(1-1)/(3-1)	0

Figure 12: Turning each attribute into a base 1 - scoring model (by the author)

	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4	Option 5	Option 6
Criteria 1	1	0.75	0.75	0.25	0.5	0
Criteria 2	1	1	0.666667	0	0.333333	0
Criteria 3	1	1	1	0	0.5	0
Criteria 4	1	1	1	0.666667	0.333333	0
Criteria 5	1	1	1	1	0	0
Criteria 6	1	1	1	0	0.5	0
Criteria 7	1	1	1	1	1	1
Criteria 8	1	1	1	0	0.5	0
Criteria 9	1	1	1	0	0.5	0
Criteria 10	1	1	1	0	0.5	0
Total	10	9.75	9.42	2.92	4.67	1

Figure 13: Compensatory Model – Relative Weighting (by the author)

Figure 14: Compensatory Model – Additive Weighting (by the author)

6.     Selection of the Preferred Alternative

From above analysis in table 15, we can clearly recognise that Option1 has the highest score (which is 1). Therefore, Option1 is a better choice as per the following table:

	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4	Option 5	Option 6
Option 1 is better by	10/9.75=1.03*100= 103%	10/9.42=1.06*100= 106%	10/2.92=3.42*100= 343%	10/4.67=2.14*100= 214%	10/1=10.0*100= 1000%

  The best (3) options are ranked in order as following:

a)      Option 1: Diesel Price Billed in RO/GJ

b)      Option 2: Diesel Price Billed in RO/MMBTU

c)      Option 3: Diesel Price Billed in RO/Litter with (LHV & Density) at Act filled FO temp is available

7.     Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Since the best Since the best Options 1, 2 and 3 in order are the 3 best options for getting the FOP in RO/GJ. Thus, we may ask the Generator if it is possible to provide the same. OPWP and MPC need to agree on such selected methodology to be as a base in the coming Contract years.

8.     References:

   o   The Engineering Toolbox. (n.d.). Density of fuel oils as function of temperature. Retrieved from https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/fuel-oil-density-temperature-gravity-volume-correction-ASTM-D1250-d_1942.html

o   Hindawi, & Mathematical Problems in Engineering. (2016, April 27). Multiple Attribute Decision Making Based on Cross-Evaluation with Uncertain Decision Parameters. Retrieved from https://www.hindawi.com/journals/mpe/2016/4313247/

o   Mba tools. (n.d.). Grid Analysis. Retrieved from http://www.mbatools.co.uk/Toolbox/DecisionMaking/gridanalysis.htm

o   Planning Planet. (2014, July 2). | Project Controls - planning, scheduling, cost management and forensic analysis (Planning Planet). Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective%20Figures%208-14

o   Terence Holmes. (2015, September 1). Fishbein Models [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JL1UFF-HJlQ&feature=youtu.be