W3_Hilal_GAO assessment of schedule (development of scoring model)

Problem Recognition

In W2 blog, the problem was about development of scoring model that compares GAO assessment of schedule to the schedules we have in hand. I chose to use the compensatory approach to be used as my scoring model. In this blog, I will be continuing the discussion about the scoring method to be used, so that my presentation of the proposed solutions to my management will be backed with solid numerical reasoning. The scoring model will consist of multiple attributes where I will need to pick the “best” option for the “better” ones.

Feasible alternatives

I have already arrived at using the compensatory approach for the scoring model, however, there are two techniques under this approach which are:

-          Non-Dimensional Scaling Technique

-         Additive Weighting Technique

Outcomes from alternatives

a.       Non-Dimensional Scaling Technique: this technique is simple where the decision maker only chooses the alternative with largest number of positive attributes and does not account for the other attributes.

b.      Additive Weighting Technique: The decision made here will takes into account the relative importance of the positive rated attributes by multiplying the alternative rates by the importance weights.

Acceptance Criteria

The criteria I am looking for are as follow:

1-      Excel spreadsheet based

2-      GAO best practices included

3-      Accounts for all attributes

4-      Accounts for the importance of attributes

5-      Ratio scale measurement

Acceptance criteria vs feasible alternatives

	Importance Scale	Non-Dimensional Scaling		Additive Weighting
Criteria	A	B	A*B	C	A*C
Excel spreadsheet based	1	3	3	3	3
GAO best practices included	5	3	15	3	15
Accounts for all attributes	3	3	9	3	9
Accounts for the importance of attributes	4	1	4	3	12
Ratio scale measurement	2	2	4	3	6
		Total	35	Total	45

Table 1: Analysis of the feasible alternatives against the acceptance criteria

Table 1 shows the comparison between acceptance criteria and the two alternatives. Column A shows the importance of attributes where 5 is the most important. Column B, C represents whether the alternatives are meeting the requirements.

Preferred alternative

According to table 1, the preferred alternative is additive weighting technique.

Tracking/reporting plan

In order to implement this technique, I will need to decide the best attributes for a good and healthy schedule. The importance of each attribute will need to be specify, this will be decided based on my department yearly KPIs. Therefore, the effectiveness of this method will be monitored in monthly basis and communicated to the project companies. This will be basically related to project progress and performance, therefore, a comparison between “before implementing the technique” and “After implementing the technique”.

References

Abdullah, L. & Adawiyah, R. (2014). Simple Additive Weighting Methods of Multi criteria Decision Making and Applications: A Decade Review. International Journal of Information Processing and Management (IJIPM). Volume 5. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/05a0/d6d88b7a86fd783f736532af68e0e297e299.pdf

Boyd, N. (2017). Scales of Measurement: Nominal, Ordinal, Interval & Ratio. Retrieved from http://study.com/academy/lesson/scales-of-measurement-nominal-ordinal-interval-ratio.html

PP Admin. (2015). Multi- Attributes Decision. Guild of Project Controls Compendium and References. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective