Laboratory 5: Decision Making

Prepared for

Dr. Edwin Tam

Faisal SIDDIQUI
Student ID 101963673
rd
3 year Candidate for BASc. Mechanical Engineering
Department of Mechanical Automotive and Materials Engineering
Part 1

Scale 0 (worst)
10 (best). Linear interpolation is used for the alternatives that lie within the best and
worst alternatives. Given within brackets. Original values are also given without brackets.

Impacts Weighting Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Initial Cost ($ 106) 20 80 (10) 90 (5) 100 (0)
Annual savings in travel 30 0.50 (0) 0.55 (5) 0.60 (10)
time (106 hours/year)
Annual reduction in 25 1.0 (0) 1.5 (5) 2.0 (10)
accidental deaths (number)
Number of displaced 15 100 (10) 150 (3.33) 175 (0)
residents (number)
Current agricultural land that 10 70 (10) 120 (0) 90 (6)
would be used (ha).

Evaluation

Impacts Weighting Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Initial Cost ($ 106) 20 10 × 20=200 5 × 20=100 0 × 20=0
Annual savings in travel time 30 0 × 30=0 5 × 30=150 10 × 30=300
(106 hours/year)
Annual reduction in 25 0 × 25=0 5 × 25=125 10 × 25=250
accidental deaths (number)
Number of displaced 15 10 × 15=150 3.33 × 15=50 0 × 15=0
residents (number)
Current agricultural land that 10 10 × 10=100 0 × 10=0 6 × 10=60
would be used (ha).
Total 450 425 610

∴ A 3 > A1 > A 2 Therefore alternative 3 is the best, alternative 1 is the second best, alternative 2 is the
worst.
Part 2

Scale 0 (worst)
10 (best). Linear interpolation is used for the alternatives that lie within the best and
worst alternatives. Given within brackets. Original values are also given without brackets.

Impacts Weighting Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative

1 2 3 4
Initial Cost ($ 106) 20 80 (10) 90 (5) 100 (0) 95 (2.5)
Annual savings in travel time 30 0.50 (0) 0.55 (5) 0.60 (10) 0.55 (5)
(106 hours/year)
Annual reduction in 25 1.0 (0) 1.5 (5) 2.0 (10) 1.6 (6)
accidental deaths (number)
Number of displaced 15 100 (10) 150 (4.44) 175 (1.67) 190 (0)
residents (number)
Current agricultural land that 10 70 (10) 120 (0) 90 (6) 100 (4)
would be used (ha).

Evaluation
(a)
Impacts Weighting Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
1 2 3 4
Initial Cost ($ 106) 20 10× 20=200 5× 20=100 0× 20=0 2.5× 20=50
Annual savings in travel time 30 0× 30=0 5× 30=150 10× 30=300 5× 30=150
(106 hours/year)
Annual reduction in 25 0× 25=0 5× 25=125 10× 25=250 6× 25=150
accidental deaths (number)
Number of displaced 15 10× 15=150 4.44× 15= 1.67× 15= 0× 15=0
residents (number) 66.67 25.05
Current agricultural land that 10 10× 10=100 0× 10=0 6× 10=60 4× 10=40
would be used (ha).
450 441.67 635.05 390
∴ A 3 > A 1 > A 2 > A 4 Therefore alternative 3 is the best, alternative 1 is the second best, alternative 2 is
third best, alternative 4 is the worst.

(b) The effect of the fourth alternative made the preference of the alternative three and alternative two
greater. This re-evaluation shows that alternative one was still preferred next to alternative three and still
placing alternative two as the last choice out of 1, 2 and 3.

Introducing the alternative 4 has altered the relative magnitude of preference of the original alternative 1, 2
and 3. It would be better more than one additional alternative (in this case alternative 4) can be introduced.
Increased fairness of the evaluation process can result by considering an increased number of alternatives.
In other words the greater the number of alternatives the fairer the evaluation process and the accurate the
relative preference of the alternatives.
Part 3

Scale 0 (worst)
10 (best). Linear interpolation is used for the alternatives that lie within the best and
worst alternatives. Given within brackets. Original values are also given without brackets.
Also Poor=0, Fair=5, Good=10, Not Acceptable=0, Tolerable=5, Acceptable=10

Impacts Weighting Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 4

1 2 3
Initial Cost ($ 106) 20 80 (10) 90 (5) 100 (0) 95 (2.5)
Annual savings in travel time 30 0.50 (0) 0.55 (5) 0.60 (10) 0.55 (5)
(106 hours/year)
Annual reduction in 25 Poor (0) Fair (5) Good (10) Fair (5)
accidental deaths (number)
Number of displaced 15 Acceptable Tolerable (5) Moderately Not
residents (number) (10) unaccept.(3) acceptable(0)
Current agricultural land that 10 70 (10) 120 (0) 90 (6) 100 (4)
would be used (ha).

Evaluation
(a)
Impacts Weighting Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative
1 2 3 4
Initial Cost ($ 106) 20 10× 20=200 5× 20=100 0× 20=0 2.5× 20=50
Annual savings in travel time 30 0× 30=0 5× 30=150 10× 30=300 5× 30=150
(106 hours/year)
Annual reduction in 25 0× 25=0 5× 25=125 10× 25=250 5× 25=125
accidental deaths (number)
Number of displaced 15 10× 15=150 5× 15=75 3× 15=45 0× 15=0
residents (number)
Current agricultural land that 10 10× 10=100 0× 10=0 6× 10=60 4× 10=40
would be used (ha).
450 450 655 365
∴ A 3 > A 1 =A 2 > A 4 Therefore alternative 3 is the best, alternative 1 and 2 are jointly 2nd second best,
alternative 4 is the worst.

(b) This evaluation process is different from the first process (Part 1) since it has 4 alternatives rather than
3. This is however similar to the evaluation process from Part 2 in that it has 4 alternatives. It differs from
the process of Part 2 in that words instead of numbers were used to describe the alternatives for “Accident
reduction” and “Number of displaced residents” impacts. Words such as Poor, Fair, Good, Acceptable,
Tolerable, Moderately Unacceptable and Not Acceptable were used. This leaves the party conducting the
evaluation to interpret these words and assign a value to them as they would feel necessary. For example
in this example since “Tolerable” was assigned a value of 5, the alternative 2 for the first time became
jointly 2nd with alternative 1. If another party evaluating decides to assign “Tolerable” a value of 6
alternative 2 could prove to be 2nd best alternative of the four which may not have been the right decision.
Using words give rise to difference of interpretation and bias by the evaluating party.