Roadmap
Lack of ownership in
contractor team
Resource planning or
availability during
execution by contractor
team
Site management by
contractor team
Managing work by
Break up of the job into
small packages by
contractor
Risk analysis
Man power
Requirements planning
Estimation
People management
Exercise 1
Problem In
Decision Making
Criteria
information
Project
Complexity
Simple System
Straight forward
Problem defined
properly and
completely in
beginning
Easy monitoring
and control due to
less
interdependency
and clarity in
interaction
Remedial action
bring project to
goal path
Non-linearity or
Difficulty in Linking Cause and Effect
Nonlinearity :It result from
Complicated information pathways in many large projects
Multiple decision points
Multiple players
Project Complexity
Uncertain
ty
Delivery
ability
Blame
Game
Trust
Managers Challenge
Many decisions that managers deal
with every day involve at least some
degree of uncertainty and require
non programmed decision making
May be difficult to make
Made amid changing factors
Information may be unclear
May have to deal with conflicting points
of view
Risk
Uncertainty
Information about alternatives and future events is incomplete and not reliable
Ambiguity
Organizational
Problem
Low
Possibility of Failure
Certainty
Risk
Uncertainty
Programmed
Decisions
High
Ambiguity
Nonprogrammed
Decisions
Problem
Solution
Categories of Decisions
Programmed Decisions: Routine , SOP
Situations occurred often enough to enable decision rules to be
developed and applied in the future
Made in response to recurring organizational problems, e.g.
hiring, billing
in response to
unique, poorly defined and largely unstructured, and have important
consequences to the organization e.g.: replacement of contractor in
middle of the project.
Decisions
Type of
Problem
Well-
Programmed
Decisions
Level in
Organizatio
n
Bottom
Overconfidence:
It expose managers to unreasonable risks. With business
conditions constantly changing and innovations often seem to
be the only constant, no one can have all the answers for
long.
Being crisp and decisive tend to settle issues so quickly that
they have no opportunity to grasp the ramifications .
already have all the answers, they have no way to learn new
EvaluationRecognition of
and
Decision
Feedback Requirement
Implementation
Diagnosis
Decisionof Chosen
and Analysis
Making
Alternative
of Causes
Process
Selection of Development of
Desired
Alternatives
Alternative
General Decision
Making Model
Decision makers in
an organization are
Floating in the
stream, jostled
capriciously by
problems Popping
up, and finding
anchors through
Action at a given
time in a given
place
Decision
may
considered as
Operational
decision:
be
Concerned
with
managing operation,
Focus result on short
term basis,
Outcome is known
quickly
Strategic decision :
Prediction pertaining to
important issue on a long
term basis,
Lot of uncertainty in
consideration,
Choice
is
among
significantly
different
alternative,
Commitment to action:
full commitment to put the action plan into
implementation is a significant of ensuring success.
Without commitments from all parties involved, it
is unlikely to obtain any useful and beneficial
results, even with the most sophisticated and
comprehensive action plan in hand.
In group aided DM, group does everything except make the final
decision. Where as in group DM group actually makes the final
decision.
Disadvantage
1. Greater pool of
knowledge
2. Different perspectives
1. Social pressure
Unwillingness to disturb(rock the boat) and pressure to
conform(due to hierarchy) may combine to stifle
the creativity of individual contributors.
2. Minority domination:
3. Greater comprehension
4. Increased acceptance:
outcome viewed as ours
rather than their
5. Training ground:
learning of group
dynamics by less
experienced
3. Logrolling :
Exchange favor/reciprocal voting
Political wheeling and dealing can displace sound
thinking when an individuals pet project or vested
interest is at stake.
4. Goal displacement
Sometimes secondary considerations
such as winning an argument, making a point, or
getting back at a rival displace the primary task of
making a sound decision or solving a problem.
5. Groupthink
Sometimes cohesive in groups let the desire for
unanimity override sound judgment when
generating and evaluating alternative courses of
Brainst
orming
Kno
wW
Bail
hen
to
t
on
D
,
n
ar ish
Le un
P
in
e
ag e
g
En bat
De
us
o
r
o
g
Ri
New
Decision
Approache
s for
Turbulent
Times
ve
i
F
the
e
c
i
ct
Pra
s
Why
Multi-Criteria
Decision Making
It has become more and more
difficult to see the world around us
in a one-dimensional way and to
use only a single criterion when
judging what we see
Identify Problem
Select Alternative
Develop Decision
Criteria
Allocate Weights
to Criteria
Develop
Alternatives
Analyze
Alternatives
Implement
Alternative
Evaluate Results
Wrong
decision
Wrong
result
Criteria
Capability, Reliability, Fuel-economy
Alternatives
Crane
Crane
Crane
Crane
1,
2,
3,
4
0.3
0.4
0.3
Crane 1
8.4
Crane 2
7.6
7.5
Crane 3
Crane 4
6
8
7.0
weights must be 1.
Each alternative is assessed with regard to every
attribute.
Overall or composite performance score of an
alternative is given by equation
However, if all the elements of the decision table are normalized, then SAW can
be used for any type and any number of attributes. In that case,
where (mij)normal represents the normalized value of mij, and Pi is the overall or
composite score of the alternative Ai.
The alternative with the highest value of Pi is considered as the best alternative.
The attributes can be beneficial or non-beneficial.
When objective values of he attribute are available, normalized values are
calculated by (mij)K/(mij)L, where (mij)K is the measure of the attribute for
the K-th alternative, and (mij)L is the measure of the attribute for the L-th
alternative that has the highest measure of the m attribute out of all
alternatives considered. This ratio is valid for beneficial attributes only. Ex profit
By contrast, non-beneficial attribute (e.g., cost) is that for which the lower
measures are desirable, and the normalized values are calculated by
(mij)K.
(mij)L/
Similar to SAW.
Instead of addition in the model, there is multiplication (miller and
starr, 1969).
The overall or composite performance score of an alternative is
given by equation
Linguistic term
Crisp
Score
Exceptionally low
0.045
Extreemly Low
0.135
Very Low
0.255
Low
0.335
Low
0.115
Below Average
0.295
Average
0.495
Average
Above average
0.695
Above average
High
0.895
Below Average
0.41
0.5
0.59
High
0.665
Very High
0.745
Extremely High
0.865
Exceptionally High
0.955
Methods: AHP
The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which provides
a proven, effective means to deal with complex
decision making, was first introduced by Thomas
Saaty in 1970s
Evaluation phase is divided
into four steps given below;
1. Generate pairwise
matrices
2. Generate the weights of
the measures
3. Normalize weights to get
the consistency among
measures
4. Calculate the overall
ratings
Definition
Explanation
1
2
Equal Importance
Weak or slight
3
4
Moderate importance
Moderate plus
5
6
Strong importance
Strong plus
Very strong or
importance
Very, very strong
7
8
9
Extreme importance
If activity i has one of the above
Reciprocals of above nonzero numbers assigned to it
when compared with activity j,
then j has the reciprocal value
when compared with i
A reasonable assumption
If consistency were to be forced by obtaining n numerical values to
Rationals
Ratios arising from the scale
span the matrix
Thanks
Reference
Michael Crandall, Decision Science,
Information school of University of
washington
Laxmi C jain and Chee Peng Lim,
handbook of decision science, Vol-1
Technique and application
Contractor selection
Determining specification of
work
Finalizing criteria such as
Experience
Type of business in terms of
similarity,
capacity,
quanta and
complexity o of job
Environment and location
Familiarity to location and
culture
Availability,
Reliability,
Record of performance
Technical competence,
Hse,
Delegation of power to site
person
Record of poor
performance
abandoning the work,
not properly
completing the
contract,
inordinate delays in
completion or
financial failure etc.
Over booking beyond
capacity
Contractor selection
Administrative approval
Financial sanction
Technical sanction
Contractor selection
Initiation set up
Value Judgement
Decision
environm
ent and
state of
nature
Estimating
Value of attributes
f1(x),.fn(X)
Decisio
n
Implementation and
re evaluation
Value
Judgement