using each set, noting, in each case, the final position of the options under examination. The level of agreement between the groupings regarding the best performing
options can then be gauged.
These different decision groupings can arise out of different circumstances. The
following is a list of three possible situations where multiple decision groupings,
each generating their own set of importance weights, can arise:
(1) Geographical location
(2) Area of professional expertise
(3) Position in the decision-making hierarchy
Geographic Allocation
Often a development project spans a very wide geographical area. Different localities may be affected to varying degrees by the project, and, as a result, will differ in
the criteria they deem most important. In this situation, the geographical area directly
affected by the proposal should be divided up logically into zones, each one with a
set of actors inputting their views directly regarding the relative weightings of the
criteria. For example, in the case of a land reclamation project affecting a number of
small urban centres in close proximity to the floodplain of the river in question, each
town will be affected to different degrees depending on factors such as their
population, the amount of agricultural and industrial activity in the locality and
their proximity to the river. The weightings from each individual urban centre will
reflect these differing concerns.
Area of Professional Expertise
When the overall viability of a development project is being assessed on the basis of
a range of criteria – economic, environmental, social and political- it is often
desirable to obtain importance weightings from decision-makers with different
perspectives on the relative importance of the attribute groupings. A grouping
which comprises project promoters/financiers will tend to emphasise the economic
aspects of the proposal, and their weighting system would reflect this. Importance
weightings from project designers, on the other hand, would highlight the environmental/aesthetic considerations of the project, while a set from a group with a
political background will stress the importance of the social/political attributes.
Again, the model would be run for the three different weighting systems and the
level of agreement regarding the best performing options assessed.
For example, the SAW model can be applied for deciding the best transport
strategy for a major city where the decision-makers involved in the formulation of
the competing strategies are from three distinct types of background:
(1) Administrators/promoters
(2) Designers
(3) Politicians
Three weighting systems are utilised within the subsequent analysis, reflecting
the emphasis on different attributes of each of these three groupings.
15.6 Allocating Weights to the Decision Criteria
437
options can then be gauged.
These different decision groupings can arise out of different circumstances. The
following is a list of three possible situations where multiple decision groupings,
each generating their own set of importance weights, can arise:
(1) Geographical location
(2) Area of professional expertise
(3) Position in the decision-making hierarchy
Geographic Allocation
Often a development project spans a very wide geographical area. Different localities may be affected to varying degrees by the project, and, as a result, will differ in
the criteria they deem most important. In this situation, the geographical area directly
affected by the proposal should be divided up logically into zones, each one with a
set of actors inputting their views directly regarding the relative weightings of the
criteria. For example, in the case of a land reclamation project affecting a number of
small urban centres in close proximity to the floodplain of the river in question, each
town will be affected to different degrees depending on factors such as their
population, the amount of agricultural and industrial activity in the locality and
their proximity to the river. The weightings from each individual urban centre will
reflect these differing concerns.
Area of Professional Expertise
When the overall viability of a development project is being assessed on the basis of
a range of criteria – economic, environmental, social and political- it is often
desirable to obtain importance weightings from decision-makers with different
perspectives on the relative importance of the attribute groupings. A grouping
which comprises project promoters/financiers will tend to emphasise the economic
aspects of the proposal, and their weighting system would reflect this. Importance
weightings from project designers, on the other hand, would highlight the environmental/aesthetic considerations of the project, while a set from a group with a
political background will stress the importance of the social/political attributes.
Again, the model would be run for the three different weighting systems and the
level of agreement regarding the best performing options assessed.
For example, the SAW model can be applied for deciding the best transport
strategy for a major city where the decision-makers involved in the formulation of
the competing strategies are from three distinct types of background:
(1) Administrators/promoters
(2) Designers
(3) Politicians
Three weighting systems are utilised within the subsequent analysis, reflecting
the emphasis on different attributes of each of these three groupings.
15.6 Allocating Weights to the Decision Criteria
437