W2_AsmaF_Multi attributes decision making

1. Problem Definition

In IT maintenance and services operations are always performed because of the needed patches installation, security enhancements and new deployments for updated applications.

Nowadays no one can afford to lose 1 minute of work with systems and networks and the IT maintenance operations can cause interruptions (downtime) or slowdown for end users. IT should be careful to decide how to maintain the systems and networks in order not to stop the work and business.

2. Identify the Feasible Alternative

A correct decision making is properly required to choose maintenance method to be executed, installation Methods which has to be implemented on onshore platform are:

1. Live Platform Method Installation as Option 1

  • High costly
  • Maintenance during non-shutdown duration
  • Less-business losses impact
  • High obtain risk

2. Shutdown Method Installation as Option 2

  • High costly
  • Maintenance during shutdown duration
  • Business losses impact
  • Less obtain risk

3. Continuous Repair as Option 3

  • High costly
  • Install during shutdown or non-shutdown duration

4. Temporary Repair as Option 4

  • Low costly
  • Install during shutdown or non-shutdown duration


3. Development of the Outcome for Alternative

Parameters which are trying to be analysis are:

  1. Cost: Define as cost which is required to perform the installation
  2. Duration: Duration is how long time which are taken while execution is running
  3. Business Loss: The data and application which are lost during platform Shutdown for installation periods
  4. Quality: The Quality which is resulted from certain installation method
  5. Recovery time: Recovery time after installation / system startup time


4. Selection Criteria

There are several models for decision making. The selection of attributes used to measure alternative method is an important task in Multi-attribute Decision Analysis, as shows in the below table:


Figure 1. Multi-Attributes Analysis

To check for dominance factor, pairwise comparisons of each Maintenance Method of attributes must be inspected. There should be 6 Pairwise Comparisons required to compare 4 methods, shown as below table:


Figure 2. Paired Comparison

 “Lexicographic Model is particularly suitable for decision situations in which a single attribute is judged to be more important than all other attributes. Many models including Lexicographic require that all attributes first be ranked in order of importance (Ordinal Ranking)” (Andi, 2014, p. 01)


Figure 3. Ordinal Ranking


Figure 4. Lexicography Method


5. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative

Figure 1 shows that option 1 and 4 has the best values, and they are the dominance factors. However figure 2 shows that there’s no dominance factors when comparing with each others.

To get ordinal ranking, a paired comparisons between the attributes needs to be applied and the result is as following:

Quality > Cost > Business Loss = Recovery time > Duration


After applying the lexicography to the ordinal ranking, Option 4 is the top ranked attribute and it’s the best in Quality.


6. Selection of the Preferred Alternative

Lexicography method gives us the best alternative to be chosen among the attributes. However, from Business Loss perspective Option 1 will be always the safest alternative to perform the maintenance.

7. Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result

Multi-attributes decision making is a good model to be applied for such cases.

8. Reference:

  1. UK North Sea oil production decline. Retrieved from http://www.oilvoice.com/n/UK_North_Sea_oil_production_decline/5e0b0a2ab66b.aspx#gsc.tab=0
  2. Humphreys, G.C. (2011). Project Management Using Earned Value, Second Edition, Humphreys & Associates, Management Consultants.
  3. Giammalvo, P. D. (2012). AACE Certification Preparation Course Handouts.
  4. Sullivan Wicks Koelling, Engineering Economy (fifteenth Edition). Prentice Hall
  5. Andi (2014, March 21). W4_Andi_Decision Making Multi Attributes | Kristal AACE 2014. Retrieved June 14, 2014, from http://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/w4_andi_decision-making-multi-attributes/
  6. Griffiths, J. (2012, May 14). Non-Compensatory Choices: Not All Decisions are a Simple Trade Off | By Jeremy Griffiths. Retrieved June 13, 2014, from http://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4056066.html
  7.  Calude, Cristian (1994). Information and randomness. An algorithmic perspective. EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag. p. 1. ISBN 3-540-57456-5.Zbl 0922.68073

3 thoughts on “W2_AsmaF_Multi attributes decision making

  1. You might find this topic is wired to be posted here (in this course) however i was searching for a tool and found this as one of the best posts with similar case to mine. I spent lots of time reading more about decision making and Non-Compensatory Models to finish this post. however, it really gives me a knowledge on how to analyze and decide the best on similar cases. hope you’ll accept it


  2. AWESOME case study, you followed our step by step process very well and your citations were excellent!!!

    For your W3 blog posting, I would urge you to try the compensatory models and see if the results are any different. Specifically, what do the compensatory models offer that the non compensatory models do NOT?

    Keep up the good work!!

    Dr. PDG, AACE Annual Symposium, New Orleans USA

  3. Pingback: W3_AsmaF_Decision Making Compensatory Models | PMI-Oman 2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s