W4_ Al Moataz Al Hasani _ Non Compensatory Model

  1. Problem Definition:

This has reference to the previous W3 blog in which Grid Analysis had been chosen to figure out the alternative in investment. Using the same tender evaluation, Non Compensatory models is examined to select the best alternative.

  1. Development of Feasible Alternatives:

Based on the tender applicants, we have identified the three companies which meet the Mandatory Requirements in our technical evaluation criteria provided by our company tender prime document. The three companies are M Company, A Company and T Company.

  1. Development of the outcome for alternative:


a)      Experience.

b)      Cost.

c)      Media (Volunteers).

d)     Catering.

e)      First Aid

f)       Transportation.

g)      Management.






  1.  Selection Criteria


   M Company A Company T Company
Experience 7 events in the last two yrs.(Full Event Management) 4 Events in the last two years. .(Full Event Management) 3 Events in the last two years .(Full Event Management)
Cost 832, 000 OMR 752,000 OMR 596, 000 OMR
Media (Volunteers) Collection of Volunteers Plan Provided. Collection of Volunteers Plan Provided. No Collection of Volunteers Plan Provided.
Catering Provided all menu’s for the event.(+6) Menu’s not provided for the event. Provided all menu’s for the event.(+6)
First Aid Including First Aid Room(a supervisor and two nurses) Including First Aid Room. (two nurses) Not Including First Aid room nor the staff for it.
Transportation 2 Buses minimum, Luxurious buses, Company decided and included. Plenty of Experience in Salalah port. Number of buses is not included, company is not decided yet. Participants will not wait longer than 10 minutes. Nothing is mentioned, needs to be clarified.
Management Full package of management. Full Package of management and Managers are identified by names. Not Mentioned, needs to be clarified.

Table 1 Illustrates the Summary information for Tender Decision Making.



There are four Non-compensatory models to be tested:

a. Dominance

   M Company  vs A Company M company vs T Company A Company vs T Company
Experience Better Better Better
Cost Worse Worse Worse
Media (Volunteers) Better Better Better
Catering Better Equal Worse
First Aid Better Better Equal
Transportation Better Better Equal
Management Better Better Better
Dominance NO NO NO


Table 2. Check for Dominance among Alternatives[2].

From the table above, we know that each attribute has no dominance among another. So, we can move on to Satisficing (method of feasible range) [1].

b. Satisfying

  Minimum Acceptable Maximum Acceptable Unacceptable Alternative
Experience 4 Events in the last two years T Company is eliminated
Cost 900,000 OMR None
Media (Volunteers) 4 different categories of Volunteers T Company
Catering Provide 4 Menu’s Alpha omega (needs to be clarified)
First Aid First Aid room and two First Aiders T Company
Transportation Bus for every 30 PAX T Company
Management Identify managers and supervisors T Company

Table 3. Feasible Ranges for Satisfying.

c. Disjunctive Resolution:


Attribute Rank
Experience 6
Management 5
M Media 4
First Aid 3
Catering 2
Transportation 1
Cost 0

Table 4.  Attributes Ranking.


d. Lexicography


  1. Attribute
Attribute Rank Alternative
Experience 6 M Company > A Company> T Company
Management 5 A Company> M Company > T Company
Media 4 M Company >A Company > T Company
First Aid 3 M Company > A Company > T Company
Catering 2 M Company = T Company > A Company
Transportation 1 M Company = A Company > T Company
Cost 0 T Company > A Company > T Company

Table 5. Illustrates the Application of Lexicography.


  1. Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative:

 a. Dominance:

In this situation it’s not good enough for decision making purpose as there isn’t any option that dominates another option fully.

b. Satisfying:

Based on Table3, T Company is eliminated from the tender alternatives.

c. Disjunctive Solution:

According to the tender prime document, those are the weights of the attributes.

d. Lexicography:

Using Lexicography model, M Company is selected because Experience is the top ranked attribute in the tender prime document.


  1. Selection of the Preferred Alternative:


M Company is the best alternative among the three alterative companies. It is selected according to the Lexicography model and Experience is the top ranked attribute in the tender prime document. If same model have similar experience, then go with the second ranked attribute which is Management.


  1. Performance Monitoring:


Non-Compensatory Model has proved that it’s a valuable model to be using in the decision making process, beside the Grid Analysis that was used in W3 Blog. It’s my first time using this method in tender evaluation, therefore I would submit this blog to my GM and check his feedback.



  1. Topazsmartd (2014). Decision Making Considering Multiattributes. Retrieved from: http://topazsmartd.wordpress.com/2014/05/13/w3_hp_decision-making-considering-multiattributes/
  2. College Schollarship (2014).Ten Rules Selecting a College or Universities. Retrieved from:  http://www.college-scholarships.com/ten_rules_for_selecting_a_college_or_universities.htm
  3. Sullivan, William G., Wicks, Elin M. & Koelling, C. Patrick (1942), Engineering Economy 15th Edition, Chapter 14, page 555 – 560. Singapore: Prentice Hall, Inc.




One thought on “W4_ Al Moataz Al Hasani _ Non Compensatory Model

  1. AWESOME case study and your analysis was excellent. If you have yet to do so, I would urge you to experiment with the COMPENSATORY models as well. While they don’t necessarily change the outcome, at least by quantifying it, you can get a sense of just how “good” the bid responses are.

    Suggest you do that before you take it to your boss, but having said that, I am truly impressed to see that you actually are USING what you are learning from this course. There simply is no better way to demonstrate that the course has value than by changing how you do things in your working environment.

    Keep up the good work Al Moataz!!!

    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

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