This weeks reading talks about the decision analysis paradigm and the pairwise scale used for comparison. The decision analysis paradigm basically has 2 models at its core ie the system model and the value model. The system model focuses/ incorporates the criteria or the aspects of environment, uncertainty and input for alternatives which then lead to an outcome of what would work and which of these outcomes are selected is based upon the value model that one chooses which then leads to a preference that the decision maker chooses. The scale used for the pairwise comparison ranges from 0-1 where the definition and the importance for numbers is based not according to the ascendance or descendance of the number but, which is favored ie equal importance, no relationship, importance of one alternative / option to name a few over the other etc.

1. What experiences have you had with group decision making? What difficulties do you see arising when trying to perform a multiple-criteria analysis with many interested parties involved? How might these difficulties be overcome, or at least mitigated?
   My experiences with group decision making so far have been a mix of both relatively good but for a few exceptions here and there. The best experience was when we all recognized each other’s strength and weaknesses and categorized the tasks accordingly. This was an intra and intercompany project that I was working on.
   MCDA or multiple criteria decision analysis presents an analytical tool to apply to solving problems which are seen as choice(s) between alternative(s). At the core, MCDA allows a complex decision into a task which are easily dividable and present a sense of accountability. Additionally, it lets the decision maker to analyze each task and then integrate, if need be, these tasks into a meaningful and actionable solution. Essentially MCDA could be seen as made up of 5 components ie goal, decision maker(s) with preferences (if any), alternatives, evaluation criteria.
   Let’s take the example of building a pool. Some of the difficulties that I see occurring on a group project doing an analysis with multiple parties involved as the stakeholder are as follows – Inability to come to a consensus about the how the rating of the resources should occur for the following – proximity to other facilities providing pool as a recreational option of recreation, proximity to users, ease of access, environmental impact, compatibility with the surrounding area, future demand to name a few. I believe most or all these problems can be mitigated by using the relative scale of rating. The key here is that the stake boulders should come to a decision about what is the relative importance or priority of the rating that they choose to assign ie high, very high, not important etc. Once this is done, all the stake holders should rate and see the final score of each alternative, based off on which they can discuss and reassign to decide what it is the best way to move forward. (-, -)

• In conducting a group study using a multiple-criteria method, you reach a point at which two of the participants cannot agree on a particular response. What course of action would you take to placate the parties and avoid further delay?
  While doing the multi-criteria method, if two of the members disagrees on a typical assent or concur on a specific reaction at that point, I believe it would be wise to see which one is ideal ie cost wise and suits the project more while strengthening the outcome of a project which is what is needed. I believe it would work for the best, if there was a neutral party not affiliated or associated with the party so any future conflicts can be successfully resolved without either of the individuals thinking that their option was not regarded due to any favoritism or being partial.
  (Shtub & Rosenwein, 2017)

Bibliography

-. (-, – -). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Retrieved from https://projects.ncsu.edu: https://projects.ncsu.edu/nrli/decision-making/MCD…

Shtub, A., & Rosenwein, M. (2017). Chp 6. Multiple-Criteria Methods for evaluation and group decision making. In &. M. A. Shtub, Project Management : Processes, Methodologies and economics. Pearson.