Applying the MCDM technique to selecting the right Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software to invest in for a project

Introduction

In this paper, the author Khalid Eldrandaly elaborates on how MCDM is the most effective methodology for Geographic Information System software selection. The author’s overall goal was to provide a framework that assists computer system developers to select the most appropriate GIS software application for their organization.

Summary

In this paper, the author projects the application of the MCDM technique to select the most appropriate GIS software to purchase or invest in, that best fits an organization’s needs. According to the author, “a multi criteria decision problem generally involves choosing one of several alternatives based on how well those alternatives rate against a chosen set of structured and weighted criteria.” The author simplifies the GIS software selection process as follows:

• Ø  Brainstorm the problem
• Ø  Build the hierarchy
• Ø  Rate the hierarchy
• Ø  Select the best alternative

The author identifies the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), a type of MCDM, as the most effective method in selecting GIS software. The AHP method allows the consideration of both objective and subjective factors in selecting the best alternative, and reduces time and develops consensus for decision making. In order to apply the technique, one should define the different factors and requirements of the project, and then narrow down the different GIS software that meets the most requirements.

According to the author, the hierarchy process is based on three principles: decomposition, comparative judgments, and synthesis of priorities. In developing a hierarchy, the top level is the ultimate goal of the decision at hand. The author uses the figure 1 (below) to illustrate the four-level hierarchical structure of a simplified GIS software selection decision making problem.

Figure 1

Once the goal or requirement is established, it is necessary to identify the factors that influence the choice of GIS software. The author identified five essential evaluation criteria to use for the decision making process:

-          Cost: The expenditure associated with GIS software and includes product, license, training, maintenance, software subscription, and support services costs.

-          Functionality: Refers to extent to which the software package contains all the features and functions specified in your request for proposal (RFP) which is generated based on the organization needs assessment.

-          Reliability

-          Usability: Usability is the effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction with which specified users can achieve specified goals in particular environments; Understandability, Learnability, and Operability

-          Vendor: The quality of vendor support and its characteristics are of major importance in the selection of software.

Once the criteria are set, judging the importance of criteria and scoring alternatives need to be developed. There are two methods for weighing; direct comparison or pair-wise comparison. After weighing the criteria, the author suggests using MCDM software to list the different GIS software available, and then assign & rate the different criteria to each GIS software; as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2

Source:  

Eldrandaly, K. (2007) – GIS Software Selection; a multi-criteria decision making approach. Retrieved from

http://zagazig.academia.edu/KhalidEldrandaly/Papers/485821/GIS_software_selection_a_multi_criteria_decision_making_approach

Evaluating Sustainable Development Planning Using Fuzzy MCDM Approach

Summary:

The purpose of the paper was to examine an industry that wants to pursue sustainable development planning. This situation can be regarded as a fuzzy MCDM program. The paper proposes an alternative approach, to cope with evaluation of fuzzy MCDM problems, particularly where there is dependence among considered criteria. The authors chose the sustainable development strategy for fishing in Taiwan to illustrate the fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for determining the weights of criteria.

Technique:

Hierarchy frame for sustainable development planning

In this paper the authors employ triangular fuzzy numbers to represent the decision makers’ subjective preferences on the considered criteria, as well as for the criteria measurements to evaluate a sustainable development planning strategy for industry.

The overall MCDM approach the authors used to evaluate a sustainable development planning:

1.      Establish a hierarchy frame for sustainable development planning where the preliminary classification consists of 3 aspects involving business activities, government policy and socioeconomic effects

2.      Employ factor analysis to extract 4 independent common factors from the criteria in business activities, government policy and socioeconomic effects

3.      Brought in 15 evaluators, including those from government sector who are in charge of sustainable development, academic experts, executives of aquatic products processors as well as members of environmental interest groups

4.      Integrate their subjective judgments to construct the evaluation frame using AHP composed of the 4 common factors and then derive the relative weights and non-fuzzy BNP values corresponding to each criterion

5.      The synthetic utility value corresponding to each sustainable development strategy is aggregated by the fuzzy weights with fuzzy performance values and the best investment strategies can then be decided

The authors use one overarching goal of sustainable development industry to examine aspects that impact the company to then apply criteria to decide which strategy is best.

Strengths:

1.      APH method for determining weights of criteria can reduce uncertainty when fuzzy MCDM  

2.      MCDM can be applied to situations that have multiple and mutually conflicting objectives

Challenges:

1.      The anticipated performance values of unquantifiable criteria cannot be specified with qualitative numerical data in qualitative evaluation

Conclusion:

Using this method, the authors demonstrate that the non-additive fuzzy integral technique can overcome the criteria non-independent case. By employing an additive aggregating method to derive the synthetic utility of participating companies are able to evaluate all available alternatives and determine preferable strategies which conform to sustainable development.

From: Omega (The International Journal o f Management Science) (2005). Retrieved from http://mcdm.ntcu.edu.tw/tzeng/publication/Evaluating%20sustainable%20fishing%20development%20strategies%20using%20a%20fuzzy%20MCDM%20approach.pdf

Multi-criteria Decision Making for Water Resource Management: A Case Study of the Gediz River Basin, Turkey

Summary

In this case study, of the Gediz river basin in Turkey, Baris Yilmaz and Nilmun Harmancioglu explore water resource management using an MCDM (multi-criteria decision making) tool. They account for environmental, social and economic factors in their study of the water distribution, primarily focused on the irrigation aspect.

Technique

Using a baseline and two scenarios; better and worse conditions, they explore three hydro-meteorological scenarios to get an assessment of water budget and the possible alternative uses of the water under different scenarios. In order to rank the methods of water usage, several methods were used. Simple additive weighting, compromise programming and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution are all used in the MCDM.

Strengths

• · Clearly defined parameters for making decisions

• · Criteria can be weighted to allow varying importance to be accounted for

• · It is flexible in the factors that it can incorporate

• · Used in conjunction with other analytic techniques

Challenges

• · Different techniques may yield different results

• · Reliability and success are reliant on the right criteria being chosen

Conclusion

A water resource management model that uses environmental, social and economic factors can be used to decide the best water resource management techniques. However, this relies strongly on the weighting of the factors involved and can be easily skewed. Coincidentally, the MCDM matches the current decision-makers policies in water resource management. Therefore, in the Gediz river basin example, the MCDM proves to be a useful framework for the evaluation of water resource management techniques.

Bibliography

Multi-criteria decision making for water resource management: a case study of the Basin, Turkey. Harmancioglu, Nilmun. Yilmaz, Baris. 5 October 2010. Retrieved from: http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/wsa/v36n5/v36n5a06.pdf

MCDM Used in Healthcare (Cancer Screening) Industry

Introduction:
This article uses the Multi Criteria Decision Matrix (MCDM) technique to
field test the framework for decision making on a specific cervical cancer screening test (liquid-based cytology, LBC) by a private health plan in South Africa. MCDM supports complex decision-making that allows a structured consideration of factors that are both measurable and value-based in approach. The objective of the study with use of MCDM technique was to expand the scope of field testing both geographically, and in consideration with the specific type of intervention.

Study:
Using a committee of health care professionals, MCDM was applied to determine what would be the most probable opportunity to enter the market of LBC testing in a community where traditional Pap smears are provided at no cost to citizens.

Greatest weights were given to budget impact, cost-effectiveness and completeness and consistency of reporting evidence. When appraising LBC for cervical cancer screening, the committee formed for the case study assigned the highest scores to relevance and disease severity.

The contextual criteria applied to this study were: impact on future decisions, relationship with pathology providers, impact on screening intervals, and patient expectation; these criteria were evaluated qualitatively.

Conclusion:
This article demonstrates the application of the MCDM technique as it applies to the healthcare industry. The use of this methodology incorporates many different aspects and viewpoints of individuals and/or stakeholders that are involved to reach a decision, leading to a broadening of LBC cervical cancer screening acceptability in healthcare decision-making.

Further field testing is ongoing to collaboratively advance MCDM approaches and contribute to more transparent and efficient healthcare decision-making.

Source:
Miot, J. (2012). Field testing of a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for coverage of a screening test for cervical cancer in South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.resource-allocation.com/content/pdf/1478-7547-10-2.pdf

MCDM Methodolies, Applications and other Stats 1999-2009

Introduction: This study, conducted by researchers at the Islamic Azad University in Tehran examined the applications of the MCDM methodologies. It examined who was using these methodologies, in what field and which of these methodologies were being applied. The study examined 628 papers from 20 scholarly journals ranging from 1999-2009. The study classified these papers in 12 application areas.

Study Summary: The study sought to classify data regarding publications regarding MCDM analysis. The authors identified the method(s) of the publications, application area, journal of publication, year of publication, nationality of the author and identified a fuzzy or crisp rating for each application.

The authors note that initially, between 1999 and 2009, 1128 papers were published in more than 200 journals. However, many of these journals only had a single MCDM related publication. They narrowed the scope of their search to the twenty publications with the most MCDM related articles and found that these twenty publications contained 628 total MCDM related publications. Of these papers, 386 (61.5%) had a direct application of MCDM theory.

Next, the authors identified twelve key areas of MCDM application. These areas are as follows; environment management, water management, business and financial management, transportation and logistics, manufacturing and assembly, energy management, agricultural and forestry management, managerial and strategic planning, project management and evaluation, social service, military service and other. The authors then identified 27 MCDM techniques and cross referenced the MCDM techniques with the applications to produce this chart:

Conclusion Summary:

There is a detailed summary of each of the publications in their respective application area that I'm not going to go into here. However, there were some interesting overall findings.

The authors found that the number of MCDM related publications has drastically increased over the past ten years:

The authors also found that the overwhelming majority of publications were from the European Journal of Operational Research:

Finally, and what I found most interesting, was the author's nationalities and frequency of MCDM publications by nationality:

Source:
http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=4&hid=8&sid=e4efb211-1dbb-4eaa-8e3f-61011bcc0152%40sessionmgr13&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=67419561&anchor=GoToAllQVI

Integrated tools to enhance MCDM for use in selecting ERP software systems

Summary
This paper, written by Tuncay Gürbüz, S. Emre Alpetkin, and Gülfem Işilkar Apletkin, proposes to use Analytic Network Process (ANP), Choquet Integral (CI) and Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH) in a hybrid multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) evaluation of ERP solutions for a company.

Technique
The technique espoused uses ANP to provide a general framework for developing a supermatrix which can evaluate interrelationships and allow for weighting criteria. CI is used to determine conjunctive or disjunctive behavior between criteria. MACBETH is used to allow decision makers’ input into ranking attractiveness of elements, which allows qualitative preferences to be quantified.

This overall MCDM approach was used to evaluate four ERP software solutions using the following general steps:

1. Identify the ERP software selection and evaluation criteria

2. Build a model and establish relationsDecide on the analytic method to use (If there is an outer-dependence between sub-criteria, then analyze with ANP)

3. Analyze sub-criteria of the same cluster in order to define the conjunctive and disjunctive behavior between them. (If there is such a relation, use CI; If there is no interaction, use ANP)

4. After handling sub-criteria, take into consideration the upper level criteriaMake the final aggregation and obtain a ranking (If there are conjunctive/disjunctive behavior between criteria, use Shapley indices and the interaction values including the weights of the sub-criteria and alternatives’ individual preferences in order to perform the final aggregation)

The authors propose the use of a decision framework or model consisting of three levels: at the top, the objective of the problem, followed by the listing of criteria, then the list of alternatives.

Strengths
* Gives a framework for implementing MCDM using a variety of tools
* Allows for the use of qualitative and quantitative measures
* Utilizes input from decision makers making it more likely to gain acceptance
* Is flexible enough to be applicable to other IT initiatives
* Clear guidelines as to which tool to use when throughout the process

Challenges
* The model is based in complex mathematical functions which may limit its use
* The model appears to be time-consuming to use

Conclusion
Expenditures in IT, especially when faced with enterprise-wide systems like ERP, should require a methodical evaluation approach. The hybrid-MCDM system proposed in this paper allows an analyst to measure both the quantitative and qualitative criteria while deciding which alternatives are most applicable. Because the criteria are determined within the organization, the approach is customizable for each use, making it flexible. However, it is a complex system of measurements that could be time consuming for the analyst. Its use is most likely only feasible for large IT expenditures.


From: An Integrated Decision Support System for Selecting Software Systems (January 30, 2012). Retrieved from http://www.thinkmind.org/download.php?articleid=eknow_2012_3_20_60044