Boat Buying using MADM
 

One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks 4 6 10
Speed 8 5 3
Cost 7 9 2
Length 3 8 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks (1.0) 4 6 10
Speed(1.5) 6 7.5 4.5
Cost (2.0) 14 18 4
Length(0.8) 2.4 6.4 4.0

Totals 26.4 37.9 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Sep 9, 1:55*pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

* * * * * * * * * *Alpha * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * *Charlie
Looks * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed * * * * *8 * * * * * * * * * * 5 * * * * * * * * * * * 3
Cost * * * * * * 7 * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * * * * * * * * * 2
Length * * * * 3 * * * * * * * * * * 8 * * * * * * * * * * * 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

* * * * * * * * * * * * Alpha * * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * Charlie
Looks (1.0) * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * *6 * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed(1.5) * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * * *7.5 * * * * * * * * *4.5
Cost * (2.0) * * * *14 * * * * * * * * * * *18 * * * * * * * * * *4
Length(0.8) * * * * *2.4 * * * * * * * * * 6.4 * * * * * * * * * 4.0

Totals * * * * * * * * 26.4 * * * * * * * * *37.9 * * * * * * * * 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.

Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 9, 1:55*pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

* * * * * * * * * *Alpha * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * *Charlie
Looks * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed * * * * *8 * * * * * * * * * * 5 * * * * * * * * * * * 3
Cost * * * * * * 7 * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * * * * * * * * * 2
Length * * * * 3 * * * * * * * * * * 8 * * * * * * * * * * * 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

* * * * * * * * * * * * Alpha * * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * Charlie
Looks (1.0) * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * *6 * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed(1.5) * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * * *7.5 * * * * * * * * *4.5
Cost * (2.0) * * * *14 * * * * * * * * * * *18 * * * * * * * * * *4
Length(0.8) * * * * *2.4 * * * * * * * * * 6.4 * * * * * * * * * 4.0

Totals * * * * * * * * 26.4 * * * * * * * * *37.9 * * * * * * * * 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.

Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 9, 1:55 pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks 4 6 10
Speed 8 5 3
Cost 7 9 2
Length 3 8 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks (1.0) 4 6 10
Speed(1.5) 6 7.5 4.5
Cost (2.0) 14 18 4
Length(0.8) 2.4 6.4 4.0

Totals 26.4 37.9 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.
Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.

Take a couple minutes to check your math.

OT Boat Buying using MADM
 

jim wrote:
John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 9, 1:55 pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared
to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat
Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as
compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask
myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half
again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks,
so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks,
so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like.
Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind.
Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks 4 6 10
Speed 8 5 3
Cost 7 9 2
Length 3 8 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat,
and then
get the total for each boat.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks (1.0) 4 6 10
Speed(1.5) 6 7.5 4.5
Cost (2.0) 14 18 4
Length(0.8) 2.4 6.4 4.0

Totals 26.4 37.9 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be
involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise
comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each
criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should
not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer
program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the
weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate
officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.
Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.

Take a couple minutes to check your math.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:36:57 -0400, jim wrote:

John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 9, 1:55 pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks 4 6 10
Speed 8 5 3
Cost 7 9 2
Length 3 8 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

Alpha Bravo Charlie
Looks (1.0) 4 6 10
Speed(1.5) 6 7.5 4.5
Cost (2.0) 14 18 4
Length(0.8) 2.4 6.4 4.0

Totals 26.4 37.9 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.
Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.

Take a couple minutes to check your math.

Nah, the math's not important. I just bought the fastest boat!

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:25:45 -0400, John H wrote:

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.

Anything that encourages an assesment of your real needs and
priorities is a good thing. When we went looking for our "retirement"
boat we down rated speed since presumably we would have more time
available for cruising. We put a high premium on
redundancy/reliability because we had many prior experiences with
plans being disrupted because of mechanical and electrical issues.
Therefore we wanted a boat with twin engines, twin generators, dual
nav/helm stations, etc. We also wanted a boat with good fuel range
and water capacity so that we could make long passages to the
boondocks and be able to stay there for a while. Then the admiral
threw a curve ball into the mix. She wanted a boat big enough for
grand children and their parents. Of course all of the boat brokers
would ask how many grandchildren we had. The answer was, and is, zero
- but no matter to the admiral. The extra cabins are useful for
storage of course.

And *that* is how you end up with a 50 footer that weighs about 40
tons fully loaded. :-)

The redundant critical systems have paid off many times over,
paticularly with the generators which get worked a lot.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:49:18 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:25:45 -0400, John H wrote:

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.

Anything that encourages an assesment of your real needs and
priorities is a good thing. When we went looking for our "retirement"
boat we down rated speed since presumably we would have more time
available for cruising. We put a high premium on
redundancy/reliability because we had many prior experiences with
plans being disrupted because of mechanical and electrical issues.
Therefore we wanted a boat with twin engines, twin generators, dual
nav/helm stations, etc. We also wanted a boat with good fuel range
and water capacity so that we could make long passages to the
boondocks and be able to stay there for a while. Then the admiral
threw a curve ball into the mix. She wanted a boat big enough for
grand children and their parents. Of course all of the boat brokers
would ask how many grandchildren we had. The answer was, and is, zero
- but no matter to the admiral. The extra cabins are useful for
storage of course.

And *that* is how you end up with a 50 footer that weighs about 40
tons fully loaded. :-)

The redundant critical systems have paid off many times over,
paticularly with the generators which get worked a lot.

Well, when the other gender gets involved, some of the objective analysis
gets shoved aside by subjective desires. It would be interesting to know
all the criteria you considered and how you weighted them. You undoubtedly
did some mental weighting, but seeing it on paper would be interesting.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Sep 9, 3:25*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 9, 1:55*pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

* * * * * * * * * *Alpha * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * *Charlie
Looks * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed * * * * *8 * * * * * * * * * * 5 * * * * * * * * * * * 3
Cost * * * * * * 7 * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * * * * * * * * * 2
Length * * * * 3 * * * * * * * * * * 8 * * * * * * * * * * * 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

* * * * * * * * * * * * Alpha * * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * Charlie
Looks (1.0) * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * *6 * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed(1.5) * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * * *7.5 * * * * * * * * *4.5
Cost * (2.0) * * * *14 * * * * * * * * * * *18 * * * * * * * * * *4
Length(0.8) * * * * *2.4 * * * * * * * * * 6.4 * * * * * * * * * 4.0

Totals * * * * * * * * 26.4 * * * * * * * * *37.9 * * * * * * * * 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.

Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

Boat Buying using MADM
 

wrote in message
...

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------

~~ Snerk ~~

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 13:21:14 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:25*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 9, 1:55*pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

* * * * * * * * * *Alpha * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * *Charlie
Looks * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed * * * * *8 * * * * * * * * * * 5 * * * * * * * * * * * 3
Cost * * * * * * 7 * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * * * * * * * * * 2
Length * * * * 3 * * * * * * * * * * 8 * * * * * * * * * * * 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

* * * * * * * * * * * * Alpha * * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * Charlie
Looks (1.0) * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * *6 * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed(1.5) * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * * *7.5 * * * * * * * * *4.5
Cost * (2.0) * * * *14 * * * * * * * * * * *18 * * * * * * * * * *4
Length(0.8) * * * * *2.4 * * * * * * * * * 6.4 * * * * * * * * * 4.0

Totals * * * * * * * * 26.4 * * * * * * * * *37.9 * * * * * * * * 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.

Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

I know! And you're right!

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Tue, 09 Sep 2008 15:58:23 -0400, John H wrote:

Well, when the other gender gets involved, some of the objective analysis
gets shoved aside by subjective desires. It would be interesting to know
all the criteria you considered and how you weighted them. You undoubtedly
did some mental weighting, but seeing it on paper would be interesting.

When you buy a boat that you expect to live on for months at a time it
is *critical* that the admiral be involved. Whenever she says
anything negative about the boat I can always say to her: "this is the
one you wanted", and that is important. :-)

I never did a rigorous weighted matrix exercise but the priorities
were clear in my mind and we looked at a lot of boats. Given the
subsequent rise in fuel prices I am really glad that we did not get a
sportfish or motoryacht although we did consider it.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Sep 9, 2:25*pm, John H wrote:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008 11:17:13 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 9, 1:55*pm, John H wrote:
One technique for multiple attribute decision making is to develop a
weighted matrix listing the criteria used for the decision compared to the
objects being considered. We'll use three boats as an example, Boat Alpha,
Boat Bravo, and Boat Charlie.

We must first identify the criteria which are important to us. For this
example, I've chosen: Looks, Speed, Cost, and Length

First we will determine the relative value of each criterion as compared to
each other. I'll let Looks have a 1.0 value. Then I have to ask myself, is
speed more or less important than looks. Let's say speed is half again as
important as looks, then speed would get a value of 1.5. Each of the
criteria are so weighted. Cost may be twice as important as looks, so it
would get weighted with a 2.0. Length isn't as important as looks, so it
gets a 0.8

Now we have to weight each boat in terms of the criteria. We'll use a
number from 1 to 10 to weight each. Alpha is pretty ugly. Charlie is
gorgeous. Alpha is the fastest, but not quite as fast as I'd like. Charlie
is a dog. Bravo is the least costly, with Alpha not far behind. Charlie is
quite expensive. Length is easy. I want a long boat, and Bravo is the
longest. Alpha is the shortest.

* * * * * * * * * *Alpha * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * *Charlie
Looks * * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed * * * * *8 * * * * * * * * * * 5 * * * * * * * * * * * 3
Cost * * * * * * 7 * * * * * * * * * * 9 * * * * * * * * * * * 2
Length * * * * 3 * * * * * * * * * * 8 * * * * * * * * * * * 5

Now I apply the weight of the criteria to the score of each boat, and then
get the total for each boat.

* * * * * * * * * * * * Alpha * * * * * * *Bravo * * * * * * Charlie
Looks (1.0) * * * * 4 * * * * * * * * * * * *6 * * * * * * * * * 10
Speed(1.5) * * * * 6 * * * * * * * * * * * *7.5 * * * * * * * * *4.5
Cost * (2.0) * * * *14 * * * * * * * * * * *18 * * * * * * * * * *4
Length(0.8) * * * * *2.4 * * * * * * * * * 6.4 * * * * * * * * * 4.0

Totals * * * * * * * * 26.4 * * * * * * * * *37.9 * * * * * * * * 22.5

And the winner is Charlie!

Of course, for an actual selection many more criteria would be involved.
And, the technique can be much more specific by using pairwise comparisons
for each of the criteria. I used a simple comparison of each criterion to
speed, but it could be that comparing length to cost, length should not be
less than half as important as cost. When done with a computer program, the
results can be used to show 'consistency' (or lack thereof) in the weight
of each criteria.

This technique was used, and may still be, as a way to evaluate officers
for selection to promotion or command positions in the Army.

Lemme guess, you got promoted on looks versus speed, right?!!!

Hey, when you're investing many thousands, spending a couple hours doing
some analysis can pay off in a big way.

It does take time, but only because of the thinking involved.

Huh?

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Sep 9, 3:41*pm, "Don White" wrote:

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!


perfect!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zukpuHTL6vA

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Sep 10, 11:22*pm, Tim wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:41*pm, "Don White" wrote:

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

perfect!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zukpuHTL6vA

And a damned fine song at that!!!

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Sep 11, 9:03*am, wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:22*pm, Tim wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:41*pm, "Don White" wrote:

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

perfect!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zukpuHTL6vA

And a damned fine song at that!!!

LOL!

You got that right!

Boat Buying using MADM
 

Tim wrote:
On Sep 11, 9:03 am, wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:22 pm, Tim wrote:

On Sep 9, 3:41 pm, "Don White" wrote:
Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!
perfect!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zukpuHTL6vA
And a damned fine song at that!!!

LOL!

You got that right!


Yeah, I got it...but...

Fleetwood Mac was much better to look at and listen to when the lovely
Stephanie Lynn Nicks, aka Stevie Nicks, was aboard. Stevie was and still
is my favorite girl rock star, love the voice, her lyrics, and she still
looks great. Good person, too.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Sep 10, 11:22*pm, Tim wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:41*pm, "Don White" wrote:

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

perfect!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zukpuHTL6vA

And a damned fine song at that!!!

I wouldn't know. I couldn't understand one word. Was he singing words?
--
John H.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Sep 11, 6:06*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:22*pm, Tim wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:41*pm, "Don White" wrote:

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

perfect!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zukpuHTL6vA

And a damned fine song at that!!!

I wouldn't know. I couldn't understand one word. Was he singing words?
--
John H.

Here, John.

"Oh Well"
Written by Peter Green.
Recorded by fleetwood Mac

I cant help about the shape Im in
I cant sing, I aint pretty and my legs are thin
But dont ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to

Oh well

Now, when I talked to God I knew hed understand
He said, stick by my side and Ill be your guiding hand
But dont ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to

Oh well


here's a better version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFsfPE-t3Hg

Boat Buying using MADM
 

On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 17:44:31 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:

On Sep 11, 6:06*pm, John H. wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 07:03:24 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
On Sep 10, 11:22*pm, Tim wrote:
On Sep 9, 3:41*pm, "Don White" wrote:

Hey, John, it was a joke, you ain't pretty, neither!!!!!!

perfect!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zukpuHTL6vA

And a damned fine song at that!!!

I wouldn't know. I couldn't understand one word. Was he singing words?
--
John H.

Here, John.

"Oh Well"
Written by Peter Green.
Recorded by fleetwood Mac

I cant help about the shape Im in
I cant sing, I aint pretty and my legs are thin
But dont ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to

Oh well

Now, when I talked to God I knew hed understand
He said, stick by my side and Ill be your guiding hand
But dont ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to

Oh well


here's a better version

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFsfPE-t3Hg

Very cool. Thanks!

But my legs aren't all that thin! Walking 4-5 miles on a golf course 2-4
times a week helps.
--
John H.

Boat Buying using MADM
 

John H. wrote:


But my legs aren't all that thin! Walking 4-5 miles on a golf course 2-4
times a week helps.


Boating related, of course.