1. Working Proposals Working Proposals 2015 - 2016 Rosário D. Laureano maria.laureano@iscte.pt D2.03

2. The following proposals of work are based on MULTI- CRITERIA Decision Analysis (MCDA) for STRATEGIC DECISION MAKING, also known as Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)  Methodology MCDM is suitable for solving decision problems with some complexity:  we intend to evaluate the best alternative / option / action (for the evaluator / decision maker) against a relatively large number of decision criteria  but we have no way to satisfy all the criteria because they are conflicted / competitors. Working proposals 2015/16

3.  There are several multi-criteria methods (MACBETH, AHP, ANP, MAUT (and extensions as MUSA and UTA), TOPSIS, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, …) which:  have an high application potential  could be compared regarding relative effectiveness in decision making  (in general) have a specific decision-making software (DMS) to implement it [see http://www.mcdmsociety.org/soft.html andhttp://www.mcdmsociety.org/soft.html http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ewgmcda/index.php/software ]http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/ewgmcda/index.php/software MACBETH  M-MACBETH; MAUT  RightChoice; AHP  MakeItRational and ExpertChoice; ANP  Super Decisions; ELECTRE III-IV Software; PROMETHEE  The Smart Picker Pro Software; … Working proposals 2015/16

4. alguns métodos MCDM – alguns métodos  AHP – Analytic Hierarchy Process (MakeItRational, ExpertChoice)  Extensões do AHP  ANP – Analytic Network Process (Super Decisions)  MAUT – Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (RightChoice)  Extensões do MAUT (ex. Mét.UTA)  AHP – Analytic Hierarchy Process (MakeItRational, ExpertChoice)  Extensões do AHP  ANP – Analytic Network Process (Super Decisions)  MAUT – Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (RightChoice)  Extensões do MAUT (ex. Mét.UTA)  ELECTRE – ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (The Electre III-IV Software)  Extensões do ELECTRE  PROMETHEE – Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enriched Evaluation (The Smart Picker Pro Software)  Extensões do PROMETHEE  ELECTRE – ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité (The Electre III-IV Software)  Extensões do ELECTRE  PROMETHEE – Preference Ranking Organization METHod for Enriched Evaluation (The Smart Picker Pro Software)  Extensões do PROMETHEE FULL AGREGATION APPROACH (ESCOLA AMERICANA) OUTRANKING APPROACH (ESCOLA FRANCESA) Rosário Laureano 5ª aula – 04 Out. 2014  MACBETH - Measuring Attractiveness by a Category Based Evaluation TecHnique (M-MACBETH) inclui conceitos das 2 Escolas, embora + da Americana (M-MACBETH) inclui conceitos das 2 Escolas, embora + da Americana Working proposals 2015/16

5. -  All following proposals use the MACBETH method - Measuring Attractiveness by a Category Based Evaluation TecHnique, although they may involve other methods.  The special emphasis given to this method is due to:  It allows a quantitative analysis of the decision problem only based on qualitative judgments by the evaluator /decision maker  It is very intuitive and and challenging  There is the M-MACBETH decision-making software facilitating its application. Working proposals 2015/16

6. MACBETH - MACBETH - Measuring Attractiveness by a Category Based Evaluation Working proposals 2015/16

7. MACBETH - MACBETH - Measuring Attractiveness by a Category Based Evaluation Working proposals 2015/16

8.  1 st Proposal Assessment of the location of an hostel in Lisbon city based on the characteristics and goals of the investment by means of the MACBETH method.  2 nd Proposal Optimization of the fixed and mobile networks in a company given the recurring challenges of telecommunications and company characteristics by means of the MACBETH method.  3 rd Proposal To apply the MACBETH method together with the Geographic Information System (GIS) in the telecommunication network planning and design. Working proposals 2015/16

9.  4 th Proposal Programming language assessment based on the programmer goals through MACBETH method.  5 th Proposal To compare the use of M-MACBETH decision- making software with the use of another existing computerized multi-criteria decision support systems (that is, another existing DMS) and provide recommendations on implementing them. In this comparison we can turn to one of the problems solving indicated in previous proposals. Working proposals 2015/16