Tradeoff Weights
Tradeoff Weights
Advantages and Disadvantages
The different methods of developing tradeoff weights have merits as well as shortcomings. Firstly, they help in determining the most effective decision making approach. In some situations, an individual might have numerous options. However, identifying the most effective alternative might be challenging. This is why the development of tradeoff weights is extremely significant. Another significant advantage pertains to the capacity to identify the shortcomings and merits of each alternative. In essence, this serves as a cost benefit analysis. It is extremely helpful in determining the most appropriate approach. In terms of shortcomings, using these methods might consume a lot of time. This is highly undesirable in any decision making framework.
Direct Method
The direct method of developing tradeoff weights comprises of an undeviating analysis of all the available alternatives. Consequently, this method does not comprise of any form of evaluative framework for comparing the shortcomings and gains of each option. In terms of advantages, this method helps in maximizing time efficiency (Tarun, 2008). The absence of time efficiency can significantly undermine the capacity to attain maximum yield. In terms of shortcomings, this method involves a lot of risks. This can significantly undermine the quality of the decision making process.
Swing Weighting
In contrast to the direct method, the swing weighting method comprises of a comprehensive framework for examining the shortcomings and benefits of all available alternatives. This is extremely beneficial in terms of streamlining the efficiency of any decision making process. Another perspective of consideration with regard to the swing weighting method is experimentation (Reinhard, 2007). In essence, this comprises of experimentation platforms in order to ascertain the potential outcome of all alternatives.
Equivalence Lottery
In contrast to the other methods, this approach mainly encompasses trial and errors. Consequently, it has high risk factors compared to other methods of tradeoff weights. In essence, this method is subject to high standards of inconsistency. This is because it comprises of minimal predictive mechanisms.
Yielding Optimal Results
In order to optimize the results, it is vital to examine the different alternatives for tradeoff weights. For the direct method, the optimization of results is achieved when the method is used concurrently with other frameworks. In terms of the swing weighting method, the most appropriate approach is to examine the benefits and shortcomings of all alternatives. This is extremely pertinent towards the optimization of results. For the equivalence lottery approach, it lacks a comprehensive framework for streamlining efficiency. Consequently, optimizing the results of the equivalence lottery is quite challenging.
Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches
Qualitative and quantitative frameworks represent essential frameworks for implementation in tradeoff weights. In essence, the qualitative framework does not involve extensive empirical manipulations. This is because the qualitative approaches are mostly subjective. Another attribute of qualitative frameworks pertains to the evaluation of numerous variables. This is extremely pertinent towards the enhancement of results in tradeoff weights. The integration of numerous variables facilitates for a multidisciplinary approach. In contrast, quantitative frameworks incorporate numerous perspectives for empirical analysis (Belton, 2002). As opposed to qualitative frameworks, quantitative analysis is highly subjective. Consequently, this facilitates for high standards of accuracy. The absence of accuracy has an inherent capacity to undermine the effectiveness of tradeoff weights. This applies to the three methods for tradeoff weights. In order to maximize efficiency, it is essential to identify the scenarios that require qualitative or quantitative frameworks. This is also pertinent with regard to the attainment of efficiency.
References
Belton, V. & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis. New York, NY:Springer
Reinhard, H. (2007). Strategic supply chain management. New York, NY: Springer
Tarun, P. K. (2008). Multiple objective optimization model. ProQuest
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
