The Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) Process

صفحه 1:
The Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) Process Terry Bahill Systems and Industrial Engineering University of Arizona terry@sie.arizona.edu ©, 2005-09, Bahill This file is located at http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/slid Coy 

صفحه 2:
2-7 © اك ‎aa ace‏ ا للا امه ‎Cc‏ تدحو مهو محر ‎ee‏ ‏مه ام هرت ها عد بك ة) +ومواعع () جز جدجمه جدعدصمم 000001 جدا خا جن0© * ‎DOR.‏ 0 

صفحه 3:
DAR phrow (ey. GEMDPs). 7 0 ‏ا‎ kaa Oe ee ee Ra De Ce Se Le CL A Ae a ‏هط مسر‎ ٠ 00805 ‏لكصحاصدا دز‎ ad (AD can Rac ea ۳۳۲۲7۲۲۲۲۲ ۲۳۲۲ ۳, 0 ‏ل مر‎ CCN Gey eae ‏ل‎ reece eee ۱ ‏ا‎ ee 

صفحه 4:
النطة8 نا بها لجولعةاطاماوب جمى دوجو دودمم تمصت 0175 ‎[ONO‏ ‏اا 

صفحه 5:
Typical decisions Se een a ae RR eRe aT 177255 0 ‏ار‎ ‎0 cma] 0 ie) ل م ‎Rc‏ Perea ۶ ‏ولجون)‎ ac a asl 0 

صفحه 6:
النطة8 ‎elessts)‏ ا ‎ce Coe‏ كنا ‎Mee eRe Loe ee 

صفحه 7:
A Simple Model for Human Decision Making, Called Image Theory للنطوظ 

صفحه 8:
References ay ‏مها‎ ee ‏مت‎ ‎۱ ‏ما ور‎ 00 NRC ENC ACE Cae ee Oc NC Ue ae Eas 

صفحه 9:
Image theory* See RON nace (OO) ca od le a RS cea 02000 ۱ ‏ا‎ en ‎Cao‏ ل ا اكه ‎AN ASN RST‏ ا" سرا ‏النطة8 

صفحه 10:
The value image 50 a RC ce A cn a Roe De EN Re UNS FES ERR ac ‏تس رای م96‎ rege * ‏اس رو‎ ۱ ada UR) ‏مهم‎ ‏ص۱9‎ ‏سس ره‎ ۱ ‏ل ا ا‎ ‏ل 0ك‎ 111 1 115 Doce, VA ae ee ae oe 

صفحه 11:
The trajectory image FN NIM atc nok OLN oe AN oe SN Re a ee a ‏,ای‎ ‎proiples, vpportuciies, desires, cowpetive issues ord ۳ aE RAS NC Be I CaN aoe AAC Lae CA SPN AN on SA A OI ca Ren Eas ah oR en cit Pa bevouse itis his or her visiva ubout ow the Puture should NC 

صفحه 12:
The strategic image ‏ل ا‎ ‏ما‎ ‏ام سم سا مت‎ ۱۱ ad SNS at ne Ree RS cad De Ra 222 ‏ل كن‎ oA 0-7 ‏و هم م۱‎ ol 000000 22 ‏ل‎ ‎oe AVS DCA CAA nd ON Cue cM aE Nc en coca aN ee 

صفحه 13:
3 ‎aoc‏ رب و ‏مه عن ام ما مها نموه وی 020 بو ۶ ‎Nae CA can cca Cone cada Da ۰‏ ا ‎۱ ‏ل‎ Cea 22 

صفحه 14:
النطة8 Two types of decisions ‎ORS aS aed‏ ا ل ای میم وت ما ‎Ba cas ee rt AC ot eC RD CA CARCASS ‏م۱‎ acca PO aS SR CAS 

صفحه 15:
Adoption decisions ۱ as Bee NE RN OB aac ac a bo OEM cet RSS eNO ‏یرت‎ ‎۹ ‏واه هت ول‎ ‏مس ی یا‎ Des UR cag ee cS ca a Cc | ۱ eee ace cae ‏ة‎ end oe ee A FON A oe oe oe cic AN Ne ‏مه‎ ‎Tee ‏ل‎ ‏وس‎ 

صفحه 16:
Progress decisions ۱۹ aaa Cae ۱ ea RR ‏ل‎ ‎۱ ‏سم‎ SA ۱ ER Ce ‏ا‎ a RN RN OO RN cL oan] ‏تا‎ النطة8 1 

صفحه 17:
Two decision mechanisms I ‏مهم‎ A OSL) they Pit the OO ’s icoaces. ‎Pe od eR RON Cee RA ec‏ الك" ‎Se RL atom‏ ۱ ‎۱ 

صفحه 18:
۱2۱۱ ‏حك‎ ‎0000 ‏ا م0‎ a co on ea oc 0 ‏ل‎ ac RR ance ad Dn os Ratt pce cc ae ec coca ee a NS a a AS OCA aN AAACN OSA CaaS CL Nc ee Nae ea we De Rasa aA RB RCN oo ‏سا‎ ca NAN ‏نكي‎ RD ob coc ear ae Re ened nea mrad 200 da oe ‏لت حز‎ 

صفحه 19:
Profitability test ۱ Docc SRN CC ‏رسد‎ kN aed eo RE ame aco SE ‏مت‎ Ae ‏تم ص۱۳‎ ‏ات سس رها‎ ۰ ۳ ‏طسو وه لاو‎ Neca ee DN a a ee ea ۶ ‏که اون‎ ۰ 

صفحه 20:
Image theory for organizations* BOO error ‏کم‎ ‏ل‎ Eun a oe ۱ NS rc a ‏ا‎ ‎Nei ASL ‏ل ل‎ See NCA aN AEC SR CaS cae ham. النطة8 

صفحه 21:
The need for chanqge* A ar IR a SCAN Neat Cc rac 21 Servi 

صفحه 22:
*عطمتمزمع06 1211011 ریق * BS aE areca rad ۱ ‏ل‎ cia as BR od eA eo RAS aC ODAC وا م۱0 مت ۱ النطة8 

صفحه 23:
Satisficing* TE A NIN IN Ci Cac CRN DORON ea ‏من‎ as Ra ‏اي‎ eee od See ee EAN NA Re A CA Se ae oe A a ‏ل‎ cd ‏من هرا‎ « ۰ تا مه ۱ لس ما لك لته اما شاه ,موه لص ره 

صفحه 24:
Humans are not rational", ‏رل ان‎ 0 ‏ل لل‎ eae oe id Oe eC ‏”جد‎ ‎۱ aN ae AU cae LA RNS Id oe BO RC a aE A aa, ‏ره‎ te A NE ec Vohra eck oe AO Di] De Raa Cale Se Nd a a eee hal V0 Se poe ae SR ca aR aca beh iL cca 

صفحه 25:
النطة8 11111510115+ BO as ren od cee Se ee ce CAE De aCe cen ee od ‏مت راما‎ 

صفحه 26:
The Miller-Lyer Illusion* rs ۱ 

صفحه 27:
Bahill 

صفحه 28:
۹9 Rottvad @ekuvior O لك Cubjeetwe ‘on ua ‏امه‎ ‘Donk ‏عر‎ ‏م‎ سس ‎Osher‏ wad Oekavior Expected Duly 

صفحه 29:
Humans Judge probabilities poorly* = Wpical ‏عادص اي‎ ‎Yeul Gstiwate‏ سس ‎Gubjective Avbubility DO eighktio ‎ ‎9 ‎9 ‎QO 0 eal Avbubility ‎ 

صفحه 30:
Monty Hall Paradox,* انطو 

صفحه 31:
النطوظ Monty Hall Paradox,” 

صفحه 32:
النطوظ Monty Hall Paradox," 

صفحه 33:
النطوظ Monty Hall Paradox,” 

صفحه 34:
Monty Hall Paradox,* "0 CVA cae cael ac eA ao ee CC aN Ea 0-7 ا ا ل للا ‎EE ae‏ ا سن" ‏المي اي اا ‎0 ‏ا‎ et ‏شب‎ ‏النطة8 

صفحه 35:
Monty Hall Paradox,” SA ‏ل‎ aN Ns UAC e NCS LDDs cmos ‏اه‎ ‎a RNC ba acs ce‏ كا ‎PSR ce an od a‏ ‎BN ‏ا‎ RUS aR 0 Face aR cae AU ED RE Oc bec ce aries Pe CE ea aL ‎° DherePore, your best stroteqy is to obeys switch! ‏النطة8 

صفحه 36:
Utility a OA NU oa Rs crate a Ra NCL e, cc ce 8 OL VIAV AUT eae oer eae aN Ud Objective (Ct ala ‏عر ا اتطه ط مق‎ Ca anita مرف 0 Bahill 

صفحه 37:
#وانلنان] ‎ee‏ ل ا للا ‎ysis (or ۱ RRccat‏ مس همم سم ات هت ها ‎Me ec AR RNa ‎۱ boik subjevively judged vokue ced the Ran eae ae 

صفحه 38:
۹۵ ۱ ee Ra ee as Re a ۱ ‏ا‎ ‎۱ oe Doe ee oe Sa evo ‏الوح ل رالا قراس اك لصا اا لاسر ارا‎ ‏ل ها‎ Ca a ام ‎Inne‏ ‏متس لم ۳ ا ‏ تا ات هه هو هه موه | مد و هه صو وه و موه 

صفحه 39:
Ambiguity, uncertainty and hazards* ۱9 Oould pou prePer wy Porest picked ‎cL‏ را 31 ‎ca EO ae eas RN aa (CoN mca ee ‎7 ECR a Ca SN occ ‎ee a ate ‏النطة8 ‎39 

صفحه 40:
Humans are not rational Boe Be SAS A RN Rac aoe ee La NR ee ane DN car ane cae A Pa a ‏سس ها‎ a RO ‏وه‎ Reece eee NTL Ee RR ee acd FCA ALAS UR come ° Okick of these wagers would pou prePer to the?* $C wil probobitiy oF O.S od $D wil probobiiy 0.S $d wi probably oP OD.OS und $1,000,000 wit 0 ‏رک‎ ‎۱ ‏سرت ات رز‎ 1 ‏ل‎ nner ee aC 

صفحه 41:
النطة8 Gains and losses are not valued equally* (CU alia Oonk 

صفحه 42:
۱ TN com ci oe ec ce aS "۱ oP the huppicess or sctisPaction 0 TE RTIASES SN MA ANCA aa VO RS CA aa * Gubjevive probubilip is the persuu's ussesswedt oP the Lea CN UAC al cl A Ne Ua CaN NE eee a ied 07 42 3 

صفحه 43:
Subjective expected utility ۱:09 ۱ BINNS BR CMRP A a Cea ‏تا‎ ‎| ae ace ee eee oc eco ‏يا‎ ‎BE ER ۱ Aaa CaN ۱ oo oe a ae nara Nal without teoprovies the procuct), cred ‏ل یا‎ 0 ace ees cB cd A Be roe Rea eh wacc cd a النطة8 

صفحه 44:
CO Roetivwal Gekwivr Cxperied Oulity = ‎Oekavior‏ متا ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ ‎ 

صفحه 45:
Why teach tradeoff studies? ا 0 ۱9 او | سم مس طرش یا 700 ‏ل‎ Cac Pa cl oe aad 2 0 ‏ما‎ the ‏ل ی مود دم هت‎ as PA Nd النطة8 

صفحه 46:
The Decision Analysis and Resolution Proces (DAR) للنطوظ 

صفحه 47:
Specific goals (SG) OTe BAN AN oe ee ace MSE ‏مه ات مهف‎ ‏لك ام فا تسا‎ eased OT AC as ce النطة8 47 

صفحه 48:
Specific practices (SP) ۰) ‏و‎ ees eI PA ‏لصو حا‎ 0 a CNS Nd Oca cca edd Tee Na PASS ASA النطة8 

صفحه 49:


صفحه 50:
Dra See ed Sen eS ee ات 

صفحه 51:
When creating a process ۱ 0 I Ne eB oN Re RR a alah * sargpsttay Peedback bops ۱ i accel Cac aed peered مهم ۱ النطة8 51 

صفحه 52:
Bahill A simple tradeoff study 

صفحه 53:
Decisions ۱ RC Na Cee ce cr * Clocatuy resvurces aoa cope projects” ۱ 3 ‏اس‎ ‎OR RS ed ‏او وو رم امه سا من رهم‎ | nent fies oe Soke onc ene ere ar Ro ee a on eed ‏ند‎ ‎| oe aoe ha enero ‏و تست سید‎ ea Ree meee cece Be hardware pr svPiware. PradevPP studies ane typicdl 0 aaa النطة8 

صفحه 54:
النطة8 History eA Gr ach n kee cai mcrae eo Oa aera hd 0 SO 

صفحه 55:
Tradeoff Study Process” ان 55 

صفحه 56:
Bahill Veciae it POrMa! Evaluation 1s Needed 

صفحه 57:
Is formal evaluation needed? SP 1.1 Or eR er oe a a a Ceca devisiog undpsis. Oriteria tachide Bk Rs Cn a RC et Re aN pea BER ce aR RP ae aN RO eas cal ‏سس سس‎ لصف ما۱ ‎od‏ سس رت ۱ ‏مه وت رز‎ cal ‏ی هفتت۱‎ اللا يي ره ۱ رم ات۱ النطة8 57 

صفحه 58:
Guidelines for formal evaluation, SP de i al As ل ۱ ‎al‏ ماس انس 00 RR RR eh a en ed Se ee A a A Ree Pal Pao NA a ea CR a ‎ca‏ مت مس مس ت۱9 ‎ae en CoE care aad‏ ۱۳ ‎° On devisives wit the poteutdl to stqaiPiccaiy reduce depict a aN a ed 

صفحه 59:
Establish Evaluation Criteria للنطوظ 

صفحه 60:
Establish evaluation criteria” ‏م52‎ 92 رم مت ما مر ۱9 ل ل ‎Gack‏ * ‎a ee eas‏ ا ا ‎eR Re‏ ‏۱ ‎kaos‏ ۱ و مرا ‎SN eS Raa a a el aad ‏النطة8 

صفحه 61:
۱ What will you eat for lunch today? كا Be cen ea ‏ا‎ ce 61 

صفحه 62:
Killer trades BN Re ene cee enc oe ‏ل كنا‎ a NS aR Bd ۱ aan aac ‏ل‎ ‎Nec oe ۱ ee ee a 1۱ AR Nc 

صفحه 63:
Identify Alternative Solutions للنطوظ 

صفحه 64:
Identity alternative solutions, 5 A Nae UNS ese RCN ease a Ce CSN ONC CaT BO ON ON an ene Men ec Pao aca cal "00 ‏ل ل‎ RS CRN eon ca POSS Ca ‏مس ها‎ all BON ene RC Rea ec d 35 مها النطة8 

صفحه 65:
What will you eat for lunch today? ° da chss exervise. ® List sowe utercaives Por today’s hrak.* ۱ 

صفحه 66:
Select Evaluation Methods للنطوظ 

صفحه 67:
aes evaluation methods, SP ۱ a ASR SR ‏توا رت‎ م۱9 مهم مس میا ‎aol‏ و ات ل ل 70 ‎Ide Prict,‏ الا 2 ان ا ا ا ا ‎Geack Orav,‏ م ا كا ‎eee eer ee eee eCay eer‏ لس ‎eC cd‏ میمصت ‏النطة8 ‎67 

صفحه 68:
Collect evaluation data * Ostoy the uppropriae source (upproxicvatioes, AMAT 0 id ANS oO ‏هس رس سا‎ النطة8 

صفحه 69:
للنطوظ Evaluate Alternatives 

صفحه 70:
Evaluate alternatives, SP 1.5 ۱ ‏ماما‎ ‎Do ge RS ee Od SAL ‏مي‎ Be NNR ne RNa el Dicom ec mn aac oad NN a POR ce cei coc neice cco racic a DON cae ora CaS Fee AAS PLAS ‏و‎ Cec od aN ROS BN CaS النطة8 

صفحه 71:
Select Preferred Solutions Bahill 

صفحه 72:
select preferred solutions, 5P 1.6 0 Cre oe ene aa RON ‏ا‎ ee ood chr ‏متا‎ aia aan ‎en om eo ST‏ ا نا ‎ALND dg oa oe eM US Ce co‏ ‎CaS can eR Da‏ ۱۱۱ ‎oe a Ae eo a ee ۱ NE ‏اه سا‎ ‎* ) ‏ویو‎ ocalysis vill kelp volichate pour ‏مس وا‎ aS oa ‏النطة8 ‎72 

صفحه 73:
Perform Expert Review للنطوظ 

صفحه 74:
متت بدت الوا وتلا ‎Nod‏ لي ل ل لا ‎reviews suck uw GRR, POR und COR or by spevial‏ حرط۲۲ ۳۳۳۲۱ ‎SE ea a Ue a ON Ce Cec (CW roe a ee ‏ا‎ nD iac cd ana eae AP een Oe ed MOR ete ke Maem ‎a ae a ca ce eed‏ لكا ‎COUN cae Nn Ano PA ea cl ccd oR eco‏ ‎SA oe cd een ek ee aed ea 660250 ‎0 

صفحه 75:
Perform expert review, * Devkaicd reviews evolrate the procuct oP ot IPT* A 2 ce rae Sea ca cS CaO CaN od RA PASC CN SE ‏ل‎ aN ee Se oe nd SO ‏ال‎ * @ut bod experioe should be yreuter thaa the IPT’s ‏و رت‎ Cac Cacao النطة8 

صفحه 76:
Who snould come to the review? * Progra Qucager Oe ACA Soe ‏ل ناا‎ MMOs AN ac BO ra Recs eG ac} ‏ت۱9‎ ‎۱ ‏تست دای سر رت‎ CCS * Ovetrwer Og ۶ ‏یو‎ ‎0 ‏ل الي ا‎ on Ded ea RO i aod a sc النطة8 

صفحه 77:
النطة8 Present results ا 2 ‎Mee‏ ‏ل ا ات 1 7 

صفحه 78:
Put in the PAL Te aa eC eee ‏ا‎ ‏ل ل ل لي ا‎ dd Por DOA) Be REC al Ot cies oR acco aca ۱ aS AIRS ic PACA oP Cae Fe ANC ROSA ae ee kee cacao ee od TN a ee ANAS * ee te eee ‏جز‎ ‏دس‎ 

صفحه 79:
Manage the DAR process * Dke DOR Provess Owrer shall wacage ood ispprove the DPR provess. * Dke DOR Provess Owrcer wil establish o choo 1۱ eee nd O@R Cowwou Provess. Vhis review wust evaluate DN CR Ra ‏ل‎ ae ۱ ‏و رت‎ eS eS eR ‏ری مهف‎ 

صفحه 80:
Closed Book Quiz, 5 minutes Fill in the empty boxes للنطوظ 80 

صفحه 81:
للنطوظ Tradeoff Study Example 

صفحه 82:
اف ‎we use for evaluating‏ ال اك 1 ‎ace‏ ها ۱ ‎BN RN Ae ae a eee as Ole‏ ‎See ee ee Lk Naa‏ 0 ‎Re‏ ل 222 ا 0 2( ۴و یو ۶ ناص * ‎aC aca aa)‏ ‎SCR Cae‏ )۱ ۱ 

صفحه 83:
Example (continued), A Na Ua a CN cc ca lo we) Be NN hee ce ACO Phevry (D®O).* Vis wethod is oPtea voted a “trode study.” Vis oPtec topleweuted wit oot Excel spreadsheet. * Oudic Wieracky Process (BW? )™* النطة8 

صفحه 84:
Example (continued), BI Bw Ne arial ara olds 0 ‏لل‎ ARM Ee Aaa ce ‏ا‎ ‎bel Oot nas eC ee RS RS EST ‏رم‎ ‏لت‎ tly Pevboique (DOOD), Oerisics Trees, Oudic Wierachy Provess (BWP), Pair TAO ‏ل‎ a SRC ۱ om Nes ee Sd Na cede acl ‏الل‎ ‎۱ acca Ae (UC 

صفحه 85:
Example (continued), BCVA Nc el ass a 0 Reed ‏و‎ en cao ca A Pat cl act aod oat acd ۱ ‏ما یه‎ powpuler poo wrwdlize the weighs P oevessurv. النطة8 

صفحه 86:
Multi-Attribute Utility Technique (MAUT), Oetykt pF ‏كاي‎ Maa dah ad | Guse ‏عم‎ ‎as ) 6 | "© ‏باس كا‎ ‏ده‎ 0 Deny] ۱۱۳ @OGOT Ole فص Ce ema an manu ‏ا‎ tae Vie Bahill 

صفحه 87:
Multi-Attribute Utility Technique OX OCA 9 e ©) 8 9 ge رال ملیف Bahill avr NcnD ‎Oevtykt* oP‏ نب على ‎Guse‏ ‏لع ‎Ose‏ ‎hs ath 9‏ اس بدا ۴ 6 ‎Da ‏كع ‏ادها ‏ج5171 

صفحه 88:
Bahill Analytic Hierarchy Process (ON tala ‏با‎ ك4 005250 092 | (AHP) ۵ ‏للم له‎ مه ‎tikely‏ :17۳۲7۲۱۲۲۸ مااتببظ) لش مت و | 00 ‏يي ا‎ likely or preferred (Cera iid wore twportuut, toa toa ‏مت‎ preferred مه 7 ‎Oery‏ ‏ا هه ‎likely‏ 17۳۳۳۳1۹۸ ‎had a‏ ل ا ithelp vr prefered 88 

صفحه 89:
AHP, make comparisons OE ‏ل‎ Ree a ‏ات انوم بویا‎ 

صفحه 90:
AHP, compute weights * Oredte a wutrix Cea a * ‏نك‎ ‎"0 ان 

صفحه 91:
In-class exercise oe cag can eo oc ‏یا مر‎ ۰ be rca eR ce ee oR oe bard DSN LN Ae RAC Sa AAA var ond drive? Se ‏ا‎ NN CN a cS Ucn Dee ‏ل‎ ‎۱ SC 91 

صفحه 92:
النطة8 To help select lunch today, reece ceed aE cee Sec eee cae ea ae ۱ ean a 92 

صفحه 93:
To help select lunch today, ° Doseurss is strvey wore ‏ل‎ thao tasters, ۱ ee Ne a Ce RS a ۱9 ee eee Cd النطة8 93 

صفحه 94:
To help select lunch today, a ad ‏عصص‌زوت‎ 0.73 443 )29 423 و / 7 5 7/1 5 1 0.19 1125 74/5 3 31-108 1 اراق 1 1 8 4.8 3 4 ۱ | و زار ۱ 7 7 3 

صفحه 95:
للنطوظ AHP, get scores ۱60 aoe ew oe ae eciaal cecal RCE aaa ‏ووه ام‎ 2۳), ‏نت‎ preferred (QO car Olay 16 95 

صفحه 96:
AHP, get scores, OT ‏ل‎ a RE eg cal ۵ انس ةا ‎O@OP | 4b terws oP‏ ‎Meta‏ ‎OGOTs‏ ‎Sao Ld‏ 9) لصمطاصع عملا 08 ان 

صفحه 97:
AHP, form comparison matrix™ ase aes Bahill O@eoT an میاه مت یه OT AUN a aN Cac Oetykt oP ‏يا لايك‎ ‏عم موه‎ ۳ ‏رل دس یه‎ ‏ات‎ ‎Deki ‏سنا‎ ‏تست‎ 7 

صفحه 98:
Example (continued), ۱9 PrePerred Gottiow, GP 1.0. ® Licear uddiiva oP weight tes svpres (DBO) wus te ‏سم لجمموخاصم‎ 0 eR ae )©عونلا, ‏جالجورجم02) صا ووذ "|" , *بروججصاطاصدم0)‎ BE as Lod النطة8 

صفحه 99:
Sensitivity analysis, simple ‏ا ل ل ل الا‎ اسصت ها 0ف 0 ‎oe‏ هط بو سم تما ا .لدب ط طنط ‎٠‏ ‏ما ‎St Na ee a dae‏ تست را 

صفحه 100:
Sensitivity analysis, analytic Oe Cd oe a oe a ead ‏وس وت‎ م ا ل جما جا 3] عستعدكسهم جكلا صا اتجتروجم كلابب ‎aN‏ ا 0 کم 00 

صفحه 101:
Sensitivity analysis, (Por the perPorwoue todex use the ohercative rate Por COC ONC a Rec a al Ce ‎tao Todi aor)‏ لانن ‎۳ ‎ ‎ ‎101 

صفحه 102:
BEE ese is, Si = > S,) Wi, =0.26 oy = =(S,- S,) Wi, =0.16 3 21۷5, -050 ‏سم‎ ‎ =WS, =0.21 5, =- WS, =-0.25 5& =- WS, =-0.04 

صفحه 103:
Sensitivity analysis, ۱ ‏همم‎ ‏اكات‎ ea aan ea Od SE Rd ea a ‏نا‎ الت 

صفحه 104:
ات 104 

صفحه 105:
Example (continued), ۱ one ae ee 200 ‏مه ما‎ BANC ac ‏ل‎ aC ‏ل كنا‎ ‏لل ل ا لل‎ aad ‏ل‎ 0 ater BE Aaa ‏ل‎ ‎06 RS ‏ب‎ ‏ل رم و هو وت زرا‎ 10 EE 

صفحه 106:
Quintessential example © TradevPP Gtudy oP PradeoPP Gtudy Pooks 000 dca ۱ ar RN oN a eel ‏با هس ماگ بات تس مها‎ doe النطة8 

صفحه 107:
Generic goals (GG) ‏لاسو او كروي ا ادوم وهات‎ SRS eS aN SSC ‎Ce‏ 0ن ‎. ۱ ee Nd ‏أدص‎ appears ta (ckvs!) ol provess ureu. ‎" Guck process ured kes voy vor yeurrio yoo! Por cack ‏اما رو‎ ‎5 ‏نل‎ ee eel ‏ریم‎ 

صفحه 108:
النطة8 Maturity level 2 generic goal ‏تاكن‎ ACS goa ke وم ی ‎ae oe cd‏ ا ما وا مسا ‎ae‏ ول 

صفحه 109:
Maturity level 3 generic goal BICC he ANS ROC tere oN Api Reem ‏تسم‎ توس مها رت اانا ‎PAR Tad NR CALS Read Lean EARL MRS coed‏ ‎A RR A aed co NS ONO A‏ ‎a ai aca eA aC VA ee ne aoa‏ لاك ‎ANAS ace RA A ea)‏ ‎TR ce PS SLO OR‏ ‎Ea‏ النطة8 

صفحه 110:
Generic practices (GP) * Geveric prociices coutribute to the uchievewedt oP the Nan ci AN AS EPL AI CLA AR 2 Se Te ‏ما موی ما رت و وم‎ cd | ca ca OO Moe eg acc ۱ النطة8 

صفحه 111:
Generic practices, ‏ل لكا‎ CaO La ea a kOe Aten ee ‏ال‎ ‎BN ACCC a bal OO RCS RUS RO eI OKA Rs a al Noa A NO AU ale eR en 2 ‏ره‎ ae n RON a Ce heed eee Oca Oe nce Sen cme Onaal 0 Ten 10001700 ‏ع0 مسدسصة/س0‎ 111 

صفحه 112:
Generic practices, Se eee i ee eR ea OCC en NN * GAMC.6.08 Ornpeizaivcd Busicess Proviives: "OD. A8.45.DCCOO1 Perfore Oevisiva Paralysis ord ‏تسس تا‎ ‏ل را‎ Perforsy Cora Cuctratica ۱ cad Na Race A aes eR Re ee TO ace el Ok Reed ca Ree 

صفحه 113:
النطة8 Generic practices, ٠ 305 0.2: Plo the Provess, 00 A Sal end OR provers. 113 

صفحه 114:
Generic practices, * BP C.9: Provide Resvuves, UN I a Ra aaa ee CGY ‏تسه سم‎ Re eR ASS Sane Oe aoe ۶ )۵6 9.6: Croan ‏ام‎ ‎9 ‏ل له‎ ۱ a 114 

صفحه 115:
Generic practices, ۰ 8 8: Oe ‏ما‎ Ca aco CO eo CoN oa AU ‏ا م‎ oe OC acca ‏موم ای و اما موه لت‎ ‏م۱‎ ‏وت‎ acd ۱ ok a Rac EON ed ‏ا 0 اك‎ Be Re Oe Ce Olas ak nce accor en ‏لل‎ acre ned ‏نا‎ ae eA aE aa od ‏يت يك‎ 115 

صفحه 116:
Generic practices, * GO 9.8 Colent Improve edt IePornatiosn suck oF ae aN RN gS a SS ae CS SaaS ‏ا ل‎ ARSE RS cea cr OB ec aN ead acco Aa ‏ا‎ EN ea oo Tes Nea ace aR ace ف 

صفحه 117:
Generic practices, * BP 8.8: Obievively Evaluate Odkereuve, * BP CAO: Review Gratus wi Wigher bevel (ON ae NU ‏کر‎ ‏را‎ 

صفحه 118:
تا 

صفحه 119:
Webster Tradeoff Study ۳۵16۲6809 ۱ PO.OS-GOF ۱ ‏رک‎ ‎۰ ‏رلی6 ۴سولی‎ Dairix (ewopht) PO.0S-SEO النطة8 119 

صفحه 120:
Webster DAR References ‏مس 9و۱‎ ok ian can eR SR ed ea eA RU oe kG ON ROOK eR eRe COOKU aA cas RC aOR CSUR ODOC O00 Cm BGK an ree oa BONER AS kc ca BONG ‏لي‎ cd *RE.Oter OOR Drtkods NR ‏ا ل‎ aa ‎Grhutioes‏ انك ‎BONO ke eke aed BGO AC) ae a ‎NC knee Cd 9 ak OA a A ed ‏همست یا‎ 1 

صفحه 121:


صفحه 122:
How to print ۱ An oe roe النطة8 

The Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) Process Terry Bahill Systems and Industrial Engineering University of Arizona terry@sie.arizona.edu ©, 2005-09, Bahill This file is located at http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/slid es/ CMMI  The CMMI model is a collection of best practices from diverse engineering companies.  Improvements to our organization will come from process improvements, not from people improvements or technology improvements.  CMMI provides guidance for improving an organization’s processes.  One of the CMMI process areas is Decision Analysis and Resolution, DAR. 2 Bahill DAR  Programs and Functions select the decision problems that require DAR and incorporate them in their program plans (e.g. SEMPs).  DAR is a BAE SYSTEMS common process. Common processes are tools that the user gets, customizes and uses.  DAR is invoked throughout the whole program lifecycle whenever a critical decision is to be made.  DAR is invoked by IPT leads on programs, financial analysts, program core teams, etc.  Invoke the DAR Process in Webster work instructions, in gate reviews, in phase reviews or with other triggers, which can be used anytime in the system life cycle. 3 Bahill Webster BAE’s common processes are established by SP.12.15.02. 4 Bahill Typical decisions  Decision problems that may require a formal decision process Trade studies (eng_cat.shtml#GU0238) Bid/no-bid Make-reuse-buy (PW.10.01.01A017.html) Fagan inspection versus checklist inspection (FM.051077.xls)  Tool selection  Vendor selection  Cost estimating     5 Bahill Purpose “In all decisions you gain something and lose something. Know what they are and do it deliberately.” 6 Bahill A Simple Model for Human Decision Making, Called Image Theory 7 Bahill References  The following description of image theory is based on Beach and Connolly (2005) and Bruce Gissing’s Roadmap to Business Excellence.  L. R. Beach and T. Connolly, The Psychology of Decision Making: People in Organizations, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 2005.  B. Gissing, The Roadmap to Business Excellence, http://sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/sie554/BruceGissing/R oadMap.ppt, 2005.  A. T. Bahill and B. Gissing, Re-evaluating systems engineering concepts using systems thinking, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part C: Applications and Reviews, SMC-28(4): 516527, 1998. 8 Bahill Image theory*  Decision Makers (DMs) code their knowledge into three images.  The value image contains principles of behavior.  The trajectory image is the agenda of goals.  The strategic image contains the plans for implementing the goals. 9 Bahill The value image consists of the DM’s vision, mission, values, morals, ethics, beliefs, evaluation criteria and standards for how things should be and how people ought to behave.  Collectively these are called principles.  They limit  the goals that are worthy of pursuit and  acceptable ways of pursuing these goals.  Potential goals and actions that contradict the principles will be unacceptable.  It is called the value image because it represents the DM’s vision about the state of events that conforms most closely to his or her principles. 10 Bahill The trajectory image is the agenda of goals the DM wants to achieve.  The goals are dictated by the problem statement, principles, opportunities, desires, competitive issues and gaps encountered in the environment.  The goals are fed back to the value image.  The DM’s goal agenda is called the trajectory image, because it is his or her vision about how the future should unfold. 11 Bahill The strategic image contains the plans for implementing the goals.  Each plan has two aspects:  tactics are the concrete behavioral aspects that deal with local environment conditions,  forecasts are the anticipation of the future that describe what might result if the tactics are successful.  The plans are also fed back to the value image.  The collection of plans is called the strategic image, because it represents the DM’s vision of what he or she is trying to do to achieve the goals on the trajectory image. 12 Bahill Framing* means embedding observed events in a context that gives them meaning.  The DM uses contextual information to probe his or her memory to find image constituents that are relevant to the decision at hand.  This provides information about the goals and plans that were previously pursued in this context.  If a similar goal is being pursued this time, then the plan that was used before may be reused. 13 Bahill Two types of decisions  Adoption decisions determine whether to add new goals to the trajectory image or new plans to the strategic image.  Progress decisions determine whether a plan is making progress toward achieving a goal. 14 Bahill Adoption decisions  A new goal or plan can be added if it is compatible with the DM’s relevant principles, does not introduce unacceptable risk and does not interfere with existing goals or ongoing plans.  Adoption decisions are accomplished by  screening potential goals and plans one by one in light of relevant principles, existing goals and ongoing plans. If only one option passes screening, it is adopted.  If two or more options pass the screen, then a tradeoff study determines the best option from among the survivors.  Screening is the more common of these decision mechanism. 15 Bahill Progress decisions use the plan to forecast the future.  If that future includes achieving a goal, then the plan is retained.  If the forecast does not include achieving the goal, then the plan is rejected and a new plan is adopted in its place. 16 Bahill Two decision mechanisms  The incompatibility test screens options based on how well they fit the DM’s images.  The profitability test focuses on the quality of the outcomes associated with the options. 17 Bahill The incompatibility test screens options (plans and goals) based on their incompatibility with constituents* defined in the three images.  Each option’s incompatibility increases as a function of the weighted sum of the number of violations.**  Violations are defined as negations, contradictions, preventions, retardations or any other form of interference with the realization one of the images’ constituents.  If the weighted sum of the violations exceeds some rejection threshold, then the option is rejected, otherwise it is adopted. 18 Bahill Profitability test  When more than one option survives the incompatibility screen, the DM chooses the best using a profitability test.  The profitability test is not a single decision mechanism.  It is a repertory of strategies such as maximizing subjective expected utility, satisficing and performing tradeoff studies.  The selected strategy depends on  characteristics of the choice,  characteristics of the environment,  characteristics of the DM. 19 Bahill Image theory for organizations*  Decisions in organizations are made by individual DMs, often forming a consensus.  So for organizational decisions, we can use the individual decision making model that we have just developed.  The only major addition is the need for a case for change. 20 Bahill The need for change*  People do not make good decisions.  A careful tradeoff study will help you overcome human ineptitude and thereby make better decisions. 21 Bahill Rational decisions*     One goal Perfect information The optimal course of action can be described This course maximizes expected value  This is a prescriptive model. We tell people that, in an ideal world, this is how they should make decisions. 22 Bahill Satisficing*  When making decisions there is always uncertainty, too little time and insufficient resources to explore the whole problem space.  Therefore, people cannot make rational decisions.  The term satisficing was coined by Noble Laureate Herb Simon in 1955.  Simon proposed that people do not attempt to find an optimal solution. Instead, they search for alternatives that are good enough, alternatives that satisfice. 23 Bahill Humans are not rational*1  Mark Twain said,  “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”  Humans are often very certain of knowledge that is false.  What American city is directly north of Santiago Chile?  If you travel from Los Angeles to Reno Nevada, in what direction would you travel?  Most humans think that there are more words that start with the letter r, than there are with r as the third letter. 24 Bahill Illusions*  We call these cognitive illusions.  We believe them with as much certainty as we believe optical illusions. 25 Bahill The Müller-Lyer Illusion* 26 Bahill 27 Bahill Ob j ect i ve Pro b ab i l i t y Su b j ect i ve Pro b ab i l i t y Val u e Sub j ect i ve Pro ba bi l i t y W ei g h t i ng 1.0 EV Rat i o n al Beh avi o r Typica l Est i mat e Ideal Est ima t e 0.0 0.0 Real Probabi lit y 1.0 V Subject ive Expect ed Value Ut i l i t y E Exp ect ed Ut ilit y 28 Gains Ob ject ive Va lue Lo sses Subject ive W ort h 1.0 Reference po int Sub j ect ive Pro b a bi l i t y W ei g h t in g Subject ive W ort h Typica l Est i mat e Ga i ns Object i ve Value Lo sses Ideal Est imat e Reference po int 0.0 0.0 Real Proba bi lit y 1.0 Hu man Beh avi o r Bahill Su b j e ct i ve Pro b a b i l i t y W e i g h t i n g Humans judge probabilities poorly* 29 1.0 Typical Est imat e Ideal Est imat e 0.0 0.0 1.0 Real Probabilit y Bahill Monty Hall Paradox1* 30 Bahill Monty Hall Paradox2* 31 Bahill Monty Hall Paradox3* 32 Bahill Monty Hall Paradox4* 33 Bahill Monty Hall Paradox5*  Now here is your problem.  Are you better off sticking to your original choice or switching?  A lot of people say it makes no difference.  There are two boxes and one contains a ten-dollar bill.  Therefore, your chances of winning are 50/50.  However, the laws of probability say that you should switch. 34 Bahill Monty Hall Paradox6*  The box you originally chose has, and always will have, a one-third probability of containing the ten-dollar bill.  The other two, combined, have a two-thirds probability of containing the ten-dollar bill.  But at the moment when I open the empty box, then the other one alone will have a two-thirds probability of containing the ten-dollar bill.  Therefore, your best strategy is to always switch! 35 Bahill Utility  We have just discussed the right column, subjective probability.  Now we will discuss the bottom row, utility Ob j ect i ve Pro b ab i l i t y Su b j ect i ve Pro b ab i l i t y Val u e Su b je ct i ve Pro ba b i l i t y W e i g ht i ng 1.0 EV Rat i o n a l Beh avi o r Typi cal Est imat e Ide al Est i mat e 0.0 0.0 Re al Pro bab il it y 1.0 V Subj ect ive Exp ect ed Va lue Ut i l i t y E Obje ct ive Value Lo sses Expect ed Ut il it y 36 Subje ct i ve Wort h 1.0 Gain s Refe re nce p oi nt Su bj e ct i ve Pro b a b il i t y W e ig h t i n g Subj ect ive Wo rt h Typi cal Est imat e Ga in s Object ive Va lue Losses Ide al Est i mat e Refe rence p oi nt 0.0 0.0 Real Pro bab il i t y 1.0 Hu man Beh a vi o r Bahill Utility  Utility is a measure of the happiness, satisfaction or reward a person gains (or loses) from receiving a good or service.  Utilities are numbers that express relative preferences using a particular set of assumptions and methods.  Utilities include both subjectively judged value and the assessor's attitude toward risk. 37 Bahill Risk  Systems engineers use risk to evaluate and manage bad things that could happen, hazards. Risk is measured with the frequency (or probability) of occurrence times the severity of the consequences.  However, in economics and in the psychology of decision making, risk is defined as the variance of the expected value, uncertainty.* 38 p1 x1 A 1.0 $10 B 0.5 $5 C 0.5 $1 p2 x2   Risk, uncertainty $10 $0 none 0.5 $15 $10 $5 medium 0.5 $19 $10 $9 high Bahill Ambiguity, uncertainty and hazards*  Hazard: Would you prefer my forest picked mushrooms or portabella mushrooms from the grocery store?  Uncertainty: Would you prefer one of my wines or a Kendall-Jackson merlot?  Ambiguity: Would you prefer my saffron and oyster sauce or marinara sauce? 39 Bahill Humans are not rational  Even if they had the knowledge and resources, people would not make rational decisions, because they do not evaluate utility rationally.  Most people would be more concerned with a large potential loss than with a large potential gain. Losses are felt more strongly than equal gains.  Which of these wagers would you prefer to take?* $2 with probability of 0.5 and $0 with probability 0.5 $1 with probability of 0.99 and $1,000,000 with probability 0.00000001 $3 with probability of 0.999999 and -$1,999,997 with probability 0.000001  They all have an expected value of $1 40 Bahill Gains and losses are not valued equally* Su b j ect i ve W o rt h Gai n s Ob j ect i ve Val u e L o sses 41 Referen ce Po i n t Bahill Subjective expected utility combines two subjective concepts: utility and probability.  Utility is a measure of the happiness or satisfaction a person gains from receiving a good or service.  Subjective probability is the person’s assessment of the frequency or likelihood of the event occurring.  The subjective expected utility is the product of the utility times the probability. 42 Bahill Subjective expected utility theory models human decision making as maximizing subjective expected utility  maximizing, because people choose the set of alternatives with the highest total utility,  subjective, because the choice depends on the decision maker’s values and preferences, not on reality (e.g. advertising improves subjective perceptions of a product without improving the product), and  expected, because the expected value is used.  This is a first-order model for human decision making.  Sometimes it is called Prospect Theory*. 43 Bahill Ob j ect i ve Pro b ab i l i t y Su b j ect i ve Pro b ab i l i t y Val u e Sub j ect i ve Pro ba b i l i t y W e i g h t i n g 1.0 EV Rat i o n al Beh avi o r Typical Est i mat e Id eal Est imat e 0.0 0.0 Real Prob abil it y 1.0 V Subject ive Expect ed Va lue Ut i l i t y E Expect ed Ut ilit y 44 Gai ns Obj ect i ve Val ue Lo sses Subj ect ive W ort h 1.0 Reference po i nt Su bj e ct i ve Pro ba bi l i t y W ei g h t i ng Sub je ct ive W ort h Typical Est i mat e Gai ns Obje ct ive Val ue Losses Id eal Est imat e Reference p oi nt 0.0 0.0 Rea l Prob abil it y 1.0 Hu man Beh avi o r Bahill Why teach tradeoff studies?  Because emotions, cognitive illusions, biases, fallacies, fear of regret and use of heuristics make humans far from ideal decision makers.  Using tradeoff studies judiciously can help you make rational decisions.  We would like to help you move your decisions from the normal human decision-making lower-right quadrant to the ideal decision-making upper-left quadrant. 45 Bahill The Decision Analysis and Resolution Proces (DAR) 46 Bahill Specific goals (SG) A specific goal applies to a process area and addresses the unique characteristics that describe what must be implemented to satisfy the process area. The specific goal for the DAR process area is SG 1 Evaluate Alternatives. 47 Bahill Specific practices (SP)  A specific practice is an activity that is considered important in achieving the associated specific goal.  Practices are the major building blocks in establishing the process maturity of an organization. 48 Bahill 49 Specific Practice Number DAR Specific Practice Name Example 1.1 Decide if formal evaluation process is warranted When to do a trade study 1.2 Establish Evaluation Criteria 1.3 Identify Alternative Solutions 1.4 Select Evaluation Methods 1.5 Evaluate Alternatives 1.6 Select Preferred Solutions What is in a good trade study Bahill The Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) Process Dec i s i o n t o No t Pro ceed Sel ec t i o n Pro b l e m Dec i d e i f Fo rm a l Eva l u a t i o n Pro c e ss i s W a rra n t e d Es t a b l i sh Ev al u a t i o n Cri t eri a Pro b l em St a t em e n t Sel ect Ev al u a t i o n Met h o d s Id en t i fy Al t ern a t i v e So l u t i o n s Th ese t a sks a re d ra wn se ri al l y , b u t t h ey a re n o t p erfo rmed i n a s eri a l m a n n er. Ra t h er i t i s a n i t era t i v e p ro ces s wi t h m a n y u n sh o wn feed b a ck l o o p s. 50 Pro p o s ed Al t ern a t i ve s Ev a l u a t i o n Cri t eri a S Eva l u a t e Al t ern a t i v e s Sel ect So l u t i o n s Preferred So l u t i o n s Fo rm a l Eva l u a t i o n s Ma n a g e t h e DAR p ro cess Exp ert Re vi ew Re co m m en d a t i o n s Pres en t Res u l t s t o De ci si o n Ma ke r Pu t i n PAL Bahill When creating a process  the most important facets are  illustrating tasks that can be done in parallel  suggesting feedback loops  including a process to improve the process  configuration management 51 Bahill A simple tradeoff study 52 Bahill Decisions  Humans make four types of decisions:  Allocating resources among competing projects*  Making plans, which includes scheduling  Negotiating agreements  Choosing amongst alternatives  Alternatives can be examined in series or parallel.  When examined in series it is called sequential search  When examined in parallel it is called a tradeoff or a trade study  “Tradeoff studies address a range of problems from selecting high-level system architecture to selecting a specific piece of commercial off the shelf hardware or software. Tradeoff studies are typical outputs of formal evaluation processes.”* 53 Bahill History Ben Franklin’s letter* to Joseph Priestly outlined one of the first descriptions of a tradeoff study. 54 Bahill Tradeoff Study Process* Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide Decideifif Formal Formal Evaluation Evaluationisis Needed Needed Problem Statement These tasks are drawn serially, but they are not performed in a serial manner. Rather, it is an iterative process with many feedback loops, which are not shown. 55 Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria ∑ Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Decide if Formal Evaluation is Needed Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide if Formal Evaluation is Needed Problem Statement Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives 56 Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Is formal evaluation needed? SP 1.1 Companies should have polices for when to do formal decision analysis. Criteria include  When the decision is related to a moderate or high-risk issue  When the decision affects work products under configuration management  When the result of the decision could cause significant schedule delays  When the result of the decision could cause significant cost overruns  On material procurement of the 20 percent of the parts that constitute 80 percent of the total material costs 57 Bahill Guidelines for formal evaluation, SP 1.1  When the decision is selecting one or a few alternatives from a list  When a decision is related to major changes in work products that have been baselined  When a decision affects the ability to achieve project objectives  When the cost of the formal evaluation is reasonable when compared to the decision’s impact  On design-implementation decisions when technical performance failure may cause a catastrophic failure  On decisions with the potential to significantly reduce design risk, engineering changes, cycle time or production costs 58 Bahill Establish Evaluation Criteria Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide Decideifif Formal Formal Evaluation Evaluationisis Needed Needed Problem Statement Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives 59 Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Establish evaluation criteria* SP 1.2  Establish and maintain criteria for evaluating alternatives  Each criterion must have a weight of importance  Each criterion should link to a tradeoff requirement, i.e. a requirement whose acceptable value can be more or less depending on quantitative values of other requirements.  Criteria must be arranged hierarchically. The top-level may be performance, cost, schedule and risk.  Program Management should prioritize these four criteria at the beginning of the project and make sure everyone knows the priorities.  All companies should have a repository of generic evaluation criteria. 60 Bahill What will you eat for lunch today?  In class exercise.  Write some evaluation criteria that will, help you decide.* 61 Bahill Killer trades  Evaluating alternatives is expensive.  Therefore, early in tradeoff study, identify very important requirements* that can eliminate many alternatives.  These requirements produce killer criteria.**  Subsequent killer trades can often eliminate 90% of the possible alternatives. 62 Bahill Identify Alternative Solutions Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide Decideifif Formal Formal Evaluation Evaluationisis Needed Needed Problem Statement Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives 63 Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Identify alternative solutions, SP 1.3  Identify alternative solutions for the problem statement  Consider unusual alternatives in order to test the system requirements*  Do not list alternatives that do not satisfy all mandatory requirements**  Consider use of commercial off the shelf and in-house entities*** 64 Bahill What will you eat for lunch today?  In class exercise.  List some alternatives for today’s lunch.* 65 Bahill Select Evaluation Methods Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide Decideifif Formal Formal Evaluation Evaluationisis Needed Needed Problem Statement Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives 66 Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Select evaluation methods, SP 1.4  Select the source of the evaluation data and the method for evaluating the data  Typical sources for evaluation data include approximations, product literature, analysis, models, simulations, experiments and prototypes*  Methods for combining data and evaluating alternatives include Multi-Attribute Utility Technique (MAUT), Ideal Point, Search Beam, Fuzzy Databases, Decision Trees, Expected Utility, Pair-wise Comparisons, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Financial Analysis, Simulation, Monte Carlo, Linear Programming, Design of Experiments, Group Techniques, Quality Function Deployment (QFD), radar charts, forming a consensus and Tradeoff Studies 67 Bahill Collect evaluation data  Using the appropriate source (approximations, product literature, analysis, models, simulations, experiments or prototypes) collect data for evaluating each alternative. 68 Bahill Evaluate Alternatives Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide Decideifif Formal Formal Evaluation Evaluationisis Needed Needed Problem Statement Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives 69 Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Evaluate alternatives, SP 1.5  Evaluate alternative solutions using the evaluation criteria, weights of importance, evaluation data, scoring functions and combining functions.  Evaluating alternative solutions involves analysis, discussion and review. Iterative cycles of analysis are sometimes necessary. Supporting analyses, experimentation, prototyping, or simulations may be needed to substantiate scoring and conclusions. 70 Bahill Select Preferred Solutions Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide Decideifif Formal Formal Evaluation Evaluationisis Needed Needed Problem Statement Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives 71 Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Select preferred solutions, SP 1.6  Select preferred solutions from the alternatives based on evaluation criteria.  Selecting preferred alternatives involves weighing and combining the results from the evaluation of alternatives. Many combining methods are available.  The true value of a formal decision process might not be listing the preferred alternatives. More important outputs are stimulating thought processes and documenting their outcomes.  A sensitivity analysis will help validate your recommendations. 72 Bahill Perform Expert Review Establish Evaluation Criteria Decide Decideifif Formal Formal Evaluation Evaluationisis Needed Needed Problem Statement Select Evaluation Methods Identify Alternative Solutions Evaluation Criteria ∑ Evaluate Alternatives Select Preferred Solutions Preferred Solutions Formal Evaluations Perform Expert Review Proposed Alternatives 73 Present Results Put In PPAL Bahill Perform expert review1  Formal evaluations should be reviewed* at regular gate reviews such as SRR, PDR and CDR or by special expert reviews  Technical reviews started about the same time as Systems Engineering, in 1960. The concept was formalized with MIL-STD-1521 in 1972.  Technical reviews are still around, because there is evidence that they help produce better systems at less cost.  The Perform Expert Review process is located at PS0303 74 Bahill Perform expert review2  Technical reviews evaluate the product of an IPT*  They are conducted by a knowledgeable board of specialists including supplier and customer representatives  The number of board members should be less than the number of IPT members  But board expertise should be greater than the IPT’s experience base 75 Bahill Who should come to the review?  Program Manager  Chief Systems Engineer  Review Inspector  Lead Systems Engineer  Domain Experts  IPT Lead  Facilitator  Stakeholders for this decision      Builder Customer Designer Tester PC Server  Depending on the decision, the Lead Hardware Engineer and the Lead Software Engineer 76 Bahill Present results Present the results* of the formal evaluation to the original decision maker and other relevant stakeholders. 77 Bahill Put in the PAL  Formal evaluations reviewed by experts should be put in the organizational Process Asset Library (PAL) or the Project Process Asset Library (PPAL) (e.g. GDE 11 for M601)  Evaluation data for tradeoff studies come from approximations, analysis, models, simulations, experiments and prototypes. Each time better data is obtained the PAL should be updated.  Formal evaluations should be designed with reuse in mind. 78 Bahill Manage the DAR process  The DAR Process Owner shall manage and improve the DAR process.  The DAR Process Owner will establish a change control board and review the DAR Common Process on a regular basis. This is a high-level review of the DAR Common Process. This review must evaluate the activities, status and results of the DAR process. For instance, it might address use of and training for the many methods of performing DAR. 79 Bahill Closed Book Quiz, 5 minutes Fill in the empty boxes Evaluation Criteria Problem Statement Preferred Solutions ∑ Formal Evaluations Proposed Alternatives 80 Bahill Tradeoff Study Example 81 Bahill Example: What method should we use for evaluating alternatives?*  Is formal evaluation needed? SP 1.1  Check the Guidance for Formal Evaluations  We find that many of its criteria are satisfied including “On decisions with the potential to significantly reduce design risk … cycle time ...”  Establish evaluation criteria, SP 1.2  Ease of Use  Familiarity  Killer criterion  Engineers must think that use of the technique is intuitive. 82 Bahill Example (continued)1  Identify alternative solutions, SP 1.3  Linear addition of weight times scores, Multiattribute Utility Theory (MAUT).* This method is often called a “trade study.” It is often implemented with an Excel spreadsheet.  Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)** 83 Bahill Example (continued)2  Select evaluation methods, SP 1.4  The evaluation data will come from expert opinion  Common methods for combining data and evaluating alternatives include: Multi-Attribute Utility Technique (MAUT), Decision Trees, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Pairwise Comparisons, Ideal Point, Search Beam, etc.  In the following slides we will use two methods: linear addition of weight times scores (MAUT) and the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)* 84 Bahill Example (continued)3  Evaluate alternatives, SP 1.5  Let the weights and evaluation data be integers between 1 and 10, with 10 being the best. The computer can normalize the weights if necessary. 85 Bahill Multi-Attribute Utility Technique (MAUT)1 Cri t e ri a Ea s e o f Us e Fa m i l i a ri t y Su m o f wei g h t t i me s s c o re Wei g h t o f Im p o rt a n c e MAUT AHP 8 4 Assess evaluation data* row by row 86 Bahill Multi-Attribute Utility Technique (MAUT)2 Cri t e ri a Ea s e o f Us e Fa m i l i a ri t y Su m o f wei g h t t i mes s c o re Wei g h t * o f Im p o rt a n c e MAUT AHP 9 8 4 3 9 2 99 42 Th e wi n n e r 87 Bahill Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) Ve rb a l s ca l e Eq u a l l y i m p o rt a n t , l i ke l y o r p re fe rre d Mo d e ra t e l y m o re i m p o rt a n t , l i k e l y o r p re fe rre d St ro n g l y m o re i m p o rt a n t , mp l i k e l y o r p re fe rre d Ve ry s t ro n g l y mo m o re i m p o rt a n t , l i k el e l y o r p re fe rre d Ex t re m el y m o re i m p o rt a n t , l i k e l y o r p re fe rre d 88 Nu m e ri c a l va l u e 1 3 5 7 9 Bahill AHP, make comparisons Create a matrix with the criteria on the diagonal and make pair-wise comparisons* Ea se o f Use Re ci p ro c al o f 3= 1/3 89 Ea se o f Use i s m o d era t el y mo re i mp o rt a n t t h a n Fa m i l i a ri t y (3) Fa m i l i a ri t y Bahill AHP, compute weights     Create a matrix Square the matrix Add the rows Normalize* 1 1 3 90 3  1  1  1  3 3  2  2  1  3 6 8 0.75    2 2.67 0.25 Bahill In-class exercise  Use these criteria to help select your lunch today.  Closeness, distance to the venue. Is it in the same building, the next building or do you have to get in a car and drive?  Tastiness, including gustatory delightfulness, healthiness, novelty and savoriness.  Price, total purchase price including tax and tip. 91 Bahill To help select lunch today1  closeness is ??? more important than tastiness,  closeness is ??? more important than price,  tastiness is ??? more important than price. Closeness Tastiness Price Closeness Tastiness Price 92 Bahill To help select lunch today2  closeness is strongly more important (5) than tastiness,  closeness is very strongly more important (7) than price,  tastiness is moderately more important (3) than price. Closeness Closeness Tastiness Price 93 1 Tastiness Price 5 7 1 3 1 Bahill To help select lunch today3 Closeness Price Weight of Importance Closeness 1 5 7 0.73 Tastiness 1/5 1 3 0.19 Price 1/7 1/3 1 0.08  1  1 5 1  7 94 Tastiness 5 1 1 3   7  1   1   3   5  1 1   7 5 1 1 3  7   3 12.3 29  44.3 0.73   3  0.8 3 7.4  11.2  0.19   4.8 0.08   0.4 1.4 3  1  Bahill AHP, get scores Compare each alternative on the first criterion Ea s e o f Use MAUT In t e rm s o f Ea s e o f Us e , MAUT i s sl i g h t l y p re fe rre d (2) 1/2 AHP 1 1 2 95 2  1  1  1  2 2  2 4 6 0.67      1  1 2 3 0.33 Bahill AHP, get scores2 Compare each alternative on the second criterion Fa m i l i a ri t y MAUT In t e rm s o f Fa m i l i a ri t y, MAUT i s s t ro n g l y p re fe rre d (5) 1/5 AHP 12 0.83  1 5  1 5  2 10    1 1  1 1   2.4 0.17  5   5   0.4 2  96 Bahill AHP, form comparison matrix** Combine with linear addition* Cri t e ri a Ea s e o f Us e Fa m i l i a ri t y Su m o f wei g h t t i mes s c o re Wei g h t o f Im p o rt a n c e MAUT AHP 0.75 0.67 0.33 0.25 0.83 0.17 0.71 0.29 Th e wi n n e r 97 Bahill Example (continued)4  Select Preferred Solutions, SP 1.6  Linear addition of weight times scores (MAUT) was the preferred alternative  Now consider new criteria, such as Repeatability of Result, Consistency*, Time to Compute  Do a sensitivity analysis 98 Bahill Sensitivity analysis, simple In terms of Familiarity, MAUT was strongly preferred (5) over the AHP. Now change this 5 to a 3 and to a 7. Fa mi l i a ri t y 3 5 7 Fi n a l Sc o re MAUT AHP 0.69 0.31 0.71 0.29 0.72 0.28 • Changing the scores for Familiarity does not change the recommended alternative. • This is good. • It means the Tradeoff study is robust with respect to these scores. 99 Bahill Sensitivity analysis, analytic Compute the six semirelative-sensitivity functions, which are defined as  F S   NOP  F  which reads, the semirelative-sensitivity function of the performance index F with respect to the parameter  is the partial derivative of F with respect to  times  with everything evaluated at the normal operating point (NOP). 100 Bahill Sensitivity analysis2 For the performance index use the alternative rating for MAUT minus the alternative rating for AHP* F = F1 - F2 = Wt1×S11 + Wt2×S21 – Wt1×S12 –Wt2×S22 Cri t e ri a Ea s e o f Us e Fa m i l i a ri t y Su m o f wei g h t t i mes s c o re 101 Wei g h t o f Im p o rt a n c e MAUT AHP Wt 1 S11 S12 Wt 2 S21 S22 F1 F2 Bahill Sensitivity analysis3 The semirelative-sensitivity functions* F  SWt1  S11  S12  Wt1 0.26 F  SWt2  S21  S22  Wt2 0.16 F  SS11 Wt1S11 0.50 F  SS21 Wt2S21 0.21 F  SS12  Wt1S12 -0.25 S11 is the most important parameter. So go back and reevaluate it. F  SS22  Wt2S22 -0.04 102 Bahill Sensitivity analysis4  The most important parameter is the score for MAUT on the criterion Ease of Use  We should go back and re-evaluate the derivation of that score Ea se o f Use MAUT In t e rms o f Ea s e o f Use , MAUT i s sl i g h t l y p refe rre d (2) 1/2 AHP 103 Bahill The Decision Analysis and Resolution (DAR) Process Deci s i o n t o No t Pro ce ed Sel ec t i o n Pro b l e m Dec i d e i f Fo rm al Eva l u at i o n Pro c e ss i s W a rra n t e d Est a b l i sh Eva l u a t i o n Cri t eri a Pro b l em St at em e n t Sel ec t Eva l u a t i o n Met h o d s Id en t i fy Al t e rn a t i v e So l u t i o n s Th ese t a sks a re d ra wn se ri al l y , b u t t h e y a re n o t p erfo rmed i n a s eri a l m a n n er. Ra t h er i t i s a n i t era t i v e p ro ces s wi t h m a n y u n sh o wn feed b a ck l o o p s. 104 Pro p o s ed Al t e rn a t i v es Ev a l u a t i o n Cri t eri a S Eva l u a t e Al t ern a t i v es Sel ect So l u t i o n s Pre fe rred So l u t i o n s Fo rm a l Eva l u a t i o n s Ma n a g e t h e DAR p ro ce ss Exp ert Re vi ew Rec o m m en d a t i o n s Pres en t Res u l t s t o De ci si o n Ma ke r Pu t i n PAL Bahill Example (continued)5  Perform expert review of the tradeoff study.  Present results to original decision maker.  Put tradeoff study in PAL.  Improve the DAR process.  Add some other techniques, such as AHP, to the DAR web course  Fix the utility curves document  Add image theory to the DAR process  Change linkages in the documentation system  Create a course, Decision Making and Tradeoff Studies 105 Bahill Quintessential example A Tradeoff Study of Tradeoff Study Tools is available at http://www.sie.arizona.edu/sysengr/sie554/ tradeoffStudyOfTradeoffStudyTools.doc 106 Bahill Generic goals (GG)  Achievement of a generic goal in a process area signifies improved control in planning and implementing the processes associated with that process area.  Generic goals are called “generic” because the same goal statement appears in (almost) all process areas.  Each process area has only one generic goal for each maturity level.  And the generic goal is different for each maturity level. 107 Bahill Maturity level 2 generic goal  GG 2: The DAR process is institutionalized as a managed process.  A managed process is a performed process that is planned and executed in accordance with policy; employs skilled people having adequate resources to produce controlled outputs; involves relevant stakeholders; is monitored, controlled, and reviewed; and is evaluated for adherence to its process description. 108 Bahill Maturity level 3 generic goal  GG 3 The DAR process is institutionalized as a defined process.  A defined process is establish by tailoring the selected process according to the organization’s tailoring guidelines to meet the needs of a project or organizational function. With a defined process, variability in how the process is performed across the organization is reduced and process assets, data, and learning can be effectively shared. 109 Bahill Generic practices (GP)  Generic practices contribute to the achievement of the generic goal when applied to a particular process area.  Generic practices are activities that ensure that the processes associated with the process area will be effective, repeatable, and lasting. 110 Bahill Generic practices 1  GP 2.1: Establish an Organizational Policy, Establish and maintain an organizational policy for planning and performing the DAR process.  The BAE solution  SP.12.15.02 Organizational Business Practices  OM.12.15.02A001 Perform Decision Analysis and Resolution RW.12.01.00A004 Perform Formal Evaluation RF 1 Quantitative Methods for Tradeoff Analyses.doc … RF 12 Manage and Improve the DAR Process.doc These documents are located at Users at Bluelnk\Bludfs001\Shared\Users\ Bahill_AT\Draft DAR Process Docs And O:\ENGR_LIB\SysPCRDocs\Reference Docs 111 Bahill Generic practices2  GP 3.1 Establish and maintain the description of a defined decision analysis and resolution process.  BAE company compliance documents  SP.12.15.02 Organizational Business Practices  OM.12.15.02A001 Perform Decision Analysis and Resolution RW.12.01.00A004 Perform Formal Evaluation  BAE program implementation evidence  Tailoring reports, program plans and trade studies with evidence of use of SP 1.2 to 1.6. 112 Bahill Generic practices 3  GP 2.2: Plan the Process, Establish and maintain the plan for performing the DAR process. 113 Bahill Generic practices4  GP 2.3: Provide Resources, Provide adequate resources for performing the DAR process, developing the work products, and providing the services of the process.  GP 2.4: Assign Responsibility, Assign responsibility and authority for performing the process, developing the work products, and providing the services of the DAR process.  GP 2.5: Train People, Train the people performing or supporting the DAR process as needed. 114 Bahill Generic practices5  GP 2.6: Manage Configurations, Place designated work products of the DAR process under appropriate levels of configuration management.  GP 2.7: Identify and Involve Relevant Stakeholders, Identify and involve the relevant stakeholders of the DAR process as planned.  GP 2.8: Monitor and Control the Process, Monitor and control the DAR process against the plan for performing the process and take appropriate corrective action. 115 Bahill Generic practices6  GP 3.2 Collect Improvement Information such as work products, measures, measurement results, and improvement information derived from planning and performing the decision analysis and resolution process to support the future use and improvement of the organization’s processes and process assets. 116 Bahill Generic practices7  GP 2.9: Objectively Evaluate Adherence, Objectively evaluate adherence of the DAR process against its process description, standards, and procedures, and address noncompliance.  GP 2.10: Review Status with Higher Level Management, Review the activities, status, and results of the DAR process with higher level management and resolve issues. 117 Bahill Example Examples of trade studies are given in O:\ENGR_LIB\DAR\DAR Training\Web-based DA R Course\dar_index.html 118 Bahill Webster Tradeoff Study References  Utility Curves (Trade-off Study) FM.05-994  Evaluate Design Solutions RW.12.13.14A010  Trade-off Study Matrix (template) FM.05-949 119 Bahill Webster DAR References  Organizational Business Practices SP.12.15.02  Perform Decision Analysis and Resolution OM.12.15.02A001  Perform Formal Evaluation RW.12.01.00A004  RF.QM Tradeoff Analyses  RF.Decide Formal Evaluation  RF.Guide Formal Evaluations  RF.Other DAR Methods  RF.Establish Evaluation Criteria  RF.ID Alternative Solutions  RF.Select Evaluation Methods  RF.Evaluate Alternatives  RF.Select Preferred Solutions  RF.Expert Review of Trade off Studies  RF.Retention Formal Decisions  RF.Manage Improve DAR 120 Bahill 121 Bahill How to print        122 To print this file, do this one time. View Color/grayscale Grayscale Settings Light grayscale Close grayscale view Bahill