It's All in How You Keep the Score: Making Computer-Aided Decisions More Objective

Abstract

The use of computer-aiding software in public sector decision making has been m-creasmg. There are many multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) models available, like multi-attribute utility technology (MAUT), analytical hierarchy process (AHP), and P/G% Analysis. These programs work quite similarly, and if the same scores and weights are entered, they will yield virtually identical outcomes. In the public sector, key variables are often difficult to measure, so analysts are encouraged to estimate relationships for missing data on a five-point scale. How one enters data for a five-point scale has a dramatic impact on the outcome. Typical approaches to scoring involve an ascending value scale (1→5) or a Likert-type mid-point scale. Both of these yield inconsistent, m-sensitive and unsatisfactory results, since MCDM's are affected mainly by the ratio of the relationship scores for each goal criterion. A descending value scale (5→1) is recommended here to make computer-aided decisions more consistent and sensitive, and therefore, more objective, Keywords: multi-attribute utility technique (MAUT), analytical hierarchy process (AHP), multi-criteria decision making (MCDM), P/G% Analysis, ascendmg value scale, descending value scale, sensitivity analysis, threshold analysis, what if analysis, uncertainty.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abadmsky, Howard. (1987). An introduction. Crime and justice Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Bmgham, Richard D. & Ethndge, Marcus. (1982). Reaching decisions in public policy and administration: Methods and application New York: Longman.

Edwards, Ward & Newman, Robert. (1981). Multi-attribute decision making: Methods and applications Berlin Springer Verlag .

Meier, Kenneth J. & Brudney, Jeffrey L. (1987). Applied statistics for public administration. Monterrey, CA: Brooks/Cole .

McKenna, Christopher K. (1980). Quantitative methods for public decision making New York: McGraw-Hill.

Nagel, Stuart. (1984). Public policy. Goals, means, and methods. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Nagel, Stuart. (1985a). P/G% Analysis: An Evaluating-Aiding Program Evaluation Review, 9, 209-214.

Nagel, Stuart. (1985b). New Varieties of Sensitivity Analysis Evaluation Review, 9, 772-779.

Nagel, Stuart. (1987). Evaluation Analysis with Microcomputers. Public Productivity Review, 10, 67-80.

10.

Nagel, Stuart. (1989). A theory of rational and feasible budget allocation. Unpublished manuscript.

11.

Nagel Stuart. (1988). Policy analysis with microcomputers. Unpublished monograph.

12.

Radcliff, Benjamin. (1986). Multi-criteria decision making: A survey of software Social Science Microcomputer Review, 4, 38-55.

13.

Saaty, Thomas L. (1982). Decision making for leaders. The analytical hierarchy process for decisions in a complex world. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning.

14.

Teasley, C.E.III, (forthcoming). When a picture is worth more than a thousand words: Graphic vs. algebraic sensitivity analysis Evaluation Review, 13.

15.

Welch, Susan & Comer, John C. (1983). Quantitative methods for public administration: Techniques and applications Homewood, ILL: Dorsey Press.