W3_ANG_AC Selection Considering Attributes


Problem Statement

Continued from my last posting that talked about selection of air conditioner product based on its optimal total life cycle, now I would talk about the same selection of air conditioner product but based on multi attributes.

In the case I have, I need air conditioner covering main bed room that size twenty-four meter square. Based on below rule of thumb, the required capacity is one and a half PK or twelve thousand BTU.



There are bunch of twelve thousand BTU air conditioners in market, so which one should I choose? There are many brands, many types which offer various attributes in market.

I would solve this problem using Tools and Technique discussed in Engineering Book, chapter 14: Decision Making Considering Multi Attributes”, page 551-573.

Feasible Alternatives

I found some ac product on internet (website: bursa-elektronik.com) and shortlisted six products with the following specifications:

Description

Unit

AC #1

AC #2

AC #3

AC #4

AC #5

AC #6

Capacity

BTU

12,000

12,000

12,000

12,000

12,000

12,000

Brand

 

Changhong

LG

LG

LG

Panasonic

Panasonic

Type

 

CS-C12J

S12ICE

S12LPBX-3

S13INV

CS-PC12PKP

CS-S13NKP

Country of Origin

 

China

Korea

Korea

Korea

Japan

Japan

Price

IDR

3,000,000

4,650,000

4,300,000

5,250,000

4,250,000

5,800,000

Inverter Tech.

 

No

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Rated Input

watt

1,190

1,140

1,240

680

1,170

1,010

Other Features

 

           
– Anti DBD

 

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

– Plasma Filter

 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

– Ionizer

 

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

– Filter Anti Alergi

 

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

– Jet Cool

 

No

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Outcomes/ Calculations of Each Alternative

Based on non-dimensional scaling technique, I have converted each attributes of those alternatives into non-dimensional value that having a common range as follows:

Attribute

Value

Rating Procedure

Dimensionless Value

Country of Origin

1

China

(Relative Rank-1)/2

0.00

2

Korea

0.50

3

Japan

1.00

Price

IDR

3,000,000

(5,800,000-Price)/2,800,000

1.00

IDR

4,250,000

0.55

IDR

4,300,000

0.54

IDR

4,650,000

0.41

IDR

5,250,000

0.20

IDR

5,800,000

0.00

Rated Input

watt

680

(1,240-Rated Input)/560

1.00

watt

1,010

0.41

watt

1,140

0.18

watt

1,170

0.13

watt

1,190

0.09

watt

1,240

0.00

Other Features

 

 

 

– Anti DBD

1

No

(Relative Rank-1)

0.00

2

Yes

1.00

– Plasma Filter

1

No

(Relative Rank-1)

0.00

2

Yes

1.00

– Ionizer

1

No

(Relative Rank-1)

0.00

2

Yes

1.00

– Filter Anti Alergi

1

No

(Relative Rank-1)

0.00

2

Yes

1.00

– Jet Cool

1

No

(Relative Rank-1)

0.00

2

Yes

1.00

Then I have rated also all the alternatives product using Additive Weighting Technique as follows:

Attribute

Rank

Normalized
Weight

AC #1

AC #2

AC #3

AC #4

AC #5

AC #6

Country of Origin

6

0.17

0.00

0.00

0.50

0.08

0.50

0.08

0.50

0.08

1.00

0.17

1.00

0.17

Price

8

0.22

1.00

0.22

0.41

0.09

0.54

0.12

0.20

0.04

0.55

0.12

0.00

0.00

Rated Input

7

0.19

0.09

0.02

0.18

0.03

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.19

0.13

0.02

0.41

0.08

Other Features

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

– Anti DBD

4

0.11

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.11

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

– Plasma Filter

2

0.06

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.06

1.00

0.06

1.00

0.06

1.00

0.06

1.00

0.06

– Ionizer

1

0.03

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.03

1.00

0.03

1.00

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

– Filter Anti Alergi

3

0.08

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.08

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

– Jet Cool

5

0.14

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.00

1.00

0.14

1.00

0.14

1.00

0.14

1.00

0.14

36

1.00

0.24

0.49

0.42

0.54

0.51

0.44

Setting Minimum/ Selection Criteria

The selection shall be based on the product that has the highest score of its summed weighted scores attributes.

Analysis/ Comparison of the Alternatives against the Criteria

The final rank calculation of each individual for the same case as above can be different (subjective). The reason is just because each individual may put different rank for the same attribute.

In above calculation, I put the price as the most important attribute, followed by rated input, country of origin, jet cool, anti DBD (anti mosquito dengue), filter for anti-allergy, plasma filter and the least ionizer.

Again, that rank of above attributes rank can be perceived different to other persons.

Selection of the Best/ Preferred Alternative Compared against the Criteria

Based on above shown calculation, AC product #4 has the highest score on its summed weight scores attributes, followed by product AC#5, AC#2, AC#6, AC#3 and the smallest score is AC#1.

So then of course with above assumption of attribute rank, the preferred alternative is AC#4: LG air conditioner with type S13INV.

Performance Monitoring and Post Evaluation of Result/ Follow up Assessment

The result of product selection on the same alternatives using multi attributes technique may be different from one person to others. The reasons are:

  • The rank of attributes may be different
  • The value of non-dimensional may be different. For instance in attribute of Country of Origin, in the range 0-10, we perceive product China 2, Korea 7 & Japan 8. The result below is showing the dimensionless value between Korean & Japanese product has relatively close number (0.83 & 1.00)
example
Attribute

Value

Rating Procedure

Dimensionless Value

Country of Origin

2

China

(Relative Rank-2)/6

0.00

7

Korea

0.83

8

Japan

1.00

  • Attributes to be considered in calculation may be also different from one person to others. Other features such jet cool, anti DBD (anti mosquito dengue), filter for anti-allergy, plasma filter and the least ionizer. It can be considered not important attributes to be put on consideration in our decision to choose the product.

Although each individual may have different result using multi attributes technique, but at least we have quantitative analysis to support our choice.

References :

  1. Sullivan, William G., Wick, Elin M., Koelling, C. Patric. (2012), Engineering Economy. 15th ed. Chapter 14: Decision Making Considering Mutiattributes, page 551-573, USA: Pearson Higher Education, Inc.
  2. Amos, Scott PE. (2012), Skill & Knowledge of Cost Engineering. 5th ed., USA: AACE International.
  3. Humphreys, Gary C. (2002), Project Management Using Earned Value. 2nd ed., USA: Humphreys & Associates, Inc.
  4. Mulcahy, Rita, with Diethelm, Laurie, (2011). PMP Exam Prep. 7th ed., USA: RMC Publications, Inc.
  5. Newel, Michael W. (2005), Preparing for PMP Certification Exam, 3rd ed., USA: AMACOM.
  6. Bursa Elektronik (2013). Products Categories. [ONLINE] Available at: http://www.bursa-elektronik.com/. [Last Accessed 5 Sept 2013].
Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Anggono M, Week 03

One response to “W3_ANG_AC Selection Considering Attributes

  1. AWESOME!! I love it!!! Very real and practical case study which shows me you really do understand how to use this tool/technique. (And believe me, you WILL see a problem requiring the use of Multi-attribute decision making on your exams!!)

    Your word count (not counting the tables) was ~530, which is a bit higher than I would like to see but as you develop more writing skills I would hope you can get the word count down between 250 and 500 max.

    Other than the word count, you followed our 7 step process and your citations were excellent…….

    Keep up the good work and looking forward to seeing your next blog posting…..

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s