Multi Decision-Makers Equalizer Essay

A multi objective and multi decision-makers decision support system, which finds a balanced solution among different proposals made initially by the decision-makers, is presented here. The software, denominated multi decision-makers equalizer, balances the interests of the different decision-makers by inducing them to accept losses in certain objectives in exchange for gains in others. The method uses neither parameters of preference with an indirect meaning, such as the weights of relative importance, nor averages. It does not call for all the information at the beginning of the process, but through an iterative process of learning and exchange of information, it offers different possibilities. To begin with the decision support system helps each decision-maker, independently, to define his preferred alternative. The alternatives defined by the decision-makers will compete then among themselves, in a collective negotiation process, in order to define the final alternative to be implemented. (Drucker, 2005) In this initial stage of the process, a model named â€Å"Equalizer† helps each decision-maker, independently to find a non-dominated solution, in such a manner that the values achieved for the objectives are balanced according to his preferences in a similar way to that of the well-known equalizers of a music stereo component. In which, using visual aids, the decision-maker navigates over the Pareto Frontier. Given a point, the decision-maker can choose to improve one objective at the expense of another, increasing or diminishing the values achieved for the objectives to those he would be willing to accept. Once the new levels of achievements have been defined for certain objectives, the system obtains new values for the others, guaranteeing that the combination of the values achieved for the objectives is feasible and efficient (or non-dominated). This methodology assists the decision-maker in the understanding of the relationships in the feasible region of the problem being analyzed. During the search, the decision-maker is presented with information such as constraints, limitations, feasibilities, and efficient interchanges. It allows the decision-maker to begin learning and training process and progressively to select the preferred solution. In this manner he will be able to understand the system as an interrelated one, and to determine the levels at which he must sacrifice some objectives in order to improve others, and to observe the consequences of possible decisions. The method allows each decision-maker to propose to the whole group his preferred alternative. Once completed, the Multi decision-Maker Equalizer identifies the region for negotiation, which includes all the proposals, that is the part of the feasible region that envelops all the proposals, and assigns ranges of values for the objectives. The system defines a balanced solution according to these ranges as a temporary solution to the conflict. It is evaluated by all decision-makers, and if there is no agreement to the proposed solution, a new negotiation process is started. The method will allow each decision-maker, independently, to interact with the system, looking for a way to impel the process toward his interests, by making sacrifices in some objectives which may not be so important to him, but that could be very important to the others. Once the new proposals have been made, the method looks for a new agreement. The process is repeated until a definitive solution, which satisfies all the decision-makers, is reached. it is easier for a consensus to be reached. The method serves as a balancing mechanism, not only for the values achieved for the objectives but also for the decision-makers interests. Execution of Decisions The continuing reorganization of the bank’s procedures and departments was fueled by a growing understanding of the bank’s administration as an organic whole or system. Various organization charts, process charts, and routing diagrams documented this idea. They showed the management’s insight into the fact that its internal and external products were the result of the systematic processing of data and information through the whole organization. Moreover, this insight served to align more efficiently the primary criteria of the bank’s performance (with respect to making profit by satisfying its clients) and secondary criteria having to do with, for instance, balancing work speed and time taken for deliberation during the processing of actual transactions by employees. As far as we can deduce from the information available, this was not explicitly aimed at in ROBAVER. The new technology was not used to allow further division of labor or to remove employees further from decision making that would involve primary criteria. Employees were not made more automaton-like by the new technology. On the contrary, as we noted before, the direct contact that was established between the employees and customers meant that even at the lower levels of the organization, primary criteria had to be taken into account when making decisions. Summarizing, three of the four elements we distinguished have been shown to be present in the context of the reorganizations of ROBAVER in the introduction of the punched-card and other information technology. Improving the structure of the organization, and especially the communication flows, served to increase the accountability of the various departments, managers, and individual employees and also the possibilities of central management to monitor and control the organization as a whole in accordance with primary criteria. The more precise division of labor and tasks and functions of the employees at the departments allowed some measure of scientific management and the development of secondary criteria used to steer the behavior of employees. However, this was done in a way that encouraged the employees to make decisions involving, at least in part, primary criteria and taking the overall interests of the organization into account. In general, the employees were stimulated to come up with ideas useful to the organization. (Howard, & Matheson 2006)