W2_UDS_Choosing Fuel Terminal Location Using Additive Weighting Technique in Multi-Attribute Decision Making

  1. Problem Evaluation

Location of the new Fuel Terminal is one critical factor that determines operational success. Especially in build new fuel terminal, we must consider at least two aspects such as land aspect and sea aspect. The fact is very hard to find the location that has both aspects perfectly. But if we get the best one it has already bought or developed, so we have to choose the optimum location.

  1. Development of feasible alternatives

Choosing the Optimum location is decision making strategy. There are some theories that can help us to find the optimum one, but in this case we use “Additive Weighting Technique” from Compensatory Approach in Multi-Attribute Decision Making. With this technique we can find the best (Optimum) location based on calculation between weighted / rank and scoring of the criteria.

  1. Development the outcome for each alternative

The find the best location by using Additive Weighting Technique, First we have to do is select the criteria of land and sea aspect. Second, we make a weighting of the criteria. Weighting criteria may come from proportional rank of the criteria or expert judgment. Third, we give a number (Likert scale 1-3) in every criteria and time it with the weighting of every criteria. So we can choose the location with the highest score.

  1. Selection of criteria

Summary result of the weighting criteria each alternative as follow :

Table 1. Weighting Land Aspect Criteria

Table 2. Weighting Sea Aspect Criteria

Base on sum result of Table 1 and Table 2, Patra Dok Dumai location gets the highest score.

  1. Analysis and comparison of the alternative

Additive weighting calculation show Patra Dok Dumai location gets higher score in sea aspect criteria but lower score in land aspect criteria. It indicate this location is not the best but the optimum alternative that we have.

  1. Alternative selection

Choose the optimum not the best alternative is not a bad decision. It could be happen as long as they pass minimum requirement of operational success and we already prepare all of the mitigation of the risk.

  1. Performance monitoring & Post Evaluation Result

Even we already have the chosen alternative base on operational aspect also we have to evaluate the alternative base on economic aspect. Maybe in economic view our alternative not feasible to run so must go back to beginning and do this iteration until we get feasible alternative both on operational and economic aspect.

  1. References
    1. Planning Planet. (2017). Multi-Attribute Decision Making. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective Figures 8-14
    2. Sullivan, G. W., Wicks, M. E., & Koelling, C. P.(2014). Engineering economy 16th Edition. Chapter 14 – Decision Making Considering Multiattributes., pp.559-608.
    3. Norris, G. A., & Marshall, H. E. (1995). Multiattribute decision analysis method for evaluating buildings and building systems. National Institute of Standards and Technology.

 

 

1 thought on “W2_UDS_Choosing Fuel Terminal Location Using Additive Weighting Technique in Multi-Attribute Decision Making”

  1. Pak Dhanu…… How many different alternative Multi Attribute methods did you have to select from? Why did you choose only ne f them witht bothering to show us why you chose one over the other?

    Other than that, you did a really great job but whenever you make a recommendation to your management you MUST show them that you looked at ALL the alternatives and then based on your evaluation, selected the “best” which you are recommending that they use.

    I am REJECTING this posting with the request that you REPOST it, but this time, show us ALL of the multi-attribute options and explain/justify why you chose the one you did for use in your paper. When you post it again label it W2.1_DS_Choosing a Fuel Terminal….

    For future reference whenever you do step 2, there MUST BE more than one possible choice, and preferably more than just two.

    Other than that your references were excellent and they met the technical specifications. Just fix up Step 2 and Step 3 and I will be happy to give you 4 or 5 stars.

    BR,
    Dr. PDG, Jakarta, Indonesia

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *