- Problem Definition.
In our gas pipeline project, we need gas metering system to measure how much gas flow which is flowing in our gas pipeline. There are several types of gas meters commonly used are ultrasonic meters, orifice meters, and turbine meters; and each gas meter has different characteristics. So, I want to try to analyze what kind of gas meter which is suitable for our project by using multi attribute decision
- Identify the Feasible Alternative.
The following table contains data of three gas meter types that will be selected.
Table 1 Gas Meter Data
As shown in above table, there are five criteria of evaluation (in this case known as attribute).
Further, selection of gas meter types will use both methods of multi-attribute decision, namely non-compensatory model and compensatory model.
- Development of the Outcome for Alternative.
3.1. Non-compensatory model.
Four non-compensatory models, that are (1) dominance, (2) satisficing, (3) disjunctive resolution, and (4) lexicography, will be used.
For evaluation of dominance, pairwise comparison between two alternatives will be done for all attributes, as shown in table 2.
Table 2 Evaluation of Dominance
It is still unclear from above table, which one is dominant with others.
The satisficing model is done by applying acceptable limit, as shown in Table 3, where there are no alternatives that are eliminated.
Table 3 Satisficing Model Evaluation
Table 3 also is used to evaluate the disjunctive resolution, where concluded that all alternatives is acceptable because each has at least one attribute value that meets or exceeds the minimum expectation.
To conduct lexicography, the first should be done is to rank each attribute, as shown in table 4.
Table 4 Attributes Ranking
And then Table 5 shows evaluation using lexicography, where “Ultrasonic Gas Meter (A)” has highest rank attribute.
Table 5 Lexicography Evaluation
3.2. Compensatory model.
In this evaluation, two compensatory models, that are the non-dimensional scaling and the additive weighting technique will be used.
Ranking attribute by using non-dimensional scaling as shown in Table 6.
Table 6 Non-dimensional scaling
After set relative rank for each attribute, further is to conduct additive weighting for all alternatives as shown in table 7.
Table 7 Additive weighting evaluation
Note: Column Relative Rank is taken from Table 4.
As shown in Table 7, alternative “Ultrasonic Gas Meter (A)” has highest rank.
- Selection of Criteria.
A selection criterion for gas meter selection is the highest rank.
- Analysis and Comparison of the Alternative.
Table 8 shows ranking of gas meter that resulted from both non-compensatory model and compensatory model.
Table 8 Ranking of gas meter
As shown in Table 8, it is interesting to see that both methods result the same rank order, where “Ultrasonic (A)” has rank number I (highest) followed by Orifice (B), and Turbine (C).
- Selection of the Preferred Alternative.
Off course, Ultrasonic gas meter will be decided as gas meter type which is used for the project.
- Performance Monitoring and the Post Evaluation of Result.
Monitoring should be conducted during execution of the project to ensure that all requirements are met.
- Sullivan, W.G., Wicks, E. M., Koelling, C. P. (2014). Engineering Economy, Chapter 14, page 559 to 617. Pearson. Sixteenth Edition.
- W17_YAW_Licensor Selection by Using Multi Attribute Decision. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/06/19/w17_yaw_licensor-selection-by-using-multi-attribute-decision/
- W4_Andi_Decision Making Multi Attributes. Retrieved from https://kristalaace2014.wordpress.com/2014/03/21/w4_andi_decision-making-multi-attributes/
- 10.3 – module 10-3 – managing change – the owner’s perepctive. Retrieved from http://www.planningplanet.com/guild/gpccar/managing-change-the-owners-perspective