The Decision Making Process with

EC2000-Keypad and Internet Versions

 Expert Choice 2000
The Decision Making Process
Expert Choice is a group decision support software product based on the world’s
most successful decision-making methodology, the Analytic Hierarchy Process
(AHP), developed by Dr. Thomas Saaty. It adapts to your decision-making style for
you and your team to: 1. Facilitate identification of your objectives, 2. Facilitate
identification of a full range alternative solutions, 3. Evaluate key trade-offs among
your objectives and alternatives and 4. Enable you and your team to walk away
with a decision that is fully understood and supported by your team.
The Structuring component is a freestyle, interactive technique for
building a decision model. The Clusterview, seen above, is where decision
makers brainstorm and cluster decision objectives.
The Treeview is automatically built from the Clusterview and displays
decision objectives that will be used for prioritization and evaluation of
alternatives.

Information documents capture definitions

and qualitative documentation and can
house files from MS Excel, MS Word and
other applications.
There are three modes of pairwise comparisons
available to prioritize objectives and alternatives.
The graphical mode is shown here.

Decision-makers
populate a judgment
matrix with ratios
derived from each
graphic comparison.
Once comparisons
are made EC2000
calculates priorities
for your objectives.
In a group session, decision-makers can enter judgments using radio frequency
keypads or remotely via the internet. In this example, Betty and Sean are saying
that ROI is more important. Mike , Jon and Jimmy are saying that Improving
Customer Satisfaction is more important. The geometric average is used as the
groups overall judgment.
In the Priorities Graph, you can see the priorities derived from previous
pairwise comparisons relative to the importance to each objective. These
priorities are a corporate perception of what is important. The inconsistency
ratio measures how consistent the group was in judgments concerning the
relative importance of the objectives. The goal is not perfect consistency, but if
inconsistency is greater than .10, the judgments should be reviewed for
accuracy.
The weights of
the objectives
are shown in a
spreadsheet
format in the
Data Grid.

The Data Grid is used to evaluate alternatives using data where available
and verbal ratings intensities where data does not exist. EC2000 synthesizes
the priorities of the objectives, data and ratings to determine the overall
priorities of the alternatives.
 The utility curve
function is used to
convert raw data to
prioritized
information. The
curve can be linear,
convex or concave.

Increasing Curve
Decreasing Curve

Raw data must be interpreted for

its value to the organization. The x-
axis shows the range of data for a
given decision objective. The y–axis
shows the utility decision-makers
get from the data metrics on each
alternative choice.
Most 1-10 rating scales are flawed in the sense that a 2 is twice as good as 1 and a 3 is
only 50% better than a 2, etc. EC2000 derives the weights for verbal scales by having
decision-makers pairwise compare ratings so that they are numerically accurate
representations of the intensity names.

When you do not have data for an objective, EC2000 guides you to build a
customized ratings scale that is numerically accurate for verbal ratings.
Using the Individual Ratings Assessment window, stakeholders enter
ratings for each alternative with respect to each weighted objective. The
display can be anonymous or can provide names so that decision-makers
can discuss how each person arrived at their rating for the alternatives.
After making judgments about the
relative importance of objectives, sub-
objectives and alternatives, EC’s
powerful sensitivity graphs enable you
to test the sensitivity of the decision to
changes in priorities by changing the
weights of your objectives to instantly
see the impact on your alternatives.

The component view of the Dynamic

Sensitivity graph is seen here.
By dragging the objective’s priorities
back and forth in the left column, the
priorities of the alternatives will change
in the right column. If a decision-maker
thinks an objective might be more or
less important than originally indicated,
the decision-maker can drag that
objective's bar to the right or left to
increase or decrease the objective’s
priority and see the impact on
alternatives.
Sensitivity graphs help you see the
relative importance for a set of
alternatives and why the choices
scored the way they did against
each objective.

The performance graph shows the

weights of the objectives as the vertical
bars and the relative scores of the
alternatives as the colored lines.

The head-to-head graph shows a one-

to-one comparison of any pair of
alternatives you select. Here the
Financial Management System is
better at supporting Strategic goals,
but the HRIS system is better
everywhere else leading it to a higher
overall score.
 Expert
Choice
Alternative Score Costs Funded Funded Cost Funded Benefit
HRIS System 0.514 330 1 330 0.514
Financial Management System 0.364 256 1 256 0.364
Secure Document System 0.356 178 1 178 0.356
Electronic Bid Set 0.287 440 0 0 0
Electronic Commerce ASP 0.339 225 0 0 0
Application Software 0.235 150 1 150 0.235
Decision Support Software 0.608 189 1 189 0.608
Help Desk Software 0.505 175 1 175 0.505
Technical Data Imaging 0.204 130 1 130 0.204
Contractor Management System 0.281 155 1 155 0.281
Spent 1500 3.067
Budget 1600

EC2000 benefit priorities from the Data Grid export directly into its Excel optimization
add-on tool to help organizations with investment portfolio management. Above is a
simple fund or not fund model where the projects with the highest overall benefit for their
costs will be fully funded. More complex budget constraints are also easy to include.
Total
Overall Benefit of the Portfolio- This number is an aggregate benefit Portfolio
Benefit
4
Score
3
2
1
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Overall Cost of the Portfolio (in thousands)

The highest overall portfolio benefit is for the budget of $1.5 Million. The
additional budget spent would yield decreasing marginal returns on investment.