74,651 research outputs found

    Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

    Get PDF
    When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders‟ decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AHP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach

    Methods for anticipating governance breakdown and violent conflict

    Get PDF
    In this paper, authors Sarah Bressan, Håvard Mokleiv Nygård, and Dominic Seefeldt present the evolution and state of the art of both quantitative forecasting and scenario-based foresight methods that can be applied to help prevent governance breakdown and violent conflict in Europe’s neighbourhood. In the quantitative section, they describe the different phases of conflict forecasting in political science and outline which methodological gaps EU-LISTCO’s quantitative sub-national prediction tool will address to forecast tipping points for violent conflict and governance breakdown. The qualitative section explains EU-LISTCO’s scenario-based foresight methodology for identifying potential tipping points. After comparing both approaches, the authors discuss opportunities for methodological advancements across the boundaries of quantitative forecasting and scenario-based foresight, as well as how they can inform the design of strategic policy options

    Industry views on water resources planning methods – prospects for change in England and Wales

    Get PDF
    This paper describes a qualitative study of practitioner perspectives on regulated water resources planning practice in England and Wales. The study focuses on strengths and weaknesses of existing practice and the case for change towards a risk-based approach informed by stochastic modelling assessments. In-depth, structured interviews were conducted to capture the views of planners, regulators and consultants closely involved in the planning process. We found broad agreement that the existing water availability assessment methods are fallible; they lack transparency, are often highly subjective and may fail to adequately expose problems of resilience. While most practitioners believe these issues warrant a more detailed examination of risk in the planning process, few believe there is a strong case for a fundamental shift towards risk-based planning informed by stochastic modelling assessments. The study identifies perceived business risks associated with change and exposes widespread scepticism of stochastic methods

    Architecture-based Qualitative Risk Analysis for Availability of IT Infrastructures

    Get PDF
    An IT risk assessment must deliver the best possible quality of results in a time-effective way. Organisations are used to customise the general-purpose standard risk assessment methods in a way that can satisfy their requirements. In this paper we present the QualTD Model and method, which is meant to be employed together with standard risk assessment methods for the qualitative assessment of availability risks of IT architectures, or parts of them. The QualTD Model is based on our previous quantitative model, but geared to industrial practice since it does not require quantitative data which is often too costly to acquire. We validate the model and method in a real-world case by performing a risk assessment on the authentication and authorisation system of a large multinational company and by evaluating the results w.r.t. the goals of the stakeholders of the system. We also perform a review of the most popular standard risk assessment methods and an analysis of which one can be actually integrated with our QualTD Model

    Design and initial validation of the Raster method for telecom service availability risk assessment

    Get PDF
    Crisis organisations depend on telecommunication services; unavailability of these services reduces the effectiveness of crisis response. Crisis organisations should therefore be aware of availability risks, and need a suitable risk assessment method. Such a method needs to be aware of the exceptional circumstances in which crisis organisations operate, and of the commercial structure of modern telecom services. We found that existing risk assessment methods are unsuitable for this problem domain. Hence, crisis organisations do not perform any risk assessment, trust their supplier, or rely on service level agreements, which are not meaningful during crisis situations. We have therefore developed a new risk assessment method, which we call RASTER. We have tested RASTER using a case study at the crisis organisation of a government agency, and improved the method based on the analysis of case results. Our initial validation suggests that the method can yield practical results

    Evaluation of Corporate Sustainability

    Get PDF
    As a consequence of an increasing demand in sustainable development for business organizations, the evaluation of corporate sustainability has become a topic intensively focused by academic researchers and business practitioners. Several techniques in the context of multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) have been suggested to facilitate the evaluation and the analysis of sustainability performance. However, due to the complexity of evaluation, such as a compilation of quantitative and qualitative measures, interrelationships among various sustainability criteria, the assessor’s hesitation in scoring, or incomplete information, simple techniques may not be able to generate reliable results which can reflect the overall sustainability performance of a company. This paper proposes a series of mathematical formulations based upon the evidential reasoning (ER) approach which can be used to aggregate results from qualitative judgments with quantitative measurements under various types of complex and uncertain situations. The evaluation of corporate sustainability through the ER model is demonstrated using actual data generated from three sugar manufacturing companies in Thailand. The proposed model facilitates managers in analysing the performance and identifying improvement plans and goals. It also simplifies decision making related to sustainable development initiatives. The model can be generalized to a wider area of performance assessment, as well as to any cases of multiple criteria analysis

    Early Quantitative Assessment of Non-Functional Requirements

    Get PDF
    Non-functional requirements (NFRs) of software systems are a well known source of uncertainty in effort estimation. Yet, quantitatively approaching NFR early in a project is hard. This paper makes a step towards reducing the impact of uncertainty due to NRF. It offers a solution that incorporates NFRs into the functional size quantification process. The merits of our solution are twofold: first, it lets us quantitatively assess the NFR modeling process early in the project, and second, it lets us generate test cases for NFR verification purposes. We chose the NFR framework as a vehicle to integrate NFRs into the requirements modeling process and to apply quantitative assessment procedures. Our solution proposal also rests on the functional size measurement method, COSMIC-FFP, adopted in 2003 as the ISO/IEC 19761 standard. We extend its use for NFR testing purposes, which is an essential step for improving NFR development and testing effort estimates, and consequently for managing the scope of NFRs. We discuss the advantages of our approach and the open questions related to its design as well

    Risk assessment of blasting operations in open pit mines using FAHP method

    Get PDF
    Purpose. In the mining blasting operation, fragmentation is the most important output. Fly rock, ground vibration, air blast, and environmental effects are detrimental effects of blasting operations. Identifying and ranking the risk of blasting operations is considered as the most important stage in project management. Methods. In this research, the problem of identifying and ranking the factors constituting the risk in blasting operations is considered with the methodology of the Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchy Process (FAHP). Criteria and sub-criteria have been determined based on historical research studies, field studies, and expert opinions for designing a hierarchical process. Findings. Based on FAHP scores, non-control of the sub-criterion of health and safety (C3), blast operation results (C18) and knowledge, and skill and staffing (C2) with a score of 0.377, 0.334, and 0.294 respectively are the most effective sub-criterion for the creation of blasting operations risk. According to the score, the sub-criterion C18 is the most effective sub-criterion in providing the blasting operations risk. Effects and results of blasting operations (D8), with a score of 0.334 as the most effective criterion, and natural hazards (D10), with a score of 0.015, were the last priorities in the factors causing blasting operations risk. Originality. Regarding the risk rating of blasting operations, the control of the sub-criteria C3, C18, and C2, and the D8 criterion, is of particular importance in reducing the risk of blasting operations and improving project management. Practical implications. The evaluation of human resource performance and increase in the level of knowledge and skills and occupational safety and control of all outputs of blasting operations is necessary. Therefore, selecting the most important project risks and taking actions to remove them is essential for risk management.Мета. Визначення ризиків проведення вибухових робіт та їх оцінка на основі використанням нечіткого методу аналізу ієрархій (НМАІ) для покращення управління якістю проектів. Методика. В рамках даного дослідження, проблеми визначення та оцінки ризиків вибухових робіт розглядалися із застосуванням нечіткого методу аналізу ієрархій. На базі аналізу історичних даних і польового дослідження з урахуванням експертних оцінок були визначені критерії та підкритерії для побудови ієрархій. Результати. За результатами НМАІ, неконтролюючий підкритерій здоров’я та безпеки (С3), підкритерій результатів вибухових робіт (С18), знань, умінь і кадрів (С2) зі значеннями 0.377, 0.334 і 0.294 відповідно найбільш ефективні в появі ризику проведення вибухових робіт. Підкритерій С18 чинить найбільший вплив на ризик проведення вибухових робіт. Критерій результатів і наслідків вибухових робіт (D8) з найефективнішим значенням 0.334 та критерій природних катастроф (D10) зі значенням 0.015 є останніми пріоритетами серед чинників, які визначають ризик проведення вибухових робіт. Наукова новизна. Отримав доповнення та подальший розвиток науково-методичний підхід до визначення ризиків при проведенні вибухових робіт, заснований на їх ранжуванні з використанням системи виявлених критеріїв і підкритеріїв методом НМАІ. Практична значимість. Для успішного керування проектом важливо визначати найсерйозніші ризики проекту й вжити заходів щодо їх усунення. Відносно ранжирування ризиків проведення вибухових робіт управління підкритеріями C3, C18 і C2, а також критерієм D8, особливо важливо для зниження цих ризиків та покращення якості управління проектом.Цель. Определение рисков проведения взрывных работ и их оценка на основе использования нечеткого метода анализа иерархий (НМАИ) для улучшения управления качеством проектов. Методика. В рамках данного исследования, проблемы определения и оценки рисков взрывных работ рассматривались с применением нечеткого метода анализа иерархий. На базе анализа исторических данных и полевого исследования с учетом экспертных оценок были определены, критерии и подкритерии для построения иерархий. Результаты. По результатам НМАИ, неконтролирующий подкритерий здоровья и безопасности (С3), подкритерий результатов взрывных работ (С18), знаний, умений и кадров (С2) со значениями 0.377, 0.334 и 0.294 соответственно наиболее эффективны в появлении риска проведения взрывных работ. Подкритерий С18 оказывает самое большое влияние на риск проведения взрывных работ. Критерий результатов и последствий взрывных работ (D8) с самым эффективным значением 0.334 и критерий природных катастроф (D10) со значением 0.015 являются последними приоритетами среди факторов, которые определяют риск проведения взрывных работ. Научная новизна. Получил дополнение и дальнейшее развитие научно-методический подход к определению рисков при проведении взрывных работ, основанный на их ранжировании с использованием системы выявленных критериев и подкритериев методом НМАИ. Практическая значимость. Для успешного руководства проектом важно определять самые серьезные риски проекта и предпринять действия по их устранению. В отношении ранжирования рисков проведения взрывных работ управление подкритериями C3, C18 и C2, а также критерием D8, особенно важно для снижения этих рисков и улучшения руководства проектом.The authors would like to thank Mining Engineering Department, Islamic Azad University (South Tehran Branch) for supporting this research
    corecore