neptunlabs

Use Criterium® DecisionPlus® 3.0 to manage the entire decision process. Applying a structured methodology to decision making, Criterium® DecisionPlus® helps you. To download CRITERIUM DECISION PLUS, click on the Download button DOWNLOAD. Unstable: When we initially tested the product on a 64-bit Windows 8. Dec 05, 1988 Criterium DecisionPlus is decision-making software that is based on multi-criteria decision making. The software implements the.

OR/MS Today - February 2000 - Software Review February 2000 Criterium Decision Plus 3.0 Versatile multi-criteria tool excels in its ability to support decision-making By Walt Haerer InfoHarvest Inc.' S () latest version of Criterium Decision Plus combines analytical power, ease of use and an extensive graphics interface that together make CDP transparent to first-time audiences yet meet the demands of sophisticated analysts. Some examples of known CDP use will demonstrate this versatility. These projects lasted from a few hours to several months, involved from one decision-maker to 40 participating organizations, were conducted in the United States and overseas, and evaluated costs of as little as $100,000 to more than $1 billion. The projects: • Selecting a jet-fuel pipeline route through sensitive marine habitats for a new, major international airport.

Eroge Games Pc English there. • Evaluating buy/lease/sell/build options for the corporate headquarters of a major oil company. • Restructuring and consolidating first-line organizations for a government agency. • Selecting a Fortune 500 company's business system (hardware/software vendors).

• Consolidating database facilities of an aerospace company. • Prioritizing regional wastewater re-use projects. • Selecting remedial strategies and technologies for many hazardous waste sites. • Prioritizing environmental upgrades for a large smelting operation and for a pulp and paper plant. • Working with multiple stakeholders to select a habitat restoration strategy requiring the potential relocation of hundreds of families.

• Evaluating municipal waste management options for a large metropolitan area. • Prioritizing major capital improvement projects with input from multiple stakeholder groups. • Helping a federal agency evaluate policy alternatives.

• Evaluating bidders for a risky public works project. • Selecting a new home. • Evaluating career alternatives. CDP's primary strengths are in providing: • A structured decision-making framework that is totally transparent; the basic algorithms can be displayed on a spreadsheet.

• Immediate, graphic feedback from what-if analysis. • Easy evaluation of sensitivities of the rankings of alternatives to weights/trade-offs to help groups focus on key issues. • Ability to incorporate uncertainties in performance scores (and thereby defuse potentially extensive arguments among experts). • Graphic portrayal of sensitivities of rankings to uncertainties in performance scores and support of value of information analyses. • Consensus building.

• Minimizing the time and cost of reaching closure on major decisions. • Full verbal and graphic documentation of all input to the decision process. CDP has been used live on the Internet and has supported decision-making via video conferencing. The reader is encouraged to view some of these benefits of CDP directly by visiting InfoHarvest's website () for free downloads, examples, tips and a 'best practices center' that currently provides a systems engineering example. Technical Background CDP is really two models. Users can select either a simple multi-attribute rating technique [Edwards, 1994; von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986] or the Analytic Hierarchy Process [Saaty, 1992].

This review will focus on the simple multi-attribute rating technique; readers can refer to the excellent CDP manual for details concerning application of the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Tnl Capable 3d Card Software there. The features of CDP are best illustrated with a simple example that has been used hundreds of times by the author both for introducing audiences to multi-criteria decision-making and as part of training.

The example was chosen to be simple and non-controversial so that audiences can focus on the process and functionality of CDP and not get intellectually or emotionally involved in the decision itself. Model Structuring For purposes of this example, assume that the goal of the decision opportunity or problem is clear: select replacement tires for our car.

CDP's brainstorm screen provides a means to capture and connect candidate objectives or criteria such as minimizing cost, maximizing safety, maximizing wear, etc. To the overall goal (see Figure 1A/B). We've selected only three objectives from among many possible ones.

We've also eliminated required tire characteristics such as size. Cost and wear will be measured directly and safety will have traction ­ the distance required to stop a car ­ as a surrogate measure. These criteria should be essential, measurable, nonredundant, etc. As outlined by Keeney [1992]. Figure 1A: 'Brainstorming' objectives. Although several layers of criteria, sub-criteria, sub-sub-criteria, etc. Are possible in CDP, only one layer will be used here (see the InfoHarvest website procurement model for a 2-layer example).