# The process of weighting the Deesidar decision

Quote from Roy Disney:

Making decisions when you know your values ​​is not difficult.

Decision making can be considered as the process of choosing one or more choices. The choices we make often have monumental effects on ourselves and the people around us. A critical ability to make successful decisions is to properly weigh the criteria in terms of relative importance to the outcome.

The highest set of decision-making techniques is called cumulative and combined intelligent techniques. This involves the use of historical data and a group analysis of the decision. This method involves 9 main steps.

Step 1: Gather an intelligence team with historical tools to complete the decision analysis as a group.

Step 2: Define the process for the group and the rules to bind all participants.

Step 3: Define the intended result.

Step 4: Define the criteria by which the intended result should be judged.

Step 5: Assess the order of importance of each criterion.

Step 6: Gather the available settings.

Step 7: Measure each selection criteria against each other using historical and up-to-date specialized information.

Step 8: Determine the weighting methods for the score of each criterion.

Step 9: Apply the weight and calculate the best decision.

In this article, we will focus on process 8 and 9. Often, decision groups and individuals do not have the insight or time to determine the weighting difference between each criterion in a decision process. Overcoming this would be a natural weighting that is common to most situations. The natural weighting derived here is called the Deesidar calculation.

The first step in decision weighting is to rank by the most important criteria to the least important criteria. This is called the creation of the criteria for the importance ladder. This ranking can be done by taking pairwise comparison through the list of criteria and ranking it as more important and less important. If you specify the criteria in any order, start at the top of the list and compare the first topic with the second, so if the first topic is more important, leave it as if not, change it with the second topic . Then compare the second point with the third point. If the third topic is more important, leave it as if not, change it with the second topic. Continue this process until the order is completed.

For example: Criteria for purchasing a dinner set

Brainstorm for criteria produced:

1. aesthetics
2. price
3. Security
4. durability
5. Easy to clean

Pair comparison 1. passport results:

1. aesthetics
2. Security
3. price
4. Easy to clean
5. durability

Pair Comparison Card 2. Passport Results:

1. Security
2. aesthetics
3. price
4. Easy to clean
5. durability

Pair Comparison Card 3. Pass Results:

1. Security
2. aesthetics
3. price
4. Easy to clean
5. durability

(No change from Parts D and C)

Once the order of criteria has been determined, it is necessary to determine a weighting method to discern the importance of each criterion. Often, people who make decisions in groups or on complex topics do not have the knowledge or emotional balance to discern the importance of all criteria. It is in these situations that a natural weighting method can be used to increase the chances of achieving the best result. Note that I placed the word “chances” in the previous sentence because the use of natural weighting for decision making depends on the probability.

A number of natural weighting methods can be used for a structured decision-making process. Pair weighting is when one decision maker compares and weighs how much one criterion is more important than the other. For decision-making groups with participants who have varying degrees of communication skills and knowledge levels, and decision-makers with a weak grasp of the criteria, this method could result in a more bias weight than a natural weighting.

A standard weighting method for decision criteria uses a set of mathematical rules to determine the weighting of each criterion based on their placement in the criteria for the importance ladder. To reduce the chances of unbalanced variances in weighting each criterion, a standardized criterion-based weighting method will be the key step that offers an objective and quick solution for decision makers.

A weighting method that combines the most important natural calculation methods in a balanced way is most obviously sorting for the development of an objectively standardized weighting system. The most important natural calculation methods for decision making are: Raw score, Cascading and the 80-20 rule. Raw scores are when no weighting is issued and all criteria are considered balanced and equal. Cascading is when a natural factor reduction factor is issued for each criterion on the ladder. The 80-20 rule is when the top 20% of the criteria gets 80% of the score. The Deesdar equation takes each of these natural calculation methods and applies them equally to the weighting.

Cascading is derived from factorial and series math. Christian Kramp, a French mathematician, was a major contributor to factorial mathematics. Weighting score cascade is done using a common weighting factor in the order of the criteria.

When we say 50% coincidence of the weight, we mean that each criterion is 50% less important than its previous criteria on the criteria for the importance ladder. For example: Criterion 1 has a weighting factor of 1, Criterion 2 has a weighting factor of 0.5 and Criterion 3 has a weighting factor of 0.25, etc.

Here are the math details:

In mathematics terms, the score is used as follows:

The results are: x0 x1 x2 x3 x4 x5

Weighting of scores using cascade 50% = Ycas50

Ycas25 = xn + ( xn + 1x ((100-50) / 100) n + 1).

Ycas50 = x0 + (x1 x ½) + (x2 x ¼) + (x3 x 1/8) + (x4 x 1/16) + (x5 x 1/32) …

Ycas25 = xn + ( xn + 1x ((100-25) / 100) n + 1).

Ycas25 = xn + ( x1 x ¾) + (x2 x 9/16) + (x3 x 27/64) + (x4 x 81/256) + (x5x 243/1024)

Cascade 50 and Cascade 25 are the most frequently used form of cascading in the decision-making process. These 2 weighting methods are used in the Deesidar equation.

80-20 Weighting

The 80-20 rule is often known by most as the Pareto principle. After Pareto developed its formula, many other researchers observed a similar relationship in their own field of research. Quality Management Expert, Dr. Joseph Juran, acknowledged a universal phenomenon, which he termed the principle of the “vital few and trivial many” which corresponded to Pareto’s principle. According to Dr. Juran’s observation of the “vital few and trivial many” 20% of the tasks are always responsible for 80% of the results. This phenomenon can also be transmitted for use in weighting decision-making criteria.

As part of the Deesidar equation, the 80-20 rule is applied to the criteria, with the most imported 20% of the criteria being allocated 80% of the total score weighting and the lower 80% criteria being assigned 20% of the total score weighting

For example: if we have 10 criteria each with a score of 10. Each of the top two criteria will be out of 40 and each of the lower 8 criteria will each be out of a score of (8/20 = 2.5)

Deesidar equation

The Deesidar equation takes into account the following decision methods equally: (1) Raw scores, (2) Cascade 25, (3) Cascade 50, and (4) 80-20 rule. This is achieved by assigning each of these 4 weighting methods 25% of the total score. The purpose of the Deesidar equation is to generate a natural weighting for a decision making calculation that is objective and reflects the most likely natural weighting of an informed decision maker.

Although this method seems harsh, the weight can be quickly used with modern computer systems. Testing Deesidar’s natural weighting so far from personal experience has left me satisfied. But it should be warned that the decision is only as good as the person or team entering the data.

Below is an elaborate example:

Buying a dinner set. A consumer has the opportunity to buy 3 different dinner sets and builds his decision criteria with his partner.

First, they settle and rank the criteria for purchasing a dinner set

Brainstorming by criteria results in:

1. aesthetics
2. price
3. Security
4. durability
5. Easy to clean

Pair comparison 1. passport results in:

1. aesthetics
2. Security
3. price
4. Easy to clean
5. durability

Pair Comparison Card 2nd pass results in:

1. Security
2. aesthetics
3. price
4. Easy to clean
5. durability

Pair Comparison Card 3. Pass gives results in:

1. Security
2. aesthetics
3. price
4. Easy to clean
5. durability

2. Make the decision table and score each out of 100

criteria

Option 1

Red-undeveloped glass set

Option 2

Black tempered glass set

Option 3

Yellow plastic set

Security

80

90

100

aesthetics

90

80

60

price

70

60

90

Easy to clean

70

70

70

durability

70

70

60

3. Generate the raw score result

Option 1 – 380, Option 2- 370, Option 3-380, (Possible maximum score: 500)

Therefore: Option 1 = 76%, Option 2 = 74%, Option 3 = 76%

Option 1-238.5, Option 2- 235.4, Option 3- 244.1, (Possible maximum score: 305.1)

Therefore: Option 1 = 78.2%, Option 2 = 77.1%, Option 3 = 80%

Option 1-155.625, Option 2- 158.125, Option 3- 165.1, (Possible maximum score: 193.75)

Therefore: Option 1 = 80.0%, Option 2 = 81.6%, Option 3 = 85.2%

6. Generate 80-20 scores

Option 1-23.24, Option 2- 23.1, Option 3- 23.88, (Possible maximum score: 29.72)

Therefore: Option 1 = 78.2%, Option 2 = 77.7%, Option 3 = 80.5%

7. Total score and benefit with 25% for each calculation method

Option 1 Total score = 312.4, Option 2 Total score = 310.4, Option 3 Total score = 321.7 (Possible maximum score: 400)

Therefore: Option 1 Total weighted score = 78.1%, Option 2 Total weighted score = 77.6%, Option 1 Total weighted score = 80.425%,

8. Determine the highest score and the best opportunity:

The best option is calculated as option 3, the yellow plastic dinner set.