Mau Model for the Evaluation of Alternative Properties

¶ … Alternative Properties Using Multi-Attribute Utility Model David Allen Charlestown, West Virginia based on great benefits that the agency can obtain in terms of price and land. Since the agency will only require one location, the model evaluates the four alternatives to select an appropriate location for the agency. Identify Evaluation Criteria The memo uses the following attributes for the evaluation: available space, room for future expansion, facility safety and security, purchase price, workforce quality of life, workforce convenience, and proximity to the Capitol and U.S.

Congress and Capitol Hill Moreover, the purchase prices, distance or nearness of the new office from the government and to other agencies are other criteria used for the evaluation. The outcome of the evaluation is provided in Appendix 1. Some of the criteria used for the evaluation as follows: Location Available Acre Price Acre Distance a PG County $2m 12 miles b NW D.C. 2 $5m 4 miles c Alexandria, Va. $4m 8 miles d Charlestown, W. Va.

100 $500k 60 miles Evaluation of the Alternatives on the Criteria The paper uses the MAU (Multi-Attribute Utility) Model for the evaluation of the alternatives. A model is a tool that assists in selecting an option from a set of alternatives. However, the paper uses the quantitative tool for the selection procedure. (Rios, Jesus, & Banks,2009). The quantitative tool consists of the evaluation of the alternative derived by measuring the costs of each property and overall space of each property.

Thus, the memo uses the alternatives, evaluation criteria and rating values to carry out the evaluation. (Thurston, 2006). The outcome of the evaluation reveals that PG County 5 ranks first out of all the properties selected. The PG County 5 scores the highest mark because the property provides the benefit for future expansion compared to other properties. Essentially, the future expansion is the second top criteria that need to be considered before chosen a new location.

Moreover, The PG County 5 ranks top with reference to the Facility Safety and Security and Workforce Quality of Life. Based on the scores of the facility, the paper ranks the PG County 5 first out of all the properties selected. The paper also carries out the sensitivity analysis and change value of the raw weight. The outcome of the sensitivity analysis produces the same results revealing that the PG County 5 is the best choice for the agency.

Recommendation The memo recommends that the Agency should choose the PG County 5 because of several benefits that the location would deliver to the agency. For example, the location is more cost effective and is the third cheapest property out of all the four alternatives. Moreover, the location will provide safety for the staff of the agency. Moreover, the location will allow the future expansion. Reference Rios I, D., Jesus, J., & Banks, D. (2009). Adversarial risk analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 104(486), 841-854. Thurston, D. L. (2006).

"Multi-attribute Utility Analysis of Conflicting Preferences." Decision Making in Engineering Design. Ed. Kemper E. Lewis, et al. New York, New York: ASME Press, 125-133. Appendix 1 Alternatives, Evaluation Criteria and Rating Values Location Available Acre Price Available Space Facility Safety and Security Workforce Quality of Life Workforce Convenience Proximity to the U.S. Congress and Capitol Hill. room for future expansion, PG County 5 $2,00 12 35 14 27 30 34 NW D.C. 2 $5,00 4 38 15 26 35 36 Alexandria, Va. $4,00 8 42 20 29 32 40 Charlestown, W. Va.

100 $0,50 60 41 20 28,5 31 40 Best and Worst Criteria Assessments (Using MAX and MIN) POPCORN Acre Price Available Space Facility Safety and Security Workforce Quality of Life Workforce Convenience Proximity to the U.S. Congress and Capitol Hill. room for future expansion, Best Criteria Assessment $0,50 4 35 14 26 30 34 Worst Criteria Assessment $5,00 60 42 20 29 35 40 Assigned Ranks and Weights Totals Ranks 4 1 3 5 6 7 2 Total Raw Weights 40,0 55,0 45,0 25,0 20,0 10 50 Unitized Weights 4,0 5,5 4,5 2,5 2,0 1,0 5,0 24,50 Re-Scaled Criteria Values Location Available Acre Price Available Space Facility Safety and Security Workforce Quality of Life Workforce Convenience Proximity to the U.S. Congress and.