CONTENTS

1.0 Options Overview

2.0 Assignment Details

2.1 Improving the Criteria Assignment

2.2 Transition Paragraph

2.3 Identifying Options

2.4 Describing Options

2.5 Assigning Hypothetical Ratings

2.6 Designing the Required Visual Aids

2.7 Assessing for Non-Dominated Options

1.0 OPTIONS OVERVIEW

The Options assignment is the fourth assignment. Before you begin the Options assignment, you must have submitted and received instructor feedback on the previous Criteria assignment.

The goal of this assignment is to identify and describe an appropriate number (i.e., 3 to 5) potentially useful options for how to answer or solve the decision task. The number of criteria and number of options must add to eight with no less than three of each. In this assignment, you do not want to compare and contrast options. The purpose of the required Table 2 is to summarize your hypothesis-based ratings of each option, but you should not in this assignment compare and contrast the ratings of different options. You will do that in the Analysis assignment. Also, in this assignment, you do not want to do any calculations or describe any measurement efforts. These activities (i.e., measuring, comparing, and contrasting options) will be the focus of the Analysis assignment.

2.0 ASSIGNMENT DETAILS

This text describes in very prescribed ways how you must complete this assignment. After each prescribed item below, you will see in parentheses the typical number of paragraphs (P) needed (e.g., "1-2P" means "1 to 2 paragraphs are typically needed). The outline also indicates when a figure (F) or table (T) is typically needed. Details about how to create and format figures and tables is in the "Figures and Tables" section of the "Resources" chapter.

Your Options assignment must include:

1. An updated and improved version of the Criteria assignment.

2. A transition paragraph that helps readers understand the next step of the analysis. (1P)

3. A detailed description of the the first option, including a short informative name, an objective explanation of how the context or situation would likely change if this option were selected, and a hypothetical rating of the option with respect to each criterion ("Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", and "Bad"). Include a figure depicting the option. Include a table (i.e., Table 2) that shows vertically the criteria and horizontally each criterion's weight and its hypothesized rating for each option. (3-5P and 1F and 1T)

4. A detailed description of the the second option, including a short informative name, an objective explanation of how the context or situation would likely change if this option were selected, and a hypothetical rating of the option with respect to each criterion ("Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", and "Bad"). Include a figure depicting the option. (3-5P and 1F)

5. A detailed description of the the third option, including a short informative name, an objective explanation of how the context or situation would likely change if this option were selected, and a hypothetical rating of the option with respect to each criterion ("Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", and "Bad"). Include a figure depicting the option.(3-5P and 1F)

6. Optional. A detailed description of the the fourth option, including a short informative name, an objective explanation of how the context or situation would likely change if this option were selected, and a hypothetical rating of the option with respect to each criterion ("Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", and "Bad"). Include a figure depicting the option. (3-5P and 1F)

7. Optional. A detailed description of the the fifth option, including a short informative name, an objective explanation of how the context or situation would likely change if this option were selected, and a hypothetical rating of the option with respect to each criterion ("Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", and "Bad"). Include a figure depicting the option. (3-5P and 1F)

8. A description of the MCDA concept of non-dominated options and a cursory assessment to show that no option is dominated. (2P)

To submit your assignment, follow the assignment submission instructors provided to you by your instructor in the course syllabus or on the course site of your institution's learning management system.

2.1 Improving the Criteria Assignment

An important part of this assignment is that you review the instructor feedback on and make improvements to your previous assignments. The Options assignment builds on and should be preceded in your submission by an improved version of your Criteria assignment which, in turn, should be preceded by an improved version of the Overview assignment.

Keep in mind that, even if you received a favorable grade or positive instructor feedback, you should not interpret that to mean that your instructor believes you do not need to make any improvements. You do! Self-review and peer-review strategies are described in that section of the "Resources" chapter.

One of the most significant ways to improve your work is to add concrete details (e.g., in footnotes) that build your credibility as an analyst. Suggestions for doing this can be found in the "Credibility, Evidence, and Footnotes" section of the "Resources" chapter. That section describes how to incorporate concrete details and improve the layout and attractiveness of your figures, tables, and writing.

Again, keep in mind that your instructor may not make any specific recommendations for improvement, but that does not mean that your word choice and punctuation are perfect or that your argument, analysis, and evidence do not still need improvement. Similarly, do not assume that your instructor has identified everything in your submission that needs to be corrected. The comments, feedback, and grade that your instructor provides are merely representative of the kinds of improvements that you need to make.

I have one more point. Your instructor likely has only a certain amount of time to review your submission and give you feedback. It is almost always true, no matter how excellent your submission is, that your instructor can find meaningful ways to help you improve your work. That means that, each time you submit your work for feedback, it should be your best work so that your instructor can help you improve. If you turn in something that is less than your best, the feedback you get from your instructor will be wasted because it will only be suggestions that you could have identified if you had just taken more time.

2.2 Transition Paragraph

You will need to craft and add language that appropriately helps your readers follow your transition from the Criteria section to the Options section. One way to do this is to create section headings. If you have not already, go back to your earlier assignments and insert headings for "Context", "Objective", "Criteria" and now "Options". Section headings should be left-justified on the page and should be distinguished from the rest of the text (e.g., using extra spacing before and after, using bold or underlined text, and/or making the font size larger).

While a few thoughtfully chosen section headings can help readers better follow your analysis, I want you to provide a transition paragraph that adds even more clarity. Here is the basic text that I want you to use:

The second step in MCDA is to describe options or solutions that the author expects may optimally answer the decision making question. Given the complex nature of the decision task, however, no option will likely answer the question completely. Decision tasks like the one analyzed in this MDCA have multiple competing evaluation criteria that force decision makers to make tradeoffs when making a choice about what is best. In this section, the author describes ____________________ [insert the number of options you have in your analysis] distinct options that the author will later evaluate in terms of their strengths, weaknesses, and tradeoffs. For each option, the author describes concretely how the world would likely change if that option were selected and pursued. The author also provides a rationale for the expected changes, including important caveats and assumptions, if any. The author concludes this section to confirm that the proposed set of options does not contain any dominated options.

Keep in mind that the words in brackets (i.e., "[" and "]") are simply messages to you should not be copied and pasted into your work. Similarly, you will have to insert into the blank spaces (e.g., "__________") the details that are particular to your individual analysis.

2.3 Identifying Options

This assignment and this section of your report requires you to identify and describe clearly a set of at least three but not more than five options. Remember, the number of criteria and number of options you identify must add to eight with no less than three of each.

Each option that you identify must independently address the specific problem, threat, or question that your decision maker or decision making group faces. You must describe each option concretely, noting specifically (1) how the situation or world will likely change if the option is selected and (2) what assumptions and/or caveats are implied by your predictions. At the end of this assignment, you must define what a non-dominated option is and show generally that your set of options does not likely contain any dominated options.

Consider varied and unusual ideas as possible options. A good consultant is both creative and practical. Look at your evaluation criteria and see if you can identify options or solutions that might score highly with respect to one criterion. It is also likely that your decision maker or decision making group already has one or more option in mind; you should probably consider those as potential options. In certain situations, it might be appropriate to consider the current practice as one option (i.e., the "status quo" or "do nothing" option).

Consider many options. The single factor that distinguishes good analysts from great analysts is that great analysts present their clients with helpful and thought-provoking solutions (i.e., options). Take time to consider many options. Your final set of options is limited, so you cannot fully analyze all possible options. As noted below, you will need to eliminate dominated options. If it seems appropriate, you can create an appendix (e.g., "Appendix A") that goes at the end of your paper that lists and briefly describes options that you considered but that you did not ultimately select for full analysis.

Consider combining options to create additional options. You want to ensure that your set of options is complete, meaning that it includes all of the most promising possibilities. The most common mistake is that an analysist proposes several options to the decision maker who then asks, "Could we choose two (or more) of these?". For example, suppose an employer is trying to decide what employee retention plan would be best to implement. Suppose the analyst identifies three terrific options: (1) allow employees to work remotely one day per week, (2) implement a merit-based plan to award bonus pay to the most productive employees, and (3) require all employees to sign a non-compete agreement. These may each be good ideas individually, but it is not clear why an employer could not implement two or even all three of these options. If true, the analysist might have create additional options that are combinations of the others. For example, a fourth option might be to allow remote work and implement a bonus pay plan (i.e., option 1 + 2). A fifth option might be a combination of all three of the ideas.

2.4 Defining Options

In the prescribed outline for this assignment, I indicate that you will typically need about three to five paragraphs (i.e., "3-5P") to describe and explain why you assigned a particular rating (i.e., "Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", or "Bad") for each criteria for that option. You will typically only need one paragraph to explain your assigned rating (see explanation just below), so that leaves between two and four paragraphs that are typically needed to describe each option.

The goal in describing each option is to clarify for the reader in concrete and specific terms what specifically would happen if that option were chosen, pursued, and implemented successfully. I sometimes describe this as telling readers "what the world will look like" if the option is selected. Your description of the option must be detailed enough that all readers are likely to have the same vision of what would happen if that option were selected.

In general, be as specific and concrete as possible. For example, suppose you are examining what storage option is best for a business to pursue. Suppose one option is to rent storage at a nearby storage facility. You could describe a set of specific features that a storage rental place must have and then say, "For the purposes of this analysis, this option will be defined as the rental of one standard (i.e., non-custom) storage space at the U-Store It facility located about one mile away from the business's main office." You could add footnotes to clarify details about which rental contract option is assumed under this option (e.g., a monthly lease with rent paid monthly).

Poorly described options create problems. Suppose, for example, you were proposing options for a friend who was trying to decide what is best to do after graduation. A poorly described set of options, for instance, might result in this unfortunate exchange:

• Reader: I like the "Travel" option because that would mean living in Athens, Greece for one year and not having to work at all the entire time.

• Analyst: What? No. That's incorrect. The "Travel" option does not meant that. It means that you get to live in Greece, but not in Athens. Athens is too expensive. If you selected this option, it would mean that you get to live in a small village, not in Athens. And, while you get to travel, under this option you would still have to work, most likely under the European Union's Temporary Agency Work program.

• Reader: Well, you did not make that clear. If not Athens, what kind of small village in Greece would it be? And, what kind of work could I do under that temporary worker program? How many hours would I have to work each week under this option. The answers to these questions really affect how I view this option. Why weren't you more specific about this? Knowing these details about this option totally changes my thinking about it.

Keep in mind that this part of your assignment requires you to describe the way you expect the world will look if this option is chosen. You might say, "How do I do that? I can't predict the future!". That is true. So, what do you do? In your description of each option, you will likely need or want to make assumptions. When you do this, you want to identify them as assumptions and provide a brief rationale .

In the example above, you could say something like, "This option assumes that you would live in a relatively small village where you would need to work about 20 hours per week working under the European Union's Temporary Agency Work program." You could add a footnote that identifies several qualifying villages. You could add further explanation about what kinds of work typically are allowed under this EU worker program.

Your description of an option may also have caveats. A caveat is a specific exception, stipulation, or limitation that does not apply to a general rule or expectation. So, in the example above, it may be that the EU temporary worker program allows workers who live in some some villages to work only 15 hours per week. That would be a caveat (i.e., an exception or limitation) to the general rule that temporary workers are allowed to work 20 hours per week. In the example about the storage building, you might have a caveat in a footnote that says, "At the times of this analysis, the U-Store It rental firm had six empty spaces for immediate rental, but rental of this space is subject to availability on a first-come/first-served basis and assumes sufficiently good credit.

2.5 Assigning Hypothetical Ratings

In this assignment, you need to assign preliminary or hypothetical (i.e., hypothesis-based) ratings to each criteria for each option using a prescribed five-level rating scale (i.e., "Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", and "Bad"). The goal of this information is to signal to the reader what in general you think the scores will be for the option when you actually calculate the scores in the next (i.e., Analysis) assignment. The reason that the reader needs this information is because (see below) you want to show the reader that your set of options does not likely contain any dominated options.

In your description of each option, you will likely have one paragraph (probably the last one) that tells readers what hypothetical ratings you have assigned to each of the criteria and generally why. Keep in mind that assigning hypothetical ratings does not mean that you have zero rationale for your choice of rating. Hypothetical means based on a hypothesis. A hypothesis is an educated guess. When you tell readers what ratings you give each option, you should provide some brief justification of why you think the option is likely to score relatively well or relatively poorly. Providing some thoughtful rationales for your educated guesses will build your credibility as a thoughtful, objective, and judicious analyst.

Since these are hypothetical ratings that you have not yet measured, you should use conditional language in assigning each option's ratings. Conditional or qualified language merely recognizes that different people may view or judge a situation differently. Use conditional language when it is not critical that your readers or listeners agree with you, which is the case here. As the analysis, you are merely suggesting what appears to you the most likely rating for the option.

For instance, suppose you are analyzing what city is best for your friend to live in during retirement. And, suppose you have three evaluation criteria: sunniness (more is better), cost of living (lower is better), and number of restaurants (more is better). And, suppose you have five options: Austin (TX), Lexington (KY), Gainesville (FL), Juneau (AK), and Cedar Rapids (IA). In this assignment, you would describe each option fully one at a time. After you explained generally about the location and key features of, for instance, Austin, Texas, you might use conditional language to say, "As a relatively large city in a southern state, Austin, Texas will likely score relatively highly in terms of its sunniness and number of restaurants, but these advantages are expected to be offset by a relatively high cost of living." The conditional language (i.e., "will likely score" and "are expected to") does not unnecessarily overstate the claim since in this context you are only trying to help readers appreciate the general pros and cons of the option without being specific. You will be specific when you do your analysis.

2.6 Designing the Required Visual Aids

Required Table. In this assignment, you must include and reference a table (i.e., "Table 2") as part of the description of your first option. The table must show vertically the criteria and horizontally each criterion's weight and its hypothesized rating for each option. The purpose of this table is to provide a nice summary of everything up to this point.

General guidelines and recommendations about how to create and format tables are in the Figures and Tables section of the "Resources" chapter of this text. Here is an example of what this specific table should look like:

Required Figures. In this assignment, one figure must accompany your description of each option. General guidelines and recommendations about how to create and format figures are in the Figures and Tables section of the "Resources" chapter. My suggestion is that you try to identify a single image that usefully conveys to readers what the future would look like under the option. In my example above about storage options, it would work nicely to take a thoughtfully composed picture of one of the storage spaces that might actually be rented if this option is chosen and pursued.

2.7 Assessing for Non-Dominated Options

You should end this assignment with (1) a description of the difference between dominated and non-dominated options and (2) a cursory assessment to confirm that your final set of proposed options does not likely contain dominated options.

Dominated versus non-dominated options. To conclude this assignment, you first want to describe for your reader what a dominated option is and how it differs from a non-dominated option [1]. A dominated option is one that scores worse than another option with respect to at least one criterion and scores either no better than or worse than that other option with respect to every other criterion. You might need to study that previous sentence. A dominated option is one that no decision maker would rationally pursue given that another option exists that scores better in at least one way and at least as good in every other way. For this reasons, only non-dominated options are interesting.

For example, suppose that you are analyzing which city is best for your friend to move to for retirement. Suppose you select the following criteria to evaluate different cities: (1) the annual amount of sunshine where more is better, (2) the annual cost of living where lower is better, and (3) the number of restaurants where more is better. Suppose you find one city that is very sunny and scores highest in terms of the criterion. Suppose you find a second city that has a very low cost of living and scores highest in that area. And, suppose you find a third city that has lots of restaurants and scores highest in that area. These options cannot be dominated (i.e., they are all "non-dominated") because each one scores higher than any other option in terms of one criterion.

But, suppose then that you find a fourth city that scores well in every category but not highest in any category. If it scores well with respect to each criteria, this option is not likely dominated by any of the others, but you have to check to make sure. To check, you have to see how that fourth option scores compared to each of the other three options looking at each of the criteria one-by-one. As long as this fourth option scores better in at least one areas when comparing two options, the fourth option is not dominated by any of the other options. Because options 1, 2, and 3 each scored highest in one of the categories, it may be that these three options score relatively low in one or both of the other categories. If true, that would make it more likely that this fourth option--that I said scored well in every category but not top in any category--would not be dominated by the other three.

Now, let me introduce of fifth option. Suppose you find a fifth city that scores well in but not at the top one category (e.g., sunniness). Assume that this option scores relatively low in the other two areas (i.e., it his a relatively high cost of living and relatively few restaurants). This option is likely dominated, but (again) you have to check to make sure. To check, you have to see how this fifth option scores compared to each of the other four options looking at each of the criteria one-by-one. If one of these other options is better than this fifth option in at least one way and at least as good in every other way, that means that this fifth option is dominated.

DOMINATED OPTIONS VIDEO (9:16)

Avoid dominated options. Options that are dominated should generally not be included in the final set you propose for evaluation. They are not interesting. However, there are two exceptions. One exception is if you see a need to compare new possibilities to current practices. This sometimes occurs when a decision maker shows a strong and often unexplained attachment to the current way of doing something. In such cases, it can be helpful to include a "no change" option in your final list of options even if you strongly suspect that a "no change" option is dominated by your other options. The second exception is similar. If your decision maker tells you to include a particular option (e.g., for some other comparison reason), you should include that option if possible.

Cursory assessment to identify dominated options. In the final part of this assignment, you want to show the reader that in general you do not believe any of the options in your final proposed set are not likely dominated by the other options in the set (i.e., that your proposed set includes only non-dominated options). This cursory assessment importantly will not account for the effects of weighting.

If you have not already watched the Dominated Options Video above, do that now. In that video, you see two examples where I go step-by-step to identify dominated options. In those example, I have actual scores (i.e., objective data) for each criterion. Having the actual scores makes my explanation of what a dominated option is clearer, but you are not expected (yet) to have these scores. You will score each criteria for each option as part of your next assignment (i.e., the Analysis). So, how do you show the reader that in general none of your proposed options are likely dominated options?

While you do not have the actual scores (yet), you do have general hypothetical (i.e., hypothesis-based) ratings (i.e., "Great", "Good", "Fair", "Poor", and "Bad") that you defined in your table for this assignment (i.e., Table 2). In fact, the reason that I asked you to add these general hypothetical ratings is so that you can do this general cursory assessment. So, how do you do this basic assessment? Your goal is to convince the reader succinctly that none of the options are likely dominated options while still maintaining your status as an objective and judicious analyst.

Remember, you do not (yet) have the actual scores for each option; you only have your hypothetical ratings. Without the actual scores, you will not be able to "conclude" that none of your options are non-dominated. With only the hypothetical ratings, you can only say, for example, that "this cursory assessment suggests no reason to believe that on an unweighted basis this option is [or any of these options are] dominated."

So, once you have your proposed set of options, how do you show the reader succinctly that none of the options are like dominated by any of the other options? You could go through a step-by-step comparison of each option and its criteria to every other option and its criteria like I did in the two examples in the above Dominated Options Video. However, that approach would likely be too tedious, hard to follow, and not succinct enough for most readers.

Instead, I suggest a more succinct three-step approach to this assessment.

First, referencing "Table 2" again, point out to the reader all of the options that are better than all of the other options with respect to any one criterion. These options are clearly non-dominated because choosing any other option would necessarily require accepting a tradeoff away from at least this option's one superlative rating. In the first example in the Dominated Options Video above, "Option 1" is better than all of the other options with respect to "Clean" and "Option 5" is better than all of the other options with respect to "Profit". Likewise, in the video's second example, the "current" car scores better than all of the other options with respect to "Purchase Price", the "new sports car" scores better than all of the other options in terms of "Sportiness", and the "new economy car" scores better than all of the other options in terms of "Fuel Efficiency". So, those options are clearly not dominated.

Secondly, if needed (i.e., if you have options that are not clearly non-dominated), show the reader just one example of how one of these remaining options is non-dominated using the step-by-step approach demonstrated in the above Dominated Options Video. Do this as succinctly as possible and only once.

Finally, if needed (i.e., if you still have options that you have not show the reader are non-dominated), just tell the reader that "a similar assessment of the remaining options [or option, if there is just one remaining] suggests that, like the ________________ [insert the name of the one option you examined step-by-step] option, the other _________________ [insert "option" or "options" depending on how many remaining options you have] are also non-dominated."

In the prescribed outline for this assignment, I suggest that this section of your assignment will likely require about two paragraphs (i.e., "2P"). Typically, you can explain to the reader in one paragraph what the difference is between dominated and non-dominated options and then in a second paragraph explain your basic assessment (e.g., following the three-step approach suggested above).

------------------

[1] As you know, you can use any of the wording from this text without attribution as long as you have the prescribed first footnote that sets that expectation regarding the originality of your work.