Decision Analysis

M.SAIT AKYUZ
AMINREZA SHIRI
MOHAMED HAMOUD

OUTLINE

Introduction
Decision (1): Railroad or Highway
Consistency Analysis
Decision (2): Where to Construct
Consistency Analysis
Conclusion

Introduction
TRNC: Growing population
Increasing residents
Decreasing average age

Bad transportation system

Limited
Time
Destinations

Introduction
Transportation importance: Not just a mean to get from a point to
another
Business facilitator
Goods
Services
crucial services :-

Education and Health

Services

Report scope
Comparing Alternative Destinations
From A Financial Feasibility Stand

Highways VS Railroads
Highways
Pros
Cheaper to construct
Less costly to maintain

Cons
Doesnt have a constant travel speed
Susceptible to peak hours congestion
Difficult to respond to demand changes

Highways VS Railroads
Railroads
Pros
Doesnt have a peak hours
Constant speed
Easy to respond to demand changes

Cons
Expensive to construct
Their maintenance cost a lot

Introduction
Benefits of well-developed
transportation systems:

Unemployment
Standard of living
Society welfare
Real state prices
High Diminishing Rate of Return
Economic benefits of tourism

Expected Results If Applied.

Decision: Highway or Railway

Used Scale;

1
3
5
7
9

=
=
=
=
=

Equally important
Weakly more important
Strongly more important
Very strongly more important
Extremly important

Specialist;
A.Emre KOSKA
Project Specialist in Construction
in ENKA

Decision: Highway or Railway

Environme
nt

Environme
nt
1

Cost
3

Cost

1/3

Safety

1/3

1/3

Speed

1/5

1/5

1/3

1/9

1/5

1/3

1/7

1/5

1/5

2,12

4,93

7,87

Destinatio
n
Const.Tim
e
Sum

Destinati Cons.Tim Weight

on
e
s
0,4137
5
9
7
3
0,2513
5
5
5
1
0,1491
3
3
5
9
0,0975
1
5
3
5
0,0528
1/5
1
3
2
0,0353
1/3
1/3
1
6
14,53
23,33
24,00
1,00

Safety Speed

Decision: Highway or Railway

Environme Highwa Railwa
nt
y
y

Safety

Highway

1/7

Railway

Highwa
y
Railway

0,125

0,875

Cost

Highwa Railwa
y
y

Highwa Railwa
y
y

Destinatio Highwa Railwa

y
n
y

1/5

Highway

Railway

1/7

0,166

0,833

Speed

Highway

Railwa
y

Const.
Time

0,875 0,125

Highwa Railwa
y
y

Highwa
y
Railway

Highway

1/3

Highway

1/9

Railway

Railway

1/9

0,9

0,1

0,25

0,75

0,9

0,1

Score for the Options

Railways Score
(0,875 * 0,413)+(0,833*0,149)+(0,125 * 0,052)+
(0,1* 0,251)+(0,75 * 0,097)+(0,1 * 0,035) =

0,594
Highways Score
(0,125 * 0,413)+(0,166 * 0,149)+(0,875 *
0,052)+
(0,9 * 0,251)+(0,25 * 0,097)+(0,9 *
0,035) =

0,405

Consistency Index
= (6,61- 6)/5 =
0,122
Environme
nt

Cost

0,41

0,75

0,45

0,49

0,48

0,14

0,25

0,45

0,49

0,14

0,08

0,15

0,08

0,05

0,05
0,06

Safety Speed

Destinati Const.Ti
on
me

Sum

Weights

0,25

2,83

6,83

0,26

0,18

1,77

7,03

0,29

0,16

0,18

1,00

6,69

0,05

0,10

0,26

0,11

0,65

6,67

0,05

0,05

0,02

0,05

0,11

0,32

6,14

0,05

0,03

0,03

0,02

0,04

0,22

6,35

Average
6,61888994
()

Consistency Ratio

n = 6 RI = 1,24
CR = = 0,098
The analysis is consistent since CR <
0,1

Decision : Where
Options :
1) Lefkoa Girne
2) Lefkoa Magosa
3) Lefkoa Guzelyurt

Attributes:

Environment
Population
Cost
Refilling
Work Places

Analysis

Environme
nt
Cost

Environme
nt
1
1/3

Cost

Populatio Refillin
n
g
1/3

1/3

0,1314

1/5

1/3

0,0718

Refilling

1/5

Work
Places

1/3

8,33

Weights

Population

Sum

Work
Places

13,00

2,07

13,00

3
1/5
1
4,87

0,4459
0,0823
0,2684
1

Analysis
Environment
Girne-Lefkoa
Lefkoa Magosa
Lefkoa-G.Yurt

Cost
Girne-Lefkoa
Lefkoa Magosa
Lefkoa-G.Yurt

Population
Girne-Lefkoa
Lefkoa Magosa
Lefkoa-G.Yurt

Refilling
Girne-Lefkoa
Lefkoa Magosa
Lefkoa-G.Yurt

Work Places
Girne-Lefkoa
Lefkoa Magosa
Lefkoa-G.Yurt

Girne-Lefkoa
1
1/3
5
6,33
Girne-Lefkoa
1
5
5
11,00
Girne-Lefkoa
1
5
1/3
6,33
Girne-Lefkoa
1
5
7
13,00
Girne-Lefkoa
1
3
1/5
4,20

Lefkoa-Magosa
3
1
7
11,00
Lefkoa-Magosa
1/5
1
1
2,20
Lefkoa-Magosa
1/5
1
1/9
1,31
Lefkoa-Magosa
1/5
1
3
4,20
Lefkoa-Magosa
1/3
1
1/9
1,44

Lefkoa-G.Yurt
1/5
1/7
1
1,34
Lefkoa-G.Yurt
1/5
1
1
2,20
Lefkoa-G.Yurt
3
9
1
13,00
Lefkoa-G.Yurt
1/7
1/3
1
1,48
Lefkoa-G.Yurt
5
9
1
15,00

Weights
0,19
0,08
0,72
1,00
Weights
0,09
0,45
0,45
1,00
Weights
0,18
0,75
0,07
1,00
Weights
0,07
0,28
0,64
1,00
Weights
0,27
0,67
0,06
1,00

Scores
Girne Lefkoa (0,19*0,13)+(0,09*0,07) +
(0,18*0,445)+(0,07*0,08)+(0,27*0,27) =

0,190

Lefkoa Magosa (0,08*0,13)+(0,45*0,07) +

(0,75*0,445)+(0,28*0,08)+(0,67*0,27) =

0,580

Lefkoa Gzelyurt (0,72*0,13)+(0,45*0,07) +

(0,07*0,445)+(0,64*0,08)+(0,06*0,27) =

0,229

Consistency Index
=(5,26-5)/4 =
0,065

Environme
nt

Cost

Work
Places

Sum

Weight
s

Environmen
t

0,13

0,22

0,15

0,08

0,09

0,67

5,07

Cost

0,04

0,07

0,09

0,08

0,09

0,38

5,24

Population

0,39

0,36

0,45

0,41

0,81

2,42

5,41

Refilling

0,13

0,07

0,09

0,08

0,05

0,43

5,20

Work Places

0,39

0,22

0,15

0,41

0,27

1,44

5,35

Population Refilling

Average( 5,260633
)

Consistency Ratio

n= 5 RI = 1,12
CR = = 0,058

Analysis is consistent since CR <

0,1

Conclusion

Environmental Sustainability
Economic Competitiveness
Destination
Construction of Railway
Population
Costs
Benefits
Between Lefkoa and Magosa