**quote from ****roy disney**:

It’s not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are.

Decision making can be considered as the process of selecting one or more options. The choices we make often have a monumental impact on ourselves and the people around us. A critical skill for successful decision making is correctly weighing the criteria in terms of relative importance to the outcome.

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

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

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

Step 3: Define the intended result.

Step 4: Define the criteria on which the intended result will be judged.

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

Step 6: Gather the available options.

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

Step 8: Determine the weighting methods for scoring each criterion.

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

In this article we will focus on points 8 and 9 of the process. Often in decision making, the team and individuals do not have the perspective or the time to determine the difference in weight between each criterion in a decision-making process. To overcome this, a natural weighting that is general for most situations would be an advantage. The natural weight derived here is called the Deesidar calculation.

The first step in weighting decisions is to rank the most important criteria in order of the least important criteria. This is called creating the importance criteria scale. This ranking can be done by pairwise comparing samples through the list of criteria and ranking them according to most important and least important terms. If you list the criteria in any order, start at the top of the list and compare the first item to the second, then if the first item is more important, leave it as it is, if not, change it to the second item. Then compare the second element with the third. If the third item is more important, leave it as it is; if not, change it to the second element. Continue this process until the order is complete.

For example: Criteria for the purchase of a Crockery

Brainstorming for the criteria produced:

- Esthetic
- Price
- Safety
- sustainability
- Easy to clean

Results of the first pass of the pairwise comparison:

- Esthetic
- Safety
- Price
- Easy to clean
- sustainability

Results of the second pass of the pairwise comparison:

- Safety
- Esthetic
- Price
- Easy to clean
- sustainability

Results of the third pairwise comparison pass:

- Safety
- Esthetic
- Price
- Easy to clean
- sustainability

(No change from Parts D and C)

Once the order of importance of the criteria has been established, it is necessary to determine a weighting method to distinguish the importance of each criterion. Many times people who make decisions in a group or on complex issues do not have the knowledge or emotional balance to differentiate the importance of all the criteria. It is in these situations that a natural weighting method can be used to improve the chances of obtaining the best result. Note that I put the word “opportunities” in the previous sentence because the use of natural weighting for decision making depends on probability.

Various natural weighting methods can be applied to a structured decision-making process. Pairwise weighting is when a decision maker compares and weighs in order how much 1 criterion is more important than the other. For decision-making groups with participants who have varying degrees of communication skills and levels of knowledge and decision-makers with little understanding of the criteria information, this method could result in more biased weighting than natural weighting.

A standardized method of weighting decision criteria consists of applying a set of mathematical rules to determine the weight of each criterion based on its position in the scale of importance criteria. To reduce the chances of biasing anomalies in the weighting of each criterion, a standardized weighting method based on the importance scale of the criteria will offer an unbiased and quick solution for decision makers.

A weighting method that combines the key natural calculation methods in a balanced way would be more obvious for the development of a standardized and unbiased weighting system. The main natural calculation methods for decision making are: Raw score, Cascading and the 80-20 rule. Raw scoring is when no weight is issued and all criteria are considered balanced and equal. The cascade is where a natural factor reduction factor is issued for each criterion in the ladder. The 80-20 rule is when the top 20% of the criteria receives 80% of the score. The Deesdar equation takes each of these natural calculation methods and applies them to equal weighting.

**cascading**

The cascade is derived from factorial and series mathematics. Christian Kramp, a French mathematician, was one of the main contributors to factorial mathematics. The cascading of the weight scores occurs by applying a common weight factor to the order of the criteria.

waterfall 50

When we say 50% weight cascade, we mean that each criterion is 50% less important than its previous criteria on the importance criteria scale. 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 mathematical details:

In mathematical terms, punctuation is applied like this:

The scores are: *X _{0,} X_{1,} X_{two,} X_{3,} X_{4,} X_{5}*

Weighting of cascading scores 50% = Ycas50

Ycas25= xn +( *X _{n+1}*x ((100-50)/100)n+1 )..

Ycas50 = *X _{0}* +(

*X*x ½ ) + (

_{1 }*X*x ¼ ) + (

_{two}*X*x1/8) + (

_{3}*X*4×1/16) + (x5x1/32)…

waterfall 25

Cascade 25 or 25% Cascade weighting is applied as follows:

Ycas25= xn +( *X _{n+1}*x ((100-25)/100)n+1 )..

Ycas25= xn +( *X _{1}* x ¾ ) + (

*X*x9/16)

_{two}*+( X*x27/64) + (

_{3}*X*x81/256) + (x

_{4}*×243/1024)*

_{5}Cascade 50 and Cascade 25 are the most commonly used form of cascade in decision making. These 2 weighting methods have been applied in the Deesidar equation.

**80-20 Weighting**

The 80-20 rule is often referred to as the Pareto principle. After Pareto developed his formula, many other researchers observed a similar relationship in their own field of research. Quality management expert Dr. Joseph Juran recognized a universal phenomenon that he called the “vital few and trivial many” principle, which was similar to the Pareto principle. According to Dr. Juran’s observation of “the vital few and the trivial many”, 20% of the tasks are always responsible for 80% of the results. This phenomenon can also be transferred for use in the weighting criteria of decision making.

As part of the Deesidar equation, the 80-20 rule is applied to criteria with the top 20% of the criteria being assigned 80% of the total score and the bottom 80% being assigned 20. % of total score.

For example: If we have 10 criteria, each with a score of 10. Each of the top 2 criteria will be 40 and each of the bottom 8 criteria will each have a score of (20/8 = 2.5)

**Deesidar’s equation**

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

Although this method seems arduous, with modern computer systems, weighting can be applied quickly. Trying the Deesidar natural weighting so far from personal experience has left me satisfied. But it should be noted that the decision is only as good as the person or team entering the data.

Here is a worked example:

The purchase of a set of dinnerware. A consumer has the option to buy 3 different dishes and builds his decision criteria with his partner.

- Build the ladder of Criteria

In the first place, they establish and prioritize the criteria for the purchase of a Crockery

Brainstorming for criteria results in:

- Esthetic
- Price
- Safety
- sustainability
- Easy to clean

The 1st pass pairwise comparison results in:

- Esthetic
- Safety
- Price
- Easy to clean
- sustainability

Pairwise comparison pass The second pass results in:

- Safety
- Esthetic
- Price
- Easy to clean
- sustainability

Pairwise comparison pass The third pass results in:

- Safety
- Esthetic
- Price
- Easy to clean
- sustainability

2. Construct the decision table and score each one out of 100

criteria

Option 1

Untempered red glass set

option 2

black tempered glass set

Option 3

yellow plastic set

Safety

80

90

100

Esthetic

90

80

60

Price

70

60

90

Easy to clean

70

70

70

sustainability

70

70

60

3. Generate the raw score result

Option 1 – 380, Option 2 – 370, Option 3 – 380, (Maximum possible score: 500)

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

4. Generate Cascading Score 25

Option 1- 238.5, Option 2- 235.4, Option 3- 244.1, (Maximum possible score: 305.1)

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

5. Generate Cascading Score 50

Option 1- 155.625, Option 2- 158.125, Option 3- 165.1, (Maximum possible score: 193.75)

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

6. Generate the 80-20 score

Option 1- 23.24, Option 2- 23.1, Option 3- 23.88, (Maximum possible score: 29.72)

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

7. Add the scores and distribute to 25% for each calculation method

Option 1 total score = 312.4, Option 2 total score = 310.4, Option 3 total score = 321.7 (maximum possible 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 Choice:

The best option is calculated as Option 3, The yellow plastic dinnerware set.