https://www.ncsu.edu/nrli/decision-making/MCDA.

php

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, or MCDA, is a valuable tool that we can apply to many
complex decisions. It is most applicable to solving problems that are characterized as a choice
among alternatives. It has all the characteristics of a useful decision support tool: It helps us
focus on what is important, is logical and consistent, and is easy to use. At its core MCDA is
useful for:

Dividing the decision into smaller, more understandable parts

Analyzing each part

Integrating the parts to produce a meaningful solution

When used for group decision making, MCDA helps groups talk about their decision opportunity
(the problem to be solved) in a way that allows them to consider the values that each views as
important. It also provides a unique ability for people to consider and talk about complex trade-
offs among alternatives. In effect, It helps people think, re-think, query, adjust, decide, rethink
some more, test, adjust, and finally decide.

MCDA problems are comprised of five components:

1. Goal
2. Decision maker or group of decision makers with opinions (preferences)
3. Decision alternatives
4. Evaluation criteria (interests)
5. Outcomes or consequences associated with alternative/interest combination

Example: Choosing a Location for a Municipal Aquatics

Facility

Step 1: Define the Decision Opportunity

Goal: Choose a site for a 40,000 sq. ft. municipal aquatics
facility in a city of 120,000 people.
.
Decision Makers: 10-member Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board.
Decision Alternatives: Decide among four alternative sites:

1. Hawes Tract a vacant site on the rapidly growing outskirts of town

2. Chatham Street an infill site near the center of town

3. Bartley Park a new park on an old agricultural site in the south

4. North Cary Park a site adjacent to a community park and a well-traveled riparian
greenway

Click here to download an example MCDA spreadsheet

Step 2: Identify Stakeholder Interests

Board member interests serve as the criteria by which to evaluate each site. Interests are
identified through a facilitated discsussion of the board members.. The Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board members identified 10 key interests, many of which were further broken down

into sub-interests.

Interests and Sub-Interests Identified by Board Members:

Proximity to other facilities

a. Maintain distance from year-round aquatics
b. Maintain distance from seasonal aquatic centers
c. Maintain distance from community centers
d. Be accessible to public parks
e. Be accessible to high schools

Proximity to users
a. Be easily accessible to existing neighborhoods
b. Be easily accessible to planned neighborhoods to be built in the near-term
Ease of access
a. From surrounding neighborhoods
b. By greenway
d. By roadway

Environmental impact
a. Minimize disruption to mature trees and vegetation
b. Avoid topographic challenges
c. Minimize impact to watershed

Traffic Impact
a. New traffic can be accommodated by existing street network

Compatibility with Surrounding Area

a. Facility footprint and use must be compatible with surrounding neighborhood

Visibility and Profile of Facility

a. Facility footprint must be compatible with, and not detract from surrounding neighborhood

Ability to Meet Future Demand

a. Tract must be able to accommodate expansion of facility and uses

Parking
a. Tract must be of an appropriate dimension to accommodate parking

Cost
a. Reduce on-site development costs
b. Reduce off-site development costs

Step 3: Build a Decision Framework

Now that the problem has been specified as goals, interests, and alternatives, it can be depicted
as a set of individual components, and their linkages made explicit. Illustrating the framework in
this way allows Parks Board members to understand the relationships between the overall goal,
the interests they view as important to the decision, other board members' interests, and the
alternatives available to them.
Step 4: Rate the Alternatives
Once they identified the key interests that would be considered in selecting a site, the Board took
on the task of rating the alternatives relative to how well they satisfied each interest. Because this
was a technical exercise, they sought the input of experts. They asked planners, transportation
engineers, and environmental experts for their input.

For example:
-- How close is each site to other aquatic centers? (the farther away the better)
-- How challenging is the topography at each site?
-- How severe would the traffic impacts be at each site?

Two common rating scales that that are used in MCDA are (1) a relative scale, and (2) an ordinal
scale. Rate each alternative relative to the others.

Relative Scale:
Each alternative is rated relative to the others in satisfying a particular interest. For example,
among the 4 alternatives, assign each a 1, 2, 3, or 4 depending on which satisfies the interest: the
best = 4; second best = 3; third best = 2; and the worst at satisfying the interest = 1.

Ordinal Scale:
Using a scale of your choosing (e.g. a 5-point scale, or a 10-point scale) assign each alternative a
rating for how well it satisfies a particular interest: For example, a five point scale might be: 5 =
excellent; 4 = good; 3 = satisfactory; 2 = below average; 1 = poor.
Step 5: Weight Stakeholder Interests
This is where personal preferences matter. Each board member assigns his/her own weights to
each interest or sub-interest. An individual's weighting preferences are kept intact, they are not
averaged or blended with other board members' weights. In fact, it is the differences in how
people assign weights that engenders discussion among the group.

Start with a simple ranking, from most important to least important

Use common language to begin the ranking process, e.g.,

Assign weights by allocating 100 points among the interests. Like grading a test.

Add more detail include sub-interests

Assign weights to sub-interests

Weights for sub-interests can take on any value between zero and the value of the weight
you gave the interest
Step 6: Score the Alternatives
Each board member identifies his/her preferred site by multiplying the sub-interest weight by its
corresponding rating value to calculate a score for that sub-interest. Summing the score yields
his/her most preferred site. In the example shown below, this particular board member scored the
Chatham site (C) highest, followed by the Hawes Tract (H) and Bartley Park (B). The North
Cary site (NC) received the lowest score.

Step 7: Discuss Results, Re-Score, Discuss Again, Decide

At this point, the board members are able to compare their scores. If one site is preferred by
everyone, the decision is made! However, if no single site rises to the top, the board has several
possibilities for next steps:

If one site is rated lowest or second lowest by all board members, then it is considered a
"dominated alternative" and can be dropped from the list. This makes the choice
somewhat simpler.

Even if no site can be designated a dominated alternative, the board can review the scores
and discuss the weights and scores. Alternatives with close scores are good candidates for
discussion. Board members can compare and discuss their interest weights, and
 experiment by assigning higher or lower weights to different sub-interests. This
experimentation may yield some insights and lead to agreement.

The alternative ratings -- how well each alternative does in satisfying a particular interest
-- can be discussed with planners and other experts. Some ratings might be better
expressed as a range of numbers rather than a single number (e.g. 3-5 instead of a 4).
Board members can conduct sensitivity analyses on these ratings to see how that affects
their scores.

Discussion, experimentation and more discussion may result in a particular site rising to
the top.