SIMPLE MULTI ATTRIBUTE RATING TECHNIQUE

(SMART)
YUZRINIZAM AZIZI BIN ZAINAL
2019131883

DECISION MAKING METHODS & ANALYSIS UDM713

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE, PLANNING & SURVEYING
UITM SHAH ALAM
INTRODUCTION

 Simple Multi Attribute Rating (SMART) is a comprehensive

model of decision-makers to account for things that are
qualitative and quantitative.
 SMART method which aims to gather information about all
data related to multiple attributes and multiple-criteria.
 This approach was designed to provide an easy way to
implement the origins of MAUT (Multi Attribute Utility Theory)
 The main equipment of this model is a functional hierarchy
with main input is human perception.
INTRODUCTION

 SMART method can make multi-decision, so it is expected to

create an accurate decision-making system and can solve
the problem of decision making the best.
 So basically there is no significant difference in the SMART
model with other models at the same lies in the type of
input.
HISTORY

 SMART technique was created by Ward

Edwards in 1977s
 Nationality: American
 Ph.D. in Psychology from Harvard
University.
 Historical Period: 1927-2005 (78 years)
 He was an American psychologist,
prominent for work on decision
theory and on the formulation and
revision of beliefs.
 published more than one hundred
journal articles and books.
PROCESS
IDENTIFY THE DECISION MAKERS Person or organization whose utilities are to be maximized

IDENTIFY THE ISSEUS Utility depends on the context and purpose of the decision

This step would identify the outcomes of possible actions, a data

IDENTIFY THE ALTERNATIVES
gathering process.

It is important to limit the dimensions of value. Fifteen were

IDENTIFY THE CRITERIA
considered too many, and eight was considered sufficiently large.

ASSIGN VALUE FOR EACH CRITERIA Decisions made by one person or individual judgements, this step is
fairly straightforward. More difficult in group environments.
DITERMINE THE WEIGHT OF The most important dimension would be assigned the highest of
EACH THE CRITERIA the scale value.

SUM THE IMPORTANCE WEIGHTS, AND DIVIDE This step allows normalization of the relative importance into
EACH BY THE SUM weights summing to 1.

CALCULATE UTILITIES FOR ALTERNATIVES

DECIDE
EXAMPLE
Robbi Rahim (2016) using the SMART to choose a best new car.

NO. CRITERIA CRITERIA

ALTERNATIVE Stock Price Quality Size
1 C1 (Stock)
(C1) (C2) (C3) (C4)
2 C2 (Prize)
A1 600KG Rp .49500 Enough Medium
3 C3 (Quality)
A2 800KG Rp. 67500 Enough Medium
4 C4 (Size)
A3 400KG Rp. 11000 Not Large
Good
A4 600KG Rp. 18500 Good Very
 First, need to categorize the Large
criteria by C1, C2, C3 & C4 for
four criterion in terms of Stock,  Second, List out and determine the value of each
Price, Quality and Size criterion. By each row criterion, categorize it by A1,
A2, A3 and A4 as four difference alternative
 EXAMPLE

 Third, from the previous table weight each of

the criterion by 0 - 100 interval which the highest
is the best meanwhile the lowest is the opposite NO. ALTERNATIVE WEIGHT
The weightage is given by evaluating each of (Wj)
the criterion on each of the alternatives 1 A1 50
2 A2 30
3 A3 10
 Take A1 as an example, evaluate the criterion in
A1 the Stock is 600 kg, the Price is Rp 49500 the 4 A4 10
Quality is enough and the Size is medium SUM 100
However, compared to A2 the stock and price
are higher than A1 but it gives the same quality
and size as A1 that makes A1 is better than A2
Thus, evaluate it by using 0 to 100
 EXAMPLE
NO. ALTERNATIVE WEIGHT NORMALIZATION
 Fourth, calculate the Normalization of each (Wj)
Alternatives by using this formula The weight 1 A1 50 50/100 = 0.5
value of Alternative divide by The total weight of 2 A2 30 30/100 = 0.3
Alternative 3 A3 10 10/100 = 0.1
4 A4 10 10/100 = 0.1

GROUP PARAMETER VALUE

 Fifth, identify the parameter value of each LOW 1
classified group in order to tabulate the next MIDIUM 2
step HIGH 3
VERY HIGH 4
 EXAMPLE
NO. CRITERIA SUB CRITERIA VALUE
 Six, classified the sub criteria of each (C)
criterion and evaluate them by using 1 C1 >600 KG 4
parameter value (Stock) 400 KG – 600 KG 3
200 KG – 399 KG 2
<200 KG 1
 As for example, sub criteria for A1 is
2 C2 >50000 4
grouped by 400 kg – 600Kg (Price) 30000 – 50000 3
10000 – 29000 2
 From the previous step, it shows that value <10000 1
1 is identified as Low 2 is Medium, 3 is High 3 C3 Very Good 4
(Quality) Good 3
and 4 is Very High Enough 2
Low 1
4 C4 Very Large 4
(Size) Large 3
Medium 2
Low 1
 CRITERIA
EXAMPLE ALTERNATIVE Stock Price Quality Size
(C1) (C2) (C3) (C4)
A1 600KG Rp .49500 Enough Medium
 Seven, determine each of the A2 800KG Rp. 67500 Enough Medium
Alternatives by the calculated A3 400KG Rp. 11000 Not Large
parameter value of its criterion Good
 For instance, A1 has Stock for 600 kg, A4 600KG Rp. 18500 Good Very
Price for Rp. 49500 Quality for Large
Enough and Size for Medium Then,
classified each of the criterion by CRITERIA C1 C2 C3 C4
using parameter value Stock is 600 ALTERNATIVE
kg that the parameter value of it is 3 A1 3 3 2 2
Same goes to the other criterion A2 4 4 2 2
A3 3 2 1 3
A4 3 2 4 4
 EXAMPLE
 Eight, calculate the utilities value (from the
parameter value) by using this formula, NO ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA VALUE WEIGHT OF MULTIPLYING SCORE
 Value Utilities = C out – C Minimum UTILITIES NORMALIZATION
C1 0.66 0.5 0.33
C maximum – C minimum C2 0.66 0.3 0.198
1 A1 0.59
 As for example, 4 is grouped as Very High in C3 0.33 0.1 0.033
parameter value. C4 0.33 0.1 0.033
C1 1 0.5 0.5
 The value criteria of A1 (C1) is 3 C2 1 0.3 0.5 1.07
2 A2
VU = 3 – 1 C3 0.33 0.1 0.033
C4 0.33 0.1 0.033
4–1
C1 0.66 0.5 0.33
VU = 0.66 C2 0.33 0.3 0.099 0.50
3 A3
C3 0 0.1 0
 Same goes to Parameter Value 1, C4 0.66 0.1 0.066
Parameter Value 2 and Parameter Value 4.
C1 0.66 0.5 0.33
 Final is the calculation of the final value of C2 0.33 0.3 0.099 0.62
4 A4
each alternative by multiplying the utility C3 1 0.1 0.1
value criteria with normalized weight value C4 1 0.1 0.1

 Tabulate the results in order to gain the best

alternative. It shows that A2 has the best
Alternative.
ARTICLE
ARTICLE
 ARTICLE
This article explained case study of nuclear
dump site selection example (Olson, 1996).
How the planning authority using the SMART
to identify the best alternative among the
location options of five cities namely Nome-
Alaska, Newark-New Jersey, Rock springs-
Wyoming, Duquesne-Pennsylvania and Gary-
Indiana of the United-States.
 ARTICLE

Findings
 Create four variable or criteria which is cost, lives lost, risk and improvement that must
be consider.
 After following SMART process, the system recommends locating the nuclear dump site
in Rock Springs as it scored with the highest number.
 SMART is in most of the fields like urban planning, in business, engineering, environmental
studies and others.
 The numerical example strongly recommends that it is a decision taking technique
which made by one decision maker is more efficient than the group of people.
HYPHOTHICAL SITUATION

 The city of Malacca have problem A Monorail

related to traffic congestion
especially in Bandar Hilir. B Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)

 The Local Authorities propose to

provide public transportation to C Tram

reduce the problem.

D Underground Railways
 Four alternative that identify.
 CRITERIA NO. ALTERNATIVE WEIGHT
ALTERNATIVE Cost Risk Profit Time (Wj)
(Billon) (Mil/year) (Year) 1 Monorail 30
Monorail 2.3 Medium 13 7 2 BRT 40
BRT 1.5 Medium 10 5 3 Tram 15
Tram 0.9 High 8 3 4 Underground 15
Underground 4 Low 13 10 Railways
Railways SUM 100
 Create the variable/criteria that must be consider.  from the previous table weight
The criteria by four criterion in terms of Cost, Risk, each of the criterion by 0 - 100
Profit and Size interval which the highest is the
 List out and determine the value of each criterion. best meanwhile the lowest is the
By each row criterion, categorize as four difference opposite The weightage is given
alternative by evaluating each of the criterion
on each of the alternatives
 NO. ALTERNATIVE WEIGHT NORMALIZATION
(Wj)
1 Monorail 20 30/100 = 0.3
2 BRT 40 40/100 = 0.4
GROUP PARAMETER VALUE
3 Tram 30 15/100 = 0.15
Very Good 4
4 Underground 10 15/100 = 0.15
Good 3

 Calculate the Normalization of each MEDIUM 2

Alternatives by using this formula The Poor 1
weight value of Alternative divide by
The total weight of Alternative  Fifth, identify the parameter value
of each classified group in order to
tabulate the next step
 NO. CRITERIA SUB CRITERIA VALUE
(C)
1 C1 More than 3 B 1
(Cost) 2.1 B – 3 B 2
1.1 B – 2 B 3
Less Than 1 B 4 CRITERIA C1 C2 C3 C4
2 C2 Very High 1 ALTERNATIVE
(Risk) High 2 Monorail 2 3 3 2
Medium 3
BRT 3 3 2 3
Low 4
3 C3 More than 15 M 4 Tram 4 2 2 4
(Profit) 11 M – 14 M 3 Underground Railways 1 4 3 1
6 M – 10 M 2
Less than 5 M 1
 Determine each of the Alternatives by the
4 C4 More than 9 Year 1
calculated parameter value of its
(Time) 7-9 2
4 – 6 Year 3 criterion
Less than 3 Year 4

 From the criterion given, classified the sub

criteria of each criterion and evaluate
them by using parameter value
 Calculate the utilities value (from the
parameter value) by using this formula, NO ALTERNATIVE CRITERIA VALUE WEIGHT OF MULTIPLYING SCORE
 Value Utilities = C out – C Minimum UTILITIES NORMALIZATION
C1 0.33 0.30 0.09
C maximum – C minimum C2 0.66 0.40 0.26
1 Monorail
 As for example, 4 is grouped as Very High in C3 0.66 0.15 0.09 0.49
parameter value. C4 0.33 0.15 0.05
C1 0.66 0.30 0.19
 The value criteria of C1 in BRT is 3 C2 0.66 0.40 0.26
2 BRT
VU = 3 – 1 C3 0.33 0.15 0.05 0.59
C4 0.66 0.15 0.09
4–1
C1 1 0.30 0.30
VU = 0.66 C2 0.33 0.40 0.13
3 Tram
C3 0.33 0.15 0.05 0.63
 Same goes to Parameter Value 1, C4 1 0.15 0.15
Parameter Value 2 and Parameter Value 4.
C1 0 0.30 0
 Final is the calculation of the final value of Undergroun C2 1 0.40 0.40
4
each alternative by multiplying the utility d Railways C3 0.66 0.15 0.09 0.46
value criteria with normalized weight value C4 0 0.15 0

 Tabulate the results in order to gain the best

alternative. It shows that Tram is the best
alternative.
CRITIQUE
 The process & calculation complicated and too long – to many process that using this method
and more complex as the number of criteria increase.
 Decisions made by one person or individual judgements – the decision from the judgers would
be bias because only one decision makes involved.
 The variable/criteria limited to the specific of number - Fifteen were considered too many, and
eight was considered sufficiently large, if the variable increase that affected to the calculation.
 The main input using human perception