Conversation with Merlin [email protected] · Wed Nov 29 2023

When comparing alternative solutions to see which one best meets the design criteria, you will often use a Weighted Objectives Chart (WOC) or a decision matrix of some kind. In order to evaluate the solution alternatives fairly and in an unbiased way, it is important to devise a way of evaluating the designs before they are created, or before you finalize those design alternatives. The criteria that go into a WOC should be based directly on the objectives you defined in your problem definition, and may include additional objectives that will help you measure the effectiveness and desirability of each solution alternative. Then, you build or chose the design alternatives to best fit these criteria. Creating a weighted objectives chart entails several detailed steps:

  1. Determine the objectives you will use to evaluate the design alternatives (base these on the objectives stated in your problem definition). Aim for at least 5 objectives to create a robust set of evaluation criteria
  2. Place the objectives in order from most to least important
  3. Assign each objective a weight, giving the most important objective the highest weight, and the least important objective receiving the lowest. The combined weights of all objectives should sum to a unity (1, 10, or 100).
  4. Create a scoring rubric for each objective, showing how you will assign a “grade” for how well each design meets that criteria. This is usually done using a Likert scale (scale of 1-5 or 1-10), with each value having a specific value or range of values. You will need to determine how you will measure and grade achievement of each objective. These can be quantitative (miles per gallon of fuel consumption) or qualitative (subjective experience of comfort), as 171 seen in the scoring rubric sample below. Technical Writing Essentials 217 Points Cost (CND$) Fuel consumption (m/ g) Comfort level 0 over max budget of $5000 less than 27 very uncomfortable 1 4501 – 5000 27-29 poor comfort level 2 4001 – 4500 30-32 below average comfort 3 3501 – 4000 33-36 average comfort 4 3001 – 3500 37-40 above average comfort 5 3000 or less more than 40 extremely comfortable Once you have determined your objectives, ranked and weighted them, and created scoring rubrics for each one, you can place them all in a table that allows you to easily compare each solution. See Table 7.5.1 for a sample Weighted Objectives Table designed to compare several car purchase options. In the magnitude column, you would enter the actual price, fuel consumption, etc. Under score, enter the score that the magnitude gets in the objective scoring rubric (seen above). To get the “value,” multiply your score by the weight. Adding all the values for each option will give you the overall utility value for each option, and show you which one best meets your objectives. Table 7.5.1 Sample Weighted Objectives table for comparing two car purchase options Objective Weight Measurement Car A Car B magnitude score value magnitude score value Cost 30 price range 4299 2 60 Fuel consumption 25 miles per gallon Cost of parts 20 average cost Ease of maintenance 15 ease of servicing Comfort 10 comfort rating Overall utility value Note that the objectives are listed in order from highest to lowest weighted, and all the weights add up to 100. Therefore, if one possible purchase option had a sale price of $4299, you would enter that under the “magnitude;” that would receive a score of 2, based on the scoring rubric; multiply 2 by the weight of 30, and the overall score for that objective is 60.

Here's what I have for a Weighted Objective Table:

|Criteria (Weighting) Informatica PowerCenter IBM Infosphere DataStage AWS Glue Speed (25%) 18 20 22 Scalability (25%) 22 21 23 Multi-region Support (20%) 16 15 20 Security Measures (30%) 27 26 25 Total (100%) 83 82 90

Rationale for the Weighting: Speed and scalability have the most significant weights, as these directly impact PDI's ability to perform real-time data analysis and handle a growing volume of data. Security Measures have been assigned the highest weight due to the crucial need to protect sensitive data. Multi-region support carries slightly less weight as PDI has already been operating internationally using its current ETL software.

Now give me this Weighted Objective Table in the format and description that I have provided above?

Certainly! Here's the Weighted Objectives Table for comparing alternative solutions to the problem of selecting a data integration software:

Criterion (Weighting)Informatica PowerCenterIBM Infosphere DataStageAWS Glue
Speed (25%)182022
Scalability (25%)222123
Multi-region Support (20%)161520
Security Measures (30%)272625
Total (100%)838290

Rationale for the Weighting:

  • Speed and Scalability (50%): Speed and scalability have been assigned the most significant weights (25% each), as these directly impact the system's ability to perform real-time data analysis handle a growing volume of data efficiently.

  • Multi-region Support (20%): This criterion represents the software's capability to operate across multiple regions. Although important, it has been assigned a slightly lesser weight due to PDI's existing international operations using its current ETL software.

  • Security Measures (30%): Security measures, such as data protection and access controls, have been assigned the highest weight (30%) due to the critical need to safeguard sensitive data.

This weighted objectives chart allows for a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the alternatives based on the defined criteria, ensuring that the chosen solution best meets the organization's objectives and requirements.