Prediction

1
Prediction and Resource Allocation
2
Most Likely Presidential Choice
Goal
Sub- criteria
Clusters
Party Credibility Media
International Standing
Energy Economy Foreign
Social Nat. Affairs
Order Defense
Issues
Reagan -
Bush Carter - Mondale
Candidates
3
CARTER VS. REAGAN 1980 Priorities of
Criteria Election 1980 Personality
Politics Aptitude Physical Priorities Personalit
y 1 1/5 1/5 3 .08 Politics 5 1
5 9 .61 Professional Aptitude 7 1/9 1 7 .27 Phys
ical 1/3 1/9 1/7 1 .04 Priorities of the
factors which define the criteria Personality
Reg. Charisma Med App Prior.
Politics Int. St. Party Reg. Mate
Mon Priorities Region of Origin 1
1/7 1/5 1/2 .06
Intl Standing 1 1/4 7
1/4 1/3 .11 Charisma
7 1 1/2 3
.32 Party 4
1 9 2 1
.34 Media Relat. 5 2
1 7 .52 Religion
1/7 1/9 1 1/7
1/6 .03 Appearance 2
1/3 1/7 1 .10
Running Mate 4 1/2 7
1 1/2 .22 Money
3 1 6 2
1 .30 Professional Aptitude Exp.
Comp. Cred. Lead Prior. Physical
Age Appear. Priorities Experience 1
1/3 1/5 1/2 .06
Competence 3 1 1/5
1/3 .12 Age 1
1/5 .17 Credibility 5
5 1 3 .54
Appearance 5 1
.83 Leadership 6 3 1/3
1/3 .28 Overall priorities of the
factors (1) (2) (3)
(4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
(9) (10) (11) (12)
(13) (14) Region Charisma Media
Appear. Int.St. Pty. Religion Running Money
Exper. Compet. Credible Leadership Age .005
.025 .041 .040 .065
.206 .019 .136 .183 .016
.032 .148 .076
.006 We group these under the following four
headings as follows Cluster Party
Credibility Media Int. Standing Members
(6)(8)(9) (12)(13) (3)(4)
(5)(11) Total Priorities Normalized for
.57 .25 .09 10 Factors included
4
Priorities of the issues with respect to the four
clusters of factors Party A B C D
E Prioirites Credibility A B C
D E Priorities Energy 1 1/5 6 3
3 .21 A 1 1 1 1
1 .20 Economy 5 1
6 9 3 .54 B
1 1 1 1 1 .20 Foreign
Affairs 1/6 1/6 1 2 1/5 .06 C
1 1 1 1 1
.20 Social Order 1/3 1/9 1/2 1 2
.08 D 1 1 1 1
1 .20 National Defense 1/3 1/5 5 1/2
1 .11 E 1 1 1
1 1 .20 Media A B C D E
Priorities Int. Stand. A B
C D E Priorities A 1
1/5 1/4 1/3 3 .12 A 1 6
1/4 5 1/7 .17 B 2 1
5 3 5 .39 B 1/6 1
1/3 5 1/3 .09 C 4 1/5
1 1/4 1/4 .11 C 4 3 1
5 1 .31 D 3 1/3 4 1
5 .27 D 1/5 1/5 1/5 1
1/5 .04 E 1/2 1/5 4 1/5 1
.11 E 7 3 1 5 1
.39 Priorities of Carter Reagan with respect to
the issues Energy Carter Reagan Prior.
Economy Carter Reagan Prior.
Affairs Carter Reagan Prior. Carter
1 1/3 .25 Carter
1 1/3 .25 Carter
1 2 .67 Reagan 3
1 .75 Reagan
3 1 .75 Reagan
1/2 1 .33 Social Order
Carter Reagan Prior. Defense Carter
Reagan Prior. Carter 1 3
.75 Carter 1 1/5
.17 Reagan 1/3 1
.25 Reagan 5 1
.83
5
COMPOSITE WEIGHTS FOREIGN SOCIAL FINAL E
NERGY ECONOMY AFFAIRS ORDER DEFENSE PRIORITIES
(.20) (.40) (.13) (.12) (.15) CARTER .25 .25 .67 .
75 .17 .35 REAGAN .75 .75 .33 .25 .83 .65
6
1984 Presidential Election
Groups of Voters
Religious Catholics conservative, liberal
Protestants fundamentalist, other Jews
orthodox, liberal Other conservative, liberal
Economic By Labor organized labor,
non-union, protectionists By Income well-to-do
yuppies, middle class, blue collar middle class,
poor
Age young, middle age, old, retired
Minorities Women Blacks Hispanics Environ
mentlists conservative, libbers well-off,
poor well-off, poor
Political conservatives, liberals, antinukes
7
Perot (.29) Clinton(.44) Bush (.27)
.413 .200 .058 .098
.210 .327 .600 .229 .627
.550 .260 .200 .696 .280 .249
Right on Clinton, Wrong on Perot
8
GORE BUSH 2000 ELECTION 1ST CUT
9
GORE BUSH 2000 ELECTION - 2ND CUT
The priorities of the criteria are obtained as
the proportion of the people representing them in
the voting population
10
Predicting Wins in Chess
11
FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE A CHESS MATCH
PLAYER A
PLAYER B
12
Table 5.1. Definitions of Chess Factors T (1)
Calculation (C) The ability of a player to
evaluate different alternatives or strategies in
light of prevailing situations. B (2) Ego
(E) The image a player has of himself as to his
general abilities and qualification and his
desire to win. T (3) Experience (EX) A
composite of the versatility of opponents faced
before, the strength of the tournaments
participated in, and the time of exposure to a
rich variety of chess players. B (4)
Gamesmanship (G) The capability of a player to
influence his opponents game by destroying his
concentration and
self-confidence. T (5) Good Health (GH)
Physical and mental strength to withstand
pressure and provide endurance. B (6) Good
Nerves and Will to Win (GN) The attitude of
steadfastness that ensures a players health
perspective while the going gets
tough. He keeps in mind that the situation
involves two people and that if he holds out the
tide may go in his favor. T (7)
Imagination (IM) Ability to perceived and
improvise good tactics and strategies T (8)
Intuition (IN) Ability to guess the opponents
intentions. T (9) Game Aggressiveness (GA)
The ability to exploit the opponents weaknesses
and mistakes to ones advantage.
Occasionally referred to as killer instinct. T
(10) Long Range Planning (LRP) The ability of
a player to foresee the outcome of a certain
move, set up desired situations
that are more favorable, and work to alter the
outcome. T (11) Memory (M) Ability to
remember previous games. B (12) Personality
(P) Manners and emotional strength, and their
effects on the opponent in playing the game and
on the player in keeping his
wits. T (13) Preparation (PR) Study and
review of previous games and ideas. T (14)
Quickness (Q) The ability of a player to see
clearly the heart of a complex problem. T (15)
Relative Youth (RY) The vigor, aggressiveness,
and daring to try new ideas and situations, a
quality usually attributed to young
age. T (16) Seconds (S) The ability of other
experts to help one to analyze strategies between
games. B (17) Stamina (ST) Physical and
psychological ability of a player to endure
fatigue and pressure. T (18) Technique (T)
Ability to use and respond to different openings,
improvise middle game tactics, and steer the
game to a familiar ground to ones
advantage.
13
TABLE 5.7. ACTUAL AND PREDICTED OUTCOME OF WORLD
CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP MATCHES (1858-1981)
OUTCOME PREDICTION YEAR n NA
NB ND n NA NB ND
Anderson-Morphy 11 7 2
2 11 7 3 1 1858-59 Anderson-
Steinitz 14 8 6 0 14 7
6 1 1866 Steinitz-Zukertort 12
7 1 4 12 7 1
4 1872 Steinitz-Blackburn 7 7 0
0 6 5 1
0 1876 Steinitz-Zukertort 20 10 5
5 21 10 5
6 1886 Steinitz-Tchigorin 17 10 6
1 17 9 6
2 1889 Steinitz-Gunsberg 19 6 4
9 19 7 4
8 1890-91 Steinitz-Tchigorin 23 10 8
5 24 10 9
5 1892 Steinitz-Lasker 19 10 5
4 20 10 5 5 1894 Lasker-Stei
nitz 17 10 2 5 19 11
4 4 1896 Lasker-Marshall 15 8
0 7 17 10 1
6 1907 Lasker-Tarash 16 8 3
5 20 9 4 7 1908 Lasker-Jano
wski 10 7 1 2 11 7
2 2 1909 Lasker-Schlecter 10 1
1 8 11 1 1
9 1910 Lasker-Janowski 10 7 1
2 11 7 1 3 1910 Lasker-Capa
blanca Match discontiued
prematurely Capablanca-Alekhine 34 6
3 25 35 6 4
25 1927 Alekhine-Bogoljubov 25 11 5
9 25 11 5
9 1929 Alekhine-Bogoljubov 26 8 3
15 26 8 3
15 1934 Alekhine-Euwe 30 9 8
13 30 9 8 13 1935 Euwe-Alekh
ine 25 10 4 11 25 10
4 11 1937 Botvinnik-Bronstein 24 5
5 14 25 5 5
15 1951 Botvinnik-Smyslov 22 6 3
13 23 6 4
13 1954 Botvinnik-Smyslov 21 6 2
13 23 6 4
13 1957 Smyslov-Botvinnik 23 7 5
11 24 7 5
12 1958 Botvinnik-Tal 21 9 4
8 22 9 4 9 1960 Tal-Botvinn
ik 21 9 4 8 22 9
4 9 1961 Botvinnik-Petrosian 23 5
3 15 23 5 3
15 1963 Petrosian-Spassky 24 4 3
17 24 4 3
17 1966 Petrosian-Spassky 23 6 4
13 23 7 4
12 1969 Spassky-Fischer 21 7 3
11 20 7 2
11 1972 Karpov-Korchnoi 32 6 5
21 32 6 5
21 1978 Karpov-Korchnoi 18 6 2
10 18 6 2 10 1981
WINNER OF MATCH
14
Sports Hockey Predicting the outcome of the 1985
NHL Stanley Cup Finals. ( slide 1 of 2) The
hierarchy used to predict the outcome of the 1985
NHL Stanley Cup Finals in hockey is depicted
below. The main emphasis in level two was skill,
broken down into offense, defense, goal tending,
and discipline. Conceptually, the hierarchy
works well for hockey, because it is difficult to
measure the exact impact of particular players or
lines of players. Offensive and defensive
matchups can constantly change due to home-ice
advantages, injuries, penalties, and coach
preferences. As for the psychological criteria,
the last game subcriterion was used because one
would like to predict the outcome of each
successive game. The dislike/like subcriterion
was similar to the intangible criterion, heat,
which helped to emphasize any edge that would
surface from an intense rivalry. Environmental
subcritera such as rink size and ice condition
accounted for stylistic differences that would be
affected by particular rink characteristics. The
home ice subcriterion was used to consider past
performance on home ice, in terms of both
win-lose records in general and against a
specific opponent. Although the model helped to
successfully predict the Oilers victory in the
Stanley Cup Finals, the difference in prediction
was relatively small considering Edmontons four
to one dispatching of Philadelphia. The small
margin is attributable to the assessment of the
importance of the level two subcriterion skill.
In comparing the four subcritera, goal tending
was judged to be strong relative to offense,
which proved to be inaccurate given Edmontons
prolific goal scoring. The Flyers goal tending
was not a match for the Oilers offense.
15
(Slide 2 of 2)
OFFENSE (0.045) PASSING (0.025) SHOOTING
(0.013) PWRPLAY (0.006) SPEED
(0.004) DEFENSE (0.108) CHECKING(0.050) BACK
CHKG. (0.032) SHORT HND. (0.019) FIGHTING
(0.007) GOAL TNDG. (0.204) 1ST SHOT (0.058)
REBOUND (0.031) BRKAWAY (0.015) CLUCTH
(0.101) DISCIPLINE (0.258) POSITING (0.144)
BAD PNLTY. (0.031) COVERAGE (0.063)
LUCK (0.030) HEART (0.128) LAST 2
MIN. (0.009)
HOME ICE (0.021) FANS (0.012) RINK
SIZE (0.016) LARGE (0.011) SMALL
(0.005) ICE COND. (0.009) GOOD
(0.005) POOR (0.005)
FAST PERF. (0.015) LAST GAME (0.078)
DIS/LIKE (0.034)
OILERS
FLYERS
16
Date and Strength of Recovery of U.S. Economy
Primary Factors
Conventional adjustments Economic Restructuring
Consumption(C) Financial Sector(FS) Exports(X)
Defense(DP) Investment(I) Global
Competition(GC) Fiscal Policy(F) Monetary
Policy(M) Confidence(K)
Subfactors
Adjustment Period
3 months 6 months 12 months 24 months
Required for turnaround
The U.S. holarchy of factors to forecast a
turnaround in economic stagnation
17
Very strong Strong
Moderate Weak (5.5-6.5 GNP) (4.5-5.5 GNP)
(3-4.5 GNP) (2-3 GNP)
Strength of Recovery Hierarchy
18
Matrices for subfactor importance relative to
primary factors influencing the Timing
Recovery PANEL A Which subfactor has the
greater potential to influence Conventional
Adjustment and how strongly?
Vector C E I K F
M Weights Consumption (C) 1 7
5 1/5 1/2 1/5 0.118
Exports (E) 1/7 1
1/5 1/5 1/5 1/7
0.029 Investment (I) 1/5
5 1 1/5 1/3
1/5 0.058 Confidence (K) 5
5 5 1 5
1 0.334 Fiscal
Policy (F) 2 5 3
1/5 1 1/5
0.118 Monetary Policy (M) 5 7
5 1 3
1 0.343 PANEL B Which
subfactor has the greater potential to influence
Economic Restructuring and how strongly? V
ector FS DP GC Weights Financial Sector
(FS) 1 3 3 0.584 Defense Sector
(DS) 1/3 1 3 0.281 Global Competition
(GC) 1/3 1/3 1 0.135
19
Matrices for relative influence of subfactors on
periods of adjustment (months) (Conventional
Adjustment) For each panel below, which time
period is more likely to indicate a turnaround if
the relevant factor is the sole driving
force? Panel A Relative importance of
targeted time periods for Panel B Relative
importance of targeted time periods for
consumption to drive a turnaround exports to
drive a turnaround 3 6 12 24
Vec. Wts. 3 6 12 24 Vec.
Wts 3 months 1 1/5 1/7 1/7
.043 3 months 1 1 1/5 1/5
.083 6 months 5 1 1/5 1/5
.113 6 months 1 1 1/5 1/5
.083 12 months 7 5 1 1/3
.310 12 months 5 5 1 1
.417 24 months 7 5 3 1
.534 24 months 5 5 1 1
.417 Panel C Relative importance of targeted
time periods for Panel D Relative importance
of targeted time periods investment to drive a
turnaround for fiscal policy to drive a
turnaround 3 6 12 24 Vec.
Wts. 3 6 12 24 Vec. Wts. 3
months 1 1 1/5 1/5 .078 3
months 1 1 1/3 1/5 .099 6
months 1 1 1/5 1/5 .078 6
months 1 1 1/5 1/5 .087 12
months 5 5 1 1/3 .305 12
months 3 5 1 1 .382 24
months 5 5 3 1 .538 24
months 5 5 1 1
.432 Panel E Relative importance of targeted
time periods for Panel F Expected time for a
change of confidence monetary policy to drive a
turnaround indicators of consumer and investor
activity to support 3 6 12 24
Vec. Wts a turnaround in the economy 3 months
1 5 7 7 .605 3 6
12 24 Vec. Wts. 6 months 1/5 1
5 7 .262 3 months 1 3
5 5 .517 12 months 1/7 1/5 1
1/5 .042 6 months 1/3 1 5
5 .305 24 months 1/7 1/7 5 1
.091 12 months 1/5 1/5 1 5
.124 24 months 1/5 1/5 1/5 1
.054
20
Matrices for relative influence of subfactors on
periods of adjustment (months) (Economic
Restructuring) For each panel below, which time
period is more likely to indicate a turnaround if
the relevant factor is the sole driving
force? Panel A Most likely length of time for
restructuring Panel B Most likely time
required for defense of financial
system to support a turnaround readjustment
to affect a turnaround in economy 3 6
12 24 Vec. Wts. 3 6 12
24 Vec. Wts 3 months 1 1/3 1/5
1/7 .049 3 months 1 1/3 1/5
1/7 .049 6 months 3 1 1/5
1/7 .085 6 months 3 1 1/5
1/7 .085 12 months 5 5 1
1 .236 12 months 5 5 1
1/5 .236 24 months 7 7 5
1 .630 24 months 7 7 5
1 .630 Panel C Most likely time
required for an adjustment to global
competition can affect a turnaround in
economy 3 6 12 24
Vec. Wts. 3 months 1 1 1/3 1/5
.089 6 months 1 1 1/3 1/5
.089 12 months 3 3 1
1/5 .208 24 months 5 5 5
1 .613 TABLE 4 Most likely factor
to dominate during a specified time period Which
factor is more likely to produce a turnaround
during the specified time period? Conventional
Adjustment --gt CA Restructuring --gt
R Panel A 3 Months Panel B 6
Months Panel C 1 Year Panel D 2 Years
CA R Vec. Wts CA R Vec.
Wts. CA R Vec. Wts.
CA R Vec. Wts CA 1 5
.833 CA 1 5 .833
CA 1 1 .500 CA 1
1/5 .167 R 1/5 1 .167 R
1/5 1 .167 R
1/5 1 .500 R 5
1 .833
21
Conven- Economic Consum. Exports Invest.
Confid. Fiscal Monet Financ. Defense
Global 3 mo. 6mo. 1yr. gt2yrs Adjust
Restruc.
Policy Policy
Sector Posture Compet
Conven Adjust Economic Restruc. Consum Exports Inv
est Confid Fiscal Policy Monetary Policy Financ.
Sector Defense Posture Global Compet. 3 monthes 6
monthes 1 year gt 2 years
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.833 .833 .500 .167
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.167 .167 .500 .833
.118 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.029 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.058 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.334 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.118 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.343 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .584 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .584 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 .135 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .043
.083 .078 .517 .099 .605
.049 .049 .089
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .113
.083 .078 .305 .086 .262
.085 .085 .089
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .310
.417 .305 .124 .383 .042
.236 .236 .209
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .534
.417 .539 .054 .432 .091
.630 .630 .613
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
22
Conven- Economic Consum. Exports Invest.
Confid. Fiscal Monet Financ. Defense
Global 3 mo. 6mo. 1yr. gt2yrs Adjust
Restruc.
Policy Policy
Sector Posture Compet
Conven Adjust Economic Restruc. Consum Exports Inv
est Confid Fiscal Policy Monetary Policy Financ.
Sector Defense Posture Global Compet. 3 monthes 6
monthes 1 year gt 2 years
0.0 0.0 .484
.484 .484 .484 .484 .484
.484 .484 .484
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 .516
.516 .516 .516 .516 .516
.516 .516 .513
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.057 .057 .057 .057
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.014 .014 .014 .014
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.028 .028 .028 .028
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.162 .162 .162 .162
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.057 .057 .057 .057
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.166 .166 .166 .166
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.301 .301 .301 .301
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.145 .145 .145 .145
0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.070 .070 .070 .070
.224 .224 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.151 .151 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.201 .201 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
.424 .424 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
23
Synthesis/Result When the judgements were made,
the AHP framework was used to perform a synthesis
which produced the following results. First a
meaningful turnaround in the economy would likely
require an additional ten to eleven monthes,
occuring during the fourth quarter of 1992. The
forcast is derived from weights generated in the
first column of the limiting matrix in Table 6,
coupled with the mid-points of the alternate time
periods (so as to provide unbiased
estimates) .224 x 1.5 .151 x 4.5 .201 x 9
.424 x 18 10.45 months from late December
1991/early January 1992.
24
Matrices for Primary and Subfactors for Strength
of Recovery Panel A Which Primary factor will
be more influential in determining the Strength
of Recovery? Vector CA R Weights Conven
tional Adjustment (CA) 1 1/5 .167 Restructuring
(R) 5 1 .833 Panel B Which
subfactor is more important in influencing
Conventional Adjustment? Vector C E I
K F M Weights Consumption (C) 1 7 3 1 7 3 0.317 Ex
ports (E) 1/7 1 1/5 1/5 1 1/5 0.037 Investment (
I) 1/3 5 1 1/3 1/3 1/5 0.099 Confidence (K) 1 5 3
1 7 3 0.305 Fiscal Policy (F) 1/7 1 3 1/7 1 1/7 0.
035 Monetary Policy (M) 1/3 7 5 1/3 7 1 0.207 CI
0.071 Panel C Which subfactor is more
important in influencing Vector FS DP G
C Weights Financial Sector
(FS) 1 1/5 1/3 0.105 Defense Posture (DS) 5 1 3
0.637 Global Competition (GC) 3 1/3 1 0.258 CI
0.037
25
Matrices for Relative Influence of Subfactors on
Strength of Recovery (Conventional Adjustment)
For each panel below, which intensity is more
likely to obtain if te designated factor drives
the recovery?
Panel A Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if consumption drives the expansion
Panel D Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if exports drives the expansion
V S M W Vec. Wts.
V S M W Vec. Wts.
1 1 5 7 .423 1
1 5 7 .423 1/5
1/5 1 3 .104 1/7
1/7 1/3 1 .051
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
1 1 1/3 1/5 .095 1
1 1/3 1/5 .095 3 3
1 1/3 .249 5 5
3 1 .560
Panel B Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if investment drives the expansion
Panel E Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if confidence drives the expansion
V S M W Vec. Wts.
V S M W Vec. Wts.
1 1 1/3 2 .182 1
1 1/3 2 .182 3
3 1 6 .545 1/2
1/2 1/6 1 .091
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
1 1 3 5 .376 1
1 3 5 .376 1/3 1/3
1 7 .193 1/5 1/5 1/7
1 .054
Panel C Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if fiscal policy drives the expansion.
Panel F Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if monetary policy drives the expansion
V S M W Vec. Wts.
V S M W Vec. Wts.
1 1 1/5 1/3 .084 1 1
1/5 1/3 .084 5 5 1
7 .649 3 3 1/7
1 .183
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
1 1 1/5 1 .125 1
1 1/5 1/5 .125 5
5 1/5 1 .625 1 1
1/5 1 .125
26
Matrices for Relative Influence of Subfactors on
Strength of Recovery (Restructuring)
For each panel below, which intensity is more
likely to obtain if te designated factor drives
the recovery?
Panel A Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if financial sector drives the expansion
Overall Results for Strength of Recovery GNP
Growth
V S M W Vec. Wts.
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
1 1 1/3 1/5 .095 1
1 1/3 1/5 .095 3 3
1 1/3 .249 5 5
3 1 .560
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
(5.5-6.5) .108 (4.5-5.5) .141 (3-4.5)
.290 (2-3) .461 GNP Recovery Rate
3.6
Panel B Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if defense posture drives the expansion
V S M W Vec. Wts.
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
1 1/3 1/5 1/7 .055 3 1
1/3 1/5 .118 5 3
1 1/3 .262 7 5 3
1 .565
GNP Recovery rate calculated using the
relative strength of conventional adjustment and
restructuring in Table 5 Panel A each used to
multiply midpoints of GNP Growth and then
summed.
Panel C Relative likelihood of the strength of
recovery if global competition drives the
expansion
V S M W Vec. Wts.
1 1 1/3 1/5 .101 1 1
1/3 1/5 .101 3 3 1
1 .348 5 5 1
1 .449
Very Str.(V) Strong (S) Moderate (M) Weak (W)
27
Probable Impact of Each Fourth Level Fctor
148.23-162.35
162.35 and above
119.99 and below
119.99-134.11
134.11-148.23
Moderate Increase .2280
Sharp Increase .0820
No Change .2640
Sharp Decline .1330
Moderate Decline .2940
Expected Value is 139.90 yen/
28
US Economy Turnaround 2001-2002
29
The Judgments for Aggregate Demand Factors with
respect to the Aggregate Demand Node
30
The Judgments for the Aggregate Supply Factors
with respect to the Aggregate Supply Node
The Judgments for the Geopolitical Context
Factors with respect to the Geopolitical Context
Node
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Consumption
31
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Exports
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Investment
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Confidence
32
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Fiscal Policy
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Monetary Policy
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Expectations
33
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Labor Costs
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Natural Resources
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Expectations
34
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Major International Political Relations
The Judgments for the Alternatives with respect
to Major International Economic Relations
The Judgments for the Primary Factors with
respect to the 3 Month Time Period
35
The Judgments for the Primary Factors with
respect to the 6 Month Time Period
The Judgments for the Primary Factors with
respect to the 12 Month Time Period
The Judgments for the Primary Factors with
respect to the 24 Month Time Period
36
The Unweighted Matrix
37
The Unweighted Matrix Contd
38
The Limit Matrix note that each column is the
same
39
The Limit Matrix contd
40
Time period Midpoint of time period
Priority of Time period Midpt x
Priority (in
months from 0) Three months 0 (3
0 )/2 1.5 .30581 .45871 Six months
3 (6 3)/2 4.5
.20583 .92623 Twelve months 6 (12
6)/2 9.0 .18181
1.63629 Twenty Four 12 (24 12)/2
18.0 .30656
5.51808

TOTAL 8.53932
This exercise was done in early April, 2001 and
therefore the recovery from the slow down is
forecasted to occur around the end of the year.
41
Turnaround of present slump in U.S. economy is
predicted in about 8 1/2 months from April 2001
which would be around Dec. 2001
42
Turnaround of present slump (after 9/11/01) in
U.S. economy is predicted in 7.8675 months from
Nov 9, 2001 which would be around 1st of July,
2002.