Proper level of Military Involvement in Drug Enforcement

1

• .

2
Proper level of Military Involvement in Drug
Enforcement
This model assesses the appropriate level of
military involvement in combatting illegal drugs
in the United States. The size, presence, and
technological sophistication of the U. S.
military put it in an excellent position for drug
interdiction efforts, especially in light of
current peacetime defense. The U. S. military
has bases all over the world and the majority of
its equipment and personnel are developed and
trained for long distance mission
capabilities--exactly the type of mobile,
international force necessary to curtail drug
traffic initiating outside U. S. borders. There
are many persons concerned with making this
decision including the U. S. President, advisors,
Congress, the general U. S. population, and
foreign nations. The alternatives considered are
to increase military intervention, decrease
military intervention, or make no change in the
current program. This evaluation incorporates a
variety of concerns of the public, foreign
nations, financial and economic ramifications,
national security, and the effectiveness of
military intervention.
3
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
GOAL
ALTERNATIVES
Traditional Model Structure
CRITERIA
SUB-CRITERIA
?
?
?
?

• Goal
• Criteria
• Sub-Criteria
• Alternatives

?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
4

• Once the GOAL has been defined, select ltEDITgt,
  Insert to begin building your model.

5
Definition

• Simply enter in all CRITERIA with respect to the
  GOAL. After each node is entered you will be
  prompted to define it. After you have finished,
  press the ltEscgt key to exit and continue with
  your model building.

6

• Alternatives can be entered once under one of the
  sub-criteria and then replicated to all other
  Leaves (bottom nodes) in the tree. To copy the
  alternatives to all other nodes, highlight the
  parent node (node directly above), and select
  ltEDITgt Replicate. If you make a mistake in
  replicating, you can fix it by using the ltEDITgt,
  Delete command.

7

• With the model now completed, you are now ready
  to enter your judgments via pairwise comparisons.
  Expert Choices unique method can incorporate raw
  data or more subjective judgments like
  experience, intuition and feelings.

8

• Move to the goal. To compare the relative
  importance of the criteria, select ltCOMPAREgt,
  Importance. To make pairwise comparisons you may
  select Importance, Preference, or Likelihood
  depending upon which best suits the comparison
  you are making. Calculations will not differ
  regardless of the word you choose.

9
Comparision Modes
Expert Choice allows you to enter judgments in
three different comparison modes
?
Verbal Graphical
Numerical The
Verbal Comparison mode is the default mode. You
may select the other modes from within this mode.
1,2,3...
?
10
These boxes indicate that there are 10 judgments
that need to be made in order to prioritize the
criteria.
The more important element must be on the top.
To invert order, select ltINVERTgt.

• This is the Verbal Comparison mode. You simply
  choose the adjective which best describes the
  comparison. A nine point scale is associated
  with the adjectives EQUAL being 1 and EXTREME
  being about 9 times as important. You can also
  enter judgments Graphically or Numerically.

11

• In the Graphical Comparison mode, one can
  manipulate the bars or pie to visually represent
  the relative importance of the criteria.

12

• Expert Choice derives priorities for the elements
  that have just been compared. Note that CONGRESS
  has the highest priority with a value of .340.
  The inconsistency ratio shown at the bottom is
  .15. It should be .10 or less. Consistency can
  be improved by using the numerical mode. Go to
  the Numerical mode by selecting ltCOMPAREgt, then
  NUMERICAL.

13
Inverted judgments
Arrow pointing to preferred element

• The Numerical Comparison mode allows you to
  directly input numbers that correspond to the
  verbal scale. Here the black boxes represent
  inverted judgments. In the current judgment the
  arrow points to the preferred element. The
  preferred element is also displayed at the top in
  the verbal description box.

14

• After all the judgments have been entered, a
  consistency check can be run by selecting ltAltgt1
  at the bottom to find which judgment is most
  inconsistent.

15

• Click on the lt?gt to see how the judgment can be
  changed to improve consistency. You may change
  the judgment to the suggested value, modify it,
  or leave it as it is.

16

• Note that the inconsistency has dropped from .150
  to .062. Return to the main screen be selecting
  ltEndgt.

17
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Synthesis

• Now that all the judgments have been made, the
  result of the analysis can be produced. Expert
  Choice synthesizes the model, based on your
  judgments, and calculates an overall ranking of
  the alternatives.

18

• With the goal as the current node, select
  ltSYNTHESISgt, Set Mode. The first time a new
  model is synthesized you must set the mode to
  either Distributive or Ideal depending on the
  desired outcome.

19
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Distributive
Select the Distributive Mode if you wish to
prioritize all the alternatives. The global
priority of the lowest level sub-criterion is
distributed among all the alternatives. This
mode is also selected if you believe the
priorities of the other alternatives are relevant.
Ideal
Select the Ideal Mode if you want to choose only
one alternative. The global priority of the
lowest level sub-criterion is then assigned to
the highest priority alternative under it, with
the others receiving priority in proportion to
their local priority under it.
20

• Expert Choice has prioritized the alternatives.
  NO CHG in the current program, with a value of
  .346, has the highest weight or priority.
• Because DECREASE in military intervention is very
  close behind, we will conduct sensitivity
  analysis to help us gain more insight and
  confidence in the model.

21

• Choose ltGRAPHSgt, Dynamic. Dynamic Sensitivity
  shows how the manipulation of any of the
  criterion, effects the ranking of the
  alternatives.

22
Dynamic Sensitivity

• By dragging the criterion bar with the mouse, you
  can increase or decrease the assigned weight and
  see the resulting effect on the alternatives.

23

• The increase in the criterion, SEC. DEF, from
  .087 to .253 dynamically alters the alternatives.
  DECREASE is now the top priority at .373. This
  screen allows us to see the individual
  contributions each criterion makes to the
  alternatives.

24
Gradient Sensitivity

• We can see that at this threshold point, DECREASE
  and NO CHG are equal alternatives. However, a
  slight increase or decrease in the weight given
  to SEC. DEF will reorder the alternatives.

By moving the vertical bar horizontally to
increase or decrease the priority of the SEC.
DEF, we can see the ranking of the alternatives
change.
25
Performance Sensitivity
Alternative ranking movement.
Moving the vertical criterion bar up or
down shows the dynamic "performance" change in
the alternatives.
26

• .

• D e c i s i o n S u p p o r t S o f t w a r e

?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
?
4922 Ellsworth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Phone [phone] Fax [phone]