Evaluation of alternatives

 Top  Previous  Next

All the acceptable alternatives now can be differenciated by means of relevance values assigned to each factor and with the knowledge of who can be considered to be the ideal team member on each role.

 

Team leader

Substitute

Specialist A

Specialist B

Specialist C

Team 8

Fred

Tom

Mike

Walter

Mandy

Team 1

.3 (Barbara)

.0 (Lisa)

Team 2

.6 (Barbara)


.0 (Lisa)

Team 3



.0 (Boris)

Team 4

.3 (Barbara)

.3 (Curt)

.0 (Lisa)

Team 5


.3 (Curt)

Team 6


.3 (Curt)

.0 (Lisa)

Team 7

.3 (Barbara)

.3 (Curt)

.0 (Boris)

Team 9

.7 (David)

Team 10

.6 (Barbara)



Team 11

.3 (Barbara)


 

Fred and Mike are the ideal persons on those positions, that are most important for group performance. Obviously, the question who is working as specialist C is least critical.

All combinations of team members differ from each other. If we add the relevance values of those positions that are staffed non-ideal, no acceptable team shows a sum higher than 1.0. That confirms the relevance hypothesis and underlines the completeness of the recorded teams.