Our first Student Decision World Contest has come to an end and it was time for us to pick our winners. In this post we will discuss our winning models and the reason behind our choices.
The challenge was to create the most accurate decision model for the topic: Choosing the best computer to buy or recommend. To do so our participants used Expert Choice’s software, Comparion™ Core. Comparion Suite is an easy-to-use solution for collaboration and prioritization, delivering transparent team decision-making, tight strategic alignment, and easy-to-communicate results.
Congratulations to our winners:
- Nina Leonova (Russia) – 8GB IPod Nano with Video
- Abbas Tariq (Germany) – 2 GB IPod Shuffle
- Subrat Kumar Swain (USA) – $25 iTunes Gift Card
Nina’s model was the most accurate that we have encountered. She provided us with 8 parent objectives in the choice of her computer and at least 5 of them had sub-objectives amongst which 2 of them had sub-objectives to their sub-objectives! Her model was complete! Maybe a little bit too complete. The problem of having that many sub-objectives or sub-sub-objectives lies in the evaluation process: Having that many criteria to evaluate could be time consuming but makes the decision more accurate.
On top of that she provided us with some additional information in the description of her decision goal and her PowerPoint presentation. She noted that the computer was going to be purchased for everyday use, so she mentioned its needs to be versatile. Because the price was an important factor to her, she gave us a “ceiling price of $1000”; which was consistent with her model since every alternative’s price was roughly below or around that ceiling. Good job!
However she also mentioned in the PowerPoint presentation that the computer might have to travel to “Peter’s parents’ house”. If portability was mandatory, we should not be able to find any desktop computers in her alternatives; but she did not mention that Peter had to buy a laptop. In the end, if price and power were more important than mobility, desktops would still be the most valuable alternatives.
We also saw a lot of great things in the other submissions like Good analytical skills shown in the PowerPoint presentations or Models with a larger amount of parent objectives.
In terms of descriptions, all our participants did a great job defining alternatives but very few participants seemed to have done the same with their objectives! Too bad!
Overall, the competition was a success and we came across some great things. Too bad there is only room for 3 winners which made our selection delicate. We hope you enjoyed the competition as others may come.
Happy Decision Making!
Al
