CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

GUILLERMO VILLALBA TORRES

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

CRANFIELD DEFENCE AND SECURITY

Military Operational Research

Master of Science (MSc)

Academic Year: 2020 - 2021

Supervisor: Dr. Ken R. McNaught

August 2021
 CRANFIELD UNIVERSITY

CRANFIELD DEFENCE AND SECURITY

Military Operational Research

MSc Thesis
Academic Year 2020 – 2021

Guillermo Villalba Torres

A Multi-attribute Decision-making Methodology for Selecting an Optimal Logistic Ship for

the Colombian Navy

Supervisor: Dr. Ken R. McNaught

August 2021

This thesis is submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for

the degree of MSc in Military Operational Research.

© Cranfield University 2021. All rights reserved. No part of this

publication may be reproduced without the written permission of the
copyright owner
ABSTRACT

The Colombian Navy currently has a deficit of logistical vessels to support other maritime
and land-based units. Through the Naval Development Plan 2042, the Navy’s objective is
to acquire, among other objectives, one multipurpose vessel or Landing Platform Dock and
four logistic ships. This study aims to apply the MCDA methodology for selecting a logistic
ship within the alternatives presented by the Chief of Naval Planning.

In developing this study, a Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) model has been made
for the Colombian Navy. The Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) has been
applied to select the most optimal logistic vessel according to the considerations and
specifications provided by the Navy. Four alternatives of different designs and companies
were assessed in this study: KERSHIP B2M, FASSMER MPV 70 MKII, DAMEN Logistic
Support Vessel LSV 6513 and BCC 6012 (Cargo and cabotage vessel) from COTECMAR
shipyard. Our main idea was to break down the overall problem into smaller parts, focusing
on them separately. The SMART model was structured in a step-by-step procedure
described in an easy-to-follow and user-friendly manner. Six fundamental objectives were
identified and assessed by experts. The decision-maker then assessed the main attributes
resulted from the expert’s evaluation. The decision-maker preferences were identified for
the following criteria: cost, operational capabilities, and support capacity to determine the
most preferred alternative. The results suggest that the B2M and BCC 6012 were the most
preferred alternative, lying on the efficient frontier.

Through sensitivity analysis, the decision-maker was supported to assess how efficient the
vessel selection is and thus achieve an optimal choice within the alternatives. The results
indicate that MCDA and SMART can support decision-makers in analysing, structuring, and
interpreting priorities in a decision-making process. The main output of this thesis has been
the implementation of a decision model to assist decision-making in selecting a logistics
vessel for the Navy.

i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to share this space to recognize all the persons who, in one way or another,
helped me to achieve this objective that allows me to develop as a better professional in the
development of my military career. First, I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to
my supervisor Dr Ken McNaught for his constant supervision and guidance. His excellent
knowledge of the subject allowed me to guide the development of the thesis.

I wish to thank the Colombian Navy for allowing me to represent my country and acquire
new expertise, which shall be reflected in my military profession, especially to my superiors,
who supported me and helped with the administrative procedures to pursue my master’s
degree. Mainly, I would like to show my appreciation to Captain Ramses Ramirez and
Captain Javier Serrano for their support and management, allowing me to develop this
academic career. I also had great pleasure working with lieutenant commander Andres
Piñeros who provided helpful information for developing this thesis and valuable
contributions and experience.

I want to extend my sincere thanks to the University of Cranfield; despite going through
moments of uncertainty, they always supported me and cared about my virtual and face-to-
face learning, allowing me to start my studies in my home country. Furthermore, I would like
to thank my instructors and course director for the given lessons. Their experience and
expertise in each of the subjects and modules I attended allowed me to broaden my skills
and knowledge.

Finally, and above all, I wish to thank my family for their unconditional support in developing
this course to my wife for being by my side throughout the year, showing her support,
patience, and love. I would also like to extend my deepest gratitude to my family in Colombia;
thank you for your incredible encouragement during my studies in the UK.

ii
Table of Content

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................... ii
List of Figures .................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... vi
List of Abbreviations ......................................................................................................... vii
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 1
1.1 General Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Background ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Project Aim and Objectives .................................................................................. 5
1.4 Methodology ........................................................................................................ 6
1.5 Project Structure .................................................................................................. 6
2 LITERATURE RESEARCH ......................................................................................... 8
2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Decision Analysis................................................................................................. 8
2.2.1 The Process of Decision Analysis ............................................................... 10
2.2.2 Applications of Decision Analysis................................................................ 12
2.3 Multiple-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) ........................................................ 13
2.3.1 Application of MCDA................................................................................... 15
2.4 Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique (SMART) ............................................. 16
2.5 Summary ........................................................................................................... 18
3 METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 20
3.1 Chapter Introduction .......................................................................................... 20
3.2 Logistic Ship Selection Methodology ................................................................. 20
3.2.1 Preparatory Stage ...................................................................................... 22
3.2.1.1 Step 1: Identify the Decision Maker(s) ................................................. 22
3.2.1.2 Step 2: Identify the alternatives ............................................................ 22
3.2.1.3 Step 3: Identify the Attributes that Alternatives will be Evaluated Against
30
3.2.2 Evaluation Stage ........................................................................................ 35
3.2.2.1 Step 4: Determine a weight for each decision attribute ........................ 35
3.2.2.2 Step 5: Assign values for each attribute. Measure the performance of
each alternative on that attribute. .......................................................................... 40
3.2.3 Selection Stage .......................................................................................... 44

iii
 3.2.3.1 Step 6: Calculate a weighted average of the values assigned to each
alternative. 45
4 RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 47
4.1 Results obtained from the decision-maker ......................................................... 48
4.2 Step 7: Produce a list of ranked alternatives and make a provisional decision. .. 51
4.2.1 Cost analysis .............................................................................................. 53
4.3 Step 8: Apply sensitivity analysis and make a final decision concerning the
logistic ship................................................................................................................... 58
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................ 63
5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 63
5.2 Multicriteria Decision Analysis in the naval sector .............................................. 63
5.3 Application of SMART in vessel selection .......................................................... 64
5.4 Discussion ......................................................................................................... 65
5.5 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 66
5.6 Limitation and further research .......................................................................... 68
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 69
APPENDICES.................................................................................................................. 77
Appendix A Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Movement & Manoeuvre) .............. 77
Appendix B Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Survivability) .................................. 82
Appendix C Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Sustainability)................................ 86
Appendix D Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Offensive Capabilities) .................. 90
Appendix E Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Supply Logistic Services) .............. 94
Appendix F Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Provide Transport) ......................... 99
Appendix G Results of Questionnaires (A, B, C, D, E, F) ........................................... 103
Appendix H Questionnaire for Final Attribute Weighting ............................................. 111

iv
List of Figures

Figure 1. A decision analysis process flowchart. (Clemen & Reilly, 2013, p.9). ................ 10
Figure 2. Flowchart of Decision-Making Methodology for Ship Selection. ........................ 21
Figure 3. KERSHIP B2M (Kership, 2021)......................................................................... 26
Figure 4. FASSMER MPV 70 MKII (Fassmer, 2019). ....................................................... 27
Figure 5. Logistic Support Vessel (LSV) 6513 (Bustraan, 2014). ..................................... 28
Figure 6. BCC 6012 (Commercial information provided by COTECMAR shipyard) .......... 29
Figure 7. Hierarchical Tree Optimal Logistic Ship Selection. ............................................ 34
Figure 8. Value scale for portage of interdiction boat and RHIB. ...................................... 41
Figure 9. Constructing a value function for water capacity. .............................................. 43
Figure 10. ROM cost of alternatives. ................................................................................ 54
Figure 11. The total cost of operation per day. ................................................................. 55
Figure 12. Effectiveness VS Cost..................................................................................... 57
Figure 13. Sensitivity analysis for weight placed on support capacity. .............................. 61

v
List of Tables

Table 1. Required functional capabilities. (Strategic Project Directorate 2020). ................ 25

Table 2. Alternative’s characteristics ................................................................................ 37
Table 3. Least and most preferred levels from movement & manoeuvre attributes. ......... 38
Table 4. Value Swings for Movement & Manoeuvre attributes ......................................... 39
Table 5. Interdiction boat and RHIB characteristics for the alternatives. ........................... 40
Table 6. Ranked alternatives in terms of the portage of interdiction boat. ........................ 41
Table 7. Least and most preferred levels for the best attributes selected. ........................ 45
Table 8. Compiled results of the fundamental objectives. ................................................ 47
Table 9. Rank attributes from the decision-maker. ........................................................... 48
Table 10. Value swings assign by the decision-maker to the final attributes. ................... 49
Table 11. Normalized weights. ......................................................................................... 50
Table 12. Fundamental objective weight. ......................................................................... 51
Table 13. Additive model for B2M. ................................................................................... 52
Table 14. Total effectiveness for the alternatives. ............................................................ 53
Table 15. ROM cost of alternatives. ................................................................................. 54
Table 16. Operation cost .................................................................................................. 55
Table 17. Total cost per year and acquisition cost. .......................................................... 56
Table 18. Direct rating to value FOs in each alternative. .................................................. 59
Table 19. Current Scores and new holistic scores. .......................................................... 59
Table 20. Changes in the overall effectiveness of B2M .................................................... 60
Table 21. Effectiveness altering values ............................................................................ 60
Table 22. Global-scale value scores for attributes. ........................................................... 79

vi
List of Abbreviations

ARC Armada Republic of Colombia

AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process
BDA Amphibious Landing Ship (acronym in Spanish)
COTECMAR Science and Technology Corporation for Naval, Maritime and Riverine
________ Industries (acronym in Spanish)
DA Decision Analysis
FOs Fundamental Objectives
IMO International Maritime Organization
LSV Logistic Support Vessel
MAUT Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
MCDA Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
OPV Oceanic Patrol Vessel
OR Operational Research
PES Surface Strategic Platform (acronym in Spanish)
PLOTEOS Platform Program Strategy for the Submarine Strategic and Technological
_____ Development (acronym in Spanish)
PROCYON Fleet Construction and Optimization Plan (acronym in Spanish)
RHIB Rigid Hull Inflatable Boats
ROM Rough Order of Magnitude
SA Sensitivity Analysis
SAI San Andres Islands
SMART Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique
VFT Value-focused Thinking

vii
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 General Introduction

Over the years, the age of the Colombian Naval fleet and the high operational rhythm
imposed on the different units have decreased its functioning capabilities, while technical
obsolescence has accumulated in many of its equipment and systems. As a result, in 2017
and 2018, the Navy decided to deactivate the ARC “Cartagena de Indias” and ARC
“Buenaventura”, its only two Logistics Supply Ships (LSS) or “Multipurpose” Logistics Ships,
after having accomplished forty-nine years of beneficial lifetime, twenty-one years in the
service of the Colombian Navy. These vessels were from the “Lüneburg” class with 3,400
tons displacement, built in Germany in 1968 by the Flensburger Shiffbaugesellschaft
shipyards and were incorporated into the Colombian Navy in 1996.

The ships' mission was to conduct naval operations supporting other naval units and land
forces in times of peace and war. They served as transport, instruction, and training units
for the Naval Academy’s personnel. In addition, they carried out maritime patrolling
procedures as well as support for Colombian Army and Air Force troops and humanitarian
aid operations, transporting health personnel who had their own clinics for health campaigns
in remote areas and delivering aid such as food and medicines. One of its significant support
operations was its participation in 2010 in the Colombian humanitarian mission to aid the
population of Haiti as a hospital ship, because of the earthquake that occurred in that
country.

The ARC Valle del Cauca and ARC San Andrés are two offshore patrol vessels that have
already completed their cycle with the Navy and time of service. For a long time, they have
supplied the fleet’s operational needs regarding current surveillance and control operations
and logistical support to the island areas historically protected by the Colombian Navy.
However, the Navy´s projection of the operational development and their time of service
makes the conceptualisation of a platform that meets the current and new capabilities
required to strengthen naval power a priority. In addition, increased operational
requirements in the archipelago of San Andrés, Providencia, and Santa Catalina, as well as
in the Malpelo Flora and Fauna Sanctuary, generate greater responsibilities for the fleet.

Considering that the current platforms had reached the end of their life cycle, if they are not
replaced with modern means and in accordance with the threats, sea control capabilities will
be reduced both in the Caribbean Sea and in the Pacific Ocean. At the same time, the Navy’s
capital units, which operate in maritime security scenarios, could suffer from attrition, which
means a reduction in the life cycle of strategic units due to high operational demand in the
absence of other units better suited to the needs. As a result, the operational demand on
other units will increase with higher operating and maintenance costs.

1
To address the exposed problem, the Colombian Navy established the Naval Development
Plan 2042 (2020). The framework of reference to reach the number of platforms needed and
renewal of the fleet is through the “Fleet Construction and Optimization Plan” – PROCYON.
It constitutes a prolonged effort to fulfil the structure of means that the country requires in
future years. The work is fed by experience and knowledge developed and accumulated in
the Strategic Surface Platform Program (PES acronym in Spanish), the Platform Program
Strategy for the Submarine Strategic and Technological Development (PLOTEOS acronym
in Spanish), and of the modernization, design, construction, and acquisition of units of the
fleet in the last 12 years. The renewal of the naval fleet constitutes an exceptional
opportunity to evolve the country’s shipbuilding and design capabilities, which come in a
virtuous process of contributing to the country’s internal growth, directly benefiting industry
sectors, creating jobs, and boosting the academia.

Logistical support is considered one of the essential principles of naval operations. It is

developed and based on the principle of an adequate combination of logistical means to
provide the most appropriate and efficient support to different operations. The Colombian
Navy is responsible for providing logistical support to units deployed in the area of operations
and humanitarian assistance in regions where climatic adversities occur. Therefore,
sustaining naval operations requires an operational and logistical support capacity,
materialized in multipurpose bases and ships. A supply ship is an auxiliary vessel capable
of transporting fuel, water, food, ammunition, medicine, personnel, and different materials,
allowing the fleet it accompanies to remain on the high seas without refuelling and docking
in any port for an extended period. In addition, these ships allow the Navy of a country to be
projected far from its mainland, becoming a high seas fleet or blue-water Navy.

In the Naval Development Plan 2042, it is recognized that the core of the Colombian Navy
is the Naval Fleet, made up of ships, submarines, and aircraft. Through the naval
construction and optimization plan (PROCYON), the Navy’s objective is to acquire, among
other objectives, one multipurpose vessel or Landing Platform Dock and four logistic ships.
This will contribute to the fulfilment of operations such as protection of life, natural resources,
humanitarian aid, maritime security, and fighting transnational crimes stipulated within the
framework of naval operations defined by the Navy. PROCYON is a development program
for defence aimed at completing and optimizing the naval fleet. Part of the analysis begins
with the strategic environment of the country’s realities. This uses conceptual and decision-
making tools that generate a set of platforms that seek to meet the nation’s urgent needs in
the broad spectrum of security and defence of the country’s maritime territory. The Naval
Development Plan 2042 stipulates the need to replace the ARC “San Andrés” and ARC
“Valle del Cauca” in the short term.

The Colombian Navy incorporates the definition established by CONVEMAR on afloat units’
concepts in the Doctrine of Naval Material, Volume II. The numeral 1.6 Classification of units
defines ships according to their specific function and work, mentioning that logistic sea units
are: “Afloat units destined to provide logistic support to combat sea units or any other unit.
They may or may not be equipped with armament for their defence. This classification

2
includes training ships, logistics ships, oceanographic, hydrographic and beacon ships,
tugboats, floating docks and general transport vessels.” (National Navy, 2014, p.14).

The Colombian Navy requires vessels to fulfil the primary logistical support functions in
developing naval operations, both in peacetime and wartime. Including humanitarian
operations during emergencies and natural disasters to guarantee the logistical support of
the naval units deployed in the different maritime scenarios, facilitating their permanence in
the operation areas, and extending their operational reach. The vessel will be a platform
capable of maritime patrol operations and logistic support operations, with the capacity to
carry personnel, water, fuel, and general cargo. It will have a reduced manning concept and
low operating and sustainment costs, comparable to replacing units. In addition, it will be
equipped with the necessary systems and sensors to perform integrated maritime security
operations efficiently.

1.2 Background

To select an optimal vessel, usually, two studies are required: first, review the capacities of
the vessels available in the international market: and second, define the required capacities.
(Serrano, 2013). When buying or designing a ship, many questions arise around decision-
making. Such as which is the best ship on the market that resembles the navy requirements?
Which are its characteristics? The acquisition, life cycle, and operating costs are within the
accepted spending parameters? What is the operational context? In addition, the
weaknesses, threats, strengths, and opportunities of the project must be known. These
parameters are analysed to make the best decision in the acquisition or construction of a
ship. In recent years, some countries have decided to design and construct their warships
within a wide variety of options. To achieve this objective, they rely on their own experiences
in shipbuilding and partnerships with different companies specializing in naval design
architecture worldwide.

Not carrying out an adequate study and decision-making process can lead to the
construction or purchase of a ship that is not optimal for the circumstances or needs of the
country. A case was presented in 2017; the Colombian Navy bought the ARC “Caribe”, a
multipurpose hydrographic ship in China, for more than 13 million dollars. However, it was
more than two years since it arrived in the country, and it remained tied up in the dock of the
Naval Base in Cartagena due to technical problems. Navigation difficulties in the transit from
China to Cartagena forced the decision to leave it docked. The ship presented vibration
levels in one of its axis lines that transmits the force of the propeller engine towards the
propellers, allowing the movement of the ship. The repairs assured in the guarantee were
delayed due to visits from lawyers, technical experts, and control entities. After two years,
the repairs through the guarantee advanced, allowing the ship to carry out its first operation
in early 2021. With proper analysis and decision-making studies, the probability of an
erroneous decision is minimized, resulting in additional expenses or delays in operations,
which translates into costs.

3
Several studies have been carried out in Colombia regarding the decision-making process
used in the Navy for the acquisition or construction of ships. The company, Science and
Technology for the Development of Naval, Maritime, and Riverine Industry Corporation
COTECMAR (acronym in Spanish), is a progressive organization that works within scientific
and technological research, supporting the development of the Colombian maritime industry
from the advanced design and construction of custom naval platforms used for the repairing
and the maintenance of ships. The engineers, Araníbar and Callamanda (2008), make a
Requirements Analysis by applying analytic hierarchy process AHP to develop the
conceptual design of a Landing Craft Unit LCU type ship. In which “the AHP hierarchic
analysis methodology was used to qualify and classify the requests made by the Colombian
Navy (ARC), which will be the user of the ship. Through this way, it was possible to establish
the importance of each of the necessities, so the shipbuilder was able to include them
directly in the design procedure.”

This process was one of the first steps for designing the new vessels that COTECMAR built,
called Amphibious Landing Ship – BDA (acronym in Spanish). This vessel can develop
humanitarian aid operations on rivers and coasts, with a displacement of 685-tonnes, 49-
meter-long and a draft of 1.5 meters. These ships also support disaster relief operations and
logistical support for the Navy’s ground bases by transporting troops, containers, and
general cargo. However, these units do not possess the appropriate conditions to carry out
supply operations to larger units at sea, nor do they possess the conditions to carry out
logistical or humanitarian support if required to other countries, depending on the distances
involved.

Naval officers developed one of the most significant research done in decision-making for
the Colombian Navy. Tascón, Del Gordo, and Jiménez (2007) established the project
Methodology for Rational Decision Making in the Acquisition of National Navy Ships. An
update of the existing methodology for selecting vessels was carried out, particularly
concerning support for rational decision-making in analysing, selecting, and evaluating
alternatives applicable to the force planning and naval material acquisition processes. The
Navy has presented the acquisition of ship units; this involves searching for ships that meet
the performance requirements necessary to employ effective force in the country or abroad.
However, no methodology uses the current decision-making tools and allows selecting the
best technological alternatives, observed from three dimensions: effectiveness, costs, and
risks. This methodology was applied to select the Navy's new oceanic patrol vessel (OPV)
type sea patrol boats.

Gomez, Aranibar, Delgado (2013) presented the development of an alternative assessment

framework as a basis for the conceptual design of the strategic platform surface (PES,
acronym in Spanish) for the Colombian Navy. The objective was to build a framework for
evaluating effectiveness, cost, and risk, as a basis for the conceptual design of the PES,
which will replace the “Almirante Padilla” type frigates in the Navy. Additionally, this work
served to aid in making decisions of the naval high command during the PES acquisition
process.

4
Different works and projects have used multi-criteria decision analysis MCDA to optimize
ship designs at an international level. For example, Dr Alan Brown and Juan Salcedo (2003)
presented Multiple-Objective Optimization in Naval Ship Design. They searched for design
parameters and identified non-dominated design concepts based on life cycle cost and
mission effectiveness. More recently, researchers and academics have shown an increased
interest in methods for the best design of a ship, depending on its purpose. For example,
Xiaofei Cui and Ujjwal Bharadwaj (2017) submitted the paper multi-criteria decision analysis
for conceptual ship design in the International Maritime Association of the Mediterranean.
They proposed in their research a multi-criteria decision analysis framework to assess
different decision criteria, which mixes the evaluation of the cost analysis of the life cycle of
the units, the environmental impact that these can generate, and the risk assessment that
the design and construction of a ship may have.

Decision-making is carried out on a daily basis, where there are various options and criteria
to consider. It involves multi-criteria factors to evaluate. The book Handbook of Decision
Analysis by Parnell et al. (2013, p.3) defined decision analysis as “a philosophy and a social-
technical process to create value for decision-makers and stakeholders facing difficult
decisions involving multiple stakeholders, multiple (possibly conflicting) objectives, complex
alternatives, important uncertainties, and significant consequences”. The purpose of this
work is to describe the best practice to help decision-makers make the right decisions when
faced with difficult and essential choices. Since important organizations and many managers
are involved in complex decisions.

Military organizations use MCDA to evaluate the stakeholder value of alternatives and make
decisions. Some examples include the US Army’s use of MCDA to determine the military
value of their bases for possible relocations and closures of their headquarters through a
congressional decree in 2001. (Ewing et al., 2006). As previously mentioned, different
studies of MCDA techniques applied to decision making in the Colombian Navy has led to
better decisions in processes that mean millions of dollars and the optimization of units to
defend the country’s sovereignty.

1.3 Project Aim and Objectives

This project aims to establish the application and suitability of one of the MCDA
methodologies. This thesis will only analyse the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique
(SMART) to select the concept of a logistics vessel for the Colombian Navy, highlighting its
use to promote this alternative for decision-makers. Furthermore, this thesis makes the first
approach to selecting a logistics vessel with support capabilities by implementing a model
of optimisation applying the SMART methodology. The achievement of the following
objectives fulfils the aim of this research.

• Identify the alternatives that best meet the requirements of the Navy.

5
 • Determine the most relevant criteria to consider obtaining the best logistic vessel and
assign values for each criterion.
• Determine the weight of each criterion and calculate a weighted average of the
values assigned to each alternative.
• Perform a sensitivity analysis on the results obtained to identify the best logistics ship
for the Colombian Navy.

1.4 Methodology

To develop the thesis, once we have identified our decision-makers or experts, we will begin
by identifying and defining the objective, then identify the respective alternatives to acquire
the logistics ship. Our main idea is to break down the overall problem into smaller parts,
focusing on them separately. This allows our experts to understand better the problem rather
than trying to adopt an intuitive, holistic view that can suffer from cognitive biases. The
SMART application will be structured in a step-by-step application model, and a case will be
demonstrated to prove its suitability. In this project, SMART is used to select a logistics ship
concept that meets the institutional needs of Colombia. The attributes will be chosen with
an exhaustive review of the literature and opinion by experts or decision-makers. Then, a
survey will be carried out to obtain experts’ judgments for the values to measure the
performance on the selected attributes, relative importance and determine the weights of
each one. The process described by Wright & Goodwin (2004) will be followed; at the end,
we will make a provisional decision and perform sensitivity analysis to determine how robust
the decision was made in the data provided by the decision-maker.

This research focuses on combining qualitative and quantitative methods. Applying the
method to a ship selection is expected to improve and test the SMART method for decision-
making in selecting the most suitable logistics support vessel for the Colombian Navy. At
the end of this analysis, by applying this method, we must consider that if we do not identify
the best course of action, this does not mean that the analysis was not worthy. The
knowledge acquired may suggest other approaches to the problem or the analysis and
application of other methods.

1.5 Project Structure

This project is organised as follows. The first chapter introduces the need to acquire a
logistics vessel for the different support missions. Then, we focus on how to apply an MCDA
method for a decision analysis problem. The aim and objectives for our project and a brief
description of the methodology will be reviewed more thoroughly in chapter 3.

Chapter two is the literature review. This will seek to identify the process involved in decision
analysis, understanding the applications in different fields, both civilian and military
organisations. Next, the MCDA methodology will be explained, providing the advantages of

6
using these methods for decision making, ending with the description and benefits of the
SMART method to be applied for our problem.

Chapter three will describe the research methodology adopted for this thesis. The chapter
will explain the overall approach, including the procedure to gather our MCDA approach’s
data. The steps established using the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique method will
be described. The procedure for this project is divided into three phases, each with its
different steps.

Chapter four explains the results obtained and described how they were obtained. A cost
analysis is performed, and the results are shown in a graph where the efficient frontier is
performed. Finally, a sensitivity analysis is carried out to arrive at an answer based on the
results obtained.

Finally, chapter five interprets the results obtained in the application of the method for our
ship selection. The research question is answered, and the study is evaluated. Furthermore,
knowledge is explained, and a new understanding of the results found is presented. The
conclusion in our research and summarises our findings. It also discusses what future work
can be developed from the project and what recommendations are provided.

7
2 LITERATURE RESEARCH

2.1 Purpose

People are always subject to decision-making, even in simple decisions such as which
clothes to wear in the morning or which means of transport to use to reach their destination.
In other circumstances, the decisions are related to more critical, complex issues involving
risks and costs for important companies or organisations. Decision-making is critical
because it can lead people or organizations to success, failure, or financial loss. The
decision studied in this research involves high costs when selecting an optimal ship for the
standards sought by the Navy to fulfil the required mission, so a lot is at stake. This chapter
aims to review the literature related to decision analysis (DA), especially in multi-criteria
decision analysis MCDA listing some methods and explaining the SMART method to be
applied in our decision-making. Some examples and applications of these methods in actual
circumstances and problems of complex solutions will be presented, highlighting the
advantages of these approaches.

2.2 Decision Analysis

Before discussing the concept of Decision Analysis, it is best to understand the term
decision. Baron (2000) describes the decision as “the choice of actions to achieve the
objectives based on the beliefs of those actions and the ability to achieve goals”. The
Cambridge dictionary defines it as “a choice that you [sic] make about something after
thinking about several possibilities.” Before deciding, the decision-maker must have a broad
understanding and analysis of the problem’s context. It is critical to explore the background
and how the problem or decision arises; ignoring the environment can lead to wrong
decisions and inappropriate planning.

The meaning of decision analysis is defined at different levels. Dr Peter Muenning (2017,
p.11) explains it in his paper Decision Analytic Modeling “as a formalized approach to making
optimal choices under conditions of uncertainty” similarly, Borsuk (2008, p.311) mentions
that “[Decision analysis] is a normative method for selecting among actions that have
uncertain outcomes.” Both definitions are very similar, giving a standard definition of DA as
a method to make a better decision by analysing the overall context of the problem under
uncertainty.
There are certain aspects of DA that have remained similar since the earliest research and
definitions. As Keeney (1982, p.6) points out, decision analysis focuses primarily on all
problems under these aspects.
1. “A perceived need to accomplish some objectives,
2. Several alternatives, one of which must be selected,
3. The consequences associated with alternatives are different,
4. Uncertainty usually about the consequences of each alternative,

8
 5. The possible consequences are not all equally valued.”

Over the years, these assumptions have been maintained in the development of decision-
making. For this reason, different methods have been established to apply to problems
involving uncertainty between alternatives. The decision problem is divided into parts which
are separated, analysed, and integrated using the logic of decision analysis to suggest which
alternative should be chosen. The book Making Hard Decision by Clemen and Reilly (2013,
p.3) argues that “decision analysis allows us to break the problem down into smaller, more
easily understood pieces that can be analysed individually. Second, decision analysis
supplies analytical tools that lead to insights and a deeper understanding of the problem.”
This enables us through DA to help us make informed decisions and provide a sense of
confidence in our chosen actions.

When using DA, we must consider the uncertainties that our decision may have. The first
approach is to break down each uncertainty by listing the possible outcomes in addressing
the problem. Then, for each outcome, the consequence and probability of the event
materializing are determined. This may seem difficult in some situations; however, the
benefits include knowing which option gives us the best chance and generates the most
significant risks because these uncertainties impact the outcome. However, it is worth
mentioning that knowing the uncertainties does not lead to an immediate decision. Instead,
it can provide decision-makers with a complete understanding of the decision problem,
helping to determine which option best suits the interests pursued.

Therefore, a definition that covers some of the main features of DA is, as mentioned in the
book Decision Analysis for Management Judgment, “[Decision analysis] involves the
decomposition of a decision problem into a set of smaller (and, hopefully, easier to handle)
problems. After each smaller problem has been dealt with separately, decision analysis
provides a formal mechanism for integrating the results so that a course of action can be
provisionally selected. This has been referred to as the ‘divide and conquers orientation’ of
decision analysis”. (Wright & Goodwin, 2004, p.4). Such definitions have shown that through
DA, we can approach decision making on fundamental problems by breaking them down
into parts to analyse and solve them rather than approaching a decision from a more holistic
view.

All the advances and knowledge generated by carrying out a DA approach can bring other
benefits. One example is creative thinking which may result in new courses of action and
ideas being produced. The analysis can also provide guidance on what new information to
gather before a decision is made. As Keeney (1982) points out: Decision analysis is not
meant to solve a decision problem, nor is it meant to do so. The purpose is to create
knowledge that promotes creativity; the goal is to help decision-makers make better
decisions.

9
To conclude the definitions and a better understanding of DA, two different perspectives are
mentioned in the book Handbook of decision analysis by Parnell et al. (2013, p.4), “from
Socially, the purpose of decision analysis is to provide credible, understandable, and timely
insights to decision-makers and key stakeholders in organizations. Technically, decision
analysis is an operations research/management science discipline that uses probability,
value, and utility theory to analyze complex alternatives under significant uncertainty, to
provide value for stakeholders with multiple (and possibly conflicting) objectives”. These two
definitions summarise the importance of the analysis and benefits achieved by conducting
DA. The section below will describe the DA process in more detail, outlining the steps to be
followed during the process.

2.2.1 The Process of Decision Analysis

Decision analysis can be viewed as a process. For example, Clemen and Reilly (2013)
describe in their book Making Hard Decision as a six-phase process. This process is shown
in figure 1.

Figure 1. A decision analysis process flowchart. (Clemen & Reilly, 2013, p.9).

10
In this flowchart, the first step is identifying the decision situation and understanding the
objectives. Establishing the boundaries of our problem and identifying clearly what we are
seeking to achieve will provide us with a better understanding of the situation and the context
of our decision. Some relevant factors and variables are also identified in this phase, as well
as data collection. Evaluating and clarifying our objective will lead us to identify the
alternatives, thus moving on to step two. Clemen & Reilly (2013) argue that having a
methodological examination and analysis of the objectives can disclose alternatives that
were not considered initially. Therefore, understanding the objectives and examining these
help the decision-maker to identify or create alternatives.

The next step is to decompose and model the problem. Most books and research focus on
the development of these models. Once again, as we mentioned earlier, the problem is
divided into smaller parts to be more easily worked on separately in this stage.
This modelling phase is critical for DA, and decision-makers can use different methods and
models such as decision trees, influence diagrams and hierarchies to structure and
understand the relations between multiple objectives in the problem. These models can be
developed using computer systems and mathematical programs, having a significant impact
on decision-makers. Once the model has been applied, the best alternative is chosen based
on the results.

The following step is to apply the sensitivity analysis of our result obtained through the
model, where “what if” questions are answered. If the decision-maker applies any changes
to the aspects of the decision model, this shows the consequences of selecting an
alternative solution. It is worth mentioning that if any of these changes change the selected
logistic ship, then the decision is considered sensitive. Therefore, the decision-maker must
reconsider those aspects in which the decision is sensitive. This process allows returning to
any of the three phases to make the necessary adjustments. If an alternative is reached that
satisfies the decision-maker, the final phase implements or selects that alternative. This
decision process can also become repetitive, and the decision-maker can change his
perception of the problem and objectives during the development of the model. However,
returning to some stages can be costly or have negative consequences.

During the process, changes may also occur due to opinions within an organization,
insufficient information received by the decision-maker or influences shifting the perspective
of the problem. That is why clarity of objectives and problems is crucial. The decision-maker
can determine an inappropriate alternative over other options by misunderstanding the
problem, generating additional costs. A situation may also arise where the decision-maker
must pay to obtain information required for the process, which is not available for the
organization generating further costs. A careful decision-maker can work through the
process shown in Figure 1 several times as the analysis is refined. Some applications in
different fields using DA are presented to provide a better understanding of its use and how
it has helped corporations and military institutions in their decision making.

11
2.2.2 Applications of Decision Analysis

Some approaches to DA are organisational, human behavioural, operational research and

decision making. (Kabli, 2009, p.27) The first approach is based on the performance of the
decision-maker. Some motivational forces are generated by some purposes and may cause
a person to decide on a particular preference over another. The organisational approach
examines how the environment in which the individual performs the task influences the
decisions made by the organisation. Winston (2004, p.1) defines Operation Research (OR)
as “a simple scientific approach to decision making, that seeks to best design and operate
a system, usually under conditions requiring the allocation of scarce resources.”
Alternatively, OR is the discipline that uses rational approaches and solution methods for
decision problems. Decision analysis is used extensively in business organizations and
governmental decision-making. Some of the large companies that have used DA
methodologies are General Motors, Chevron, Eli Lilly, Du Pont, ICI Americas, Phillips
Petroleum Company, and different governments in social programmes and issues related
to military equipment, facilities, and personnel. (Clemen & Reilly, 2013; Wright & Goodwin,
2004; Salo, Keisler & Morton, 2011).

Over the years, authors or researchers have applied DA in many situations where the best
decision for organisational or personal interests predominates; however, many of these
works depend on their ideas and opinions. DA has also been applied in critical
circumstances where there is danger, and human lives are affected. For example, the author
Simon French (1996) published the paper multi-attribute decision support in the event of a
nuclear accident, considering the incidents presented at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Since
he was present in such matters during the International Chernobyl Project during 1990-1991,
as part of the coherent decision support decision-making on countermeasures. This project
helped support decision-making from the moment a threat of an accident is detected, which
would require effective countermeasures favouring the public health of a population.

In 2003 the United Kingdom government established a committee on radioactive waste

management to develop recommendations that would protect the public and the
environment regarding the policy on radioactive waste management. The committee
reached some recommendations and analysis thanks to DA methodologies and the use of
Multi-criteria Decision Analysis. These are exposed in the paper Nuclear Risk Management
on Stage: A Decision Analysis Perspective on the UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste
Management (2009) by Morton et al. Another crucial area that has not been mentioned is in
the field of medicine and pharmaceutical companies. DA has helped doctors diagnose to
understand the risks of different treatments, including other aspects of medicine such as
medicines and medical procedures. Other medical applications are prioritisation of patients
during surgery, prioritising diseases, and decision-making on licensing treatments. (Hansen
& Devlin 2019).

In the military field, Buede & Bresnick (1992) described the application of decision analysis
to the military systems acquisition process. They used the decision analysis to establish the

12
requirements for the U.S. Marine Corps protected mobile weapons system during the
selection phase. This study made it possible to analyse the mix of air defences for the army
during the validation section. In the book Portfolio Decision Analysis, chapter 14, Lessons
from Military Applications by Roger Chapman Burk and Gregory Parnell (2011), researchers
analyse 24 decision analyses in military applications, from projects, weapons systems,
bases, and facilities. Different methods were presented, compared, and explained; general
results were given for all models and provided recommendations. They identified some
critical DA modelling decisions and described the alternative techniques for these modelling
decisions found in the literature review. The best practices have been identified, and a
portfolio decision analysis procedure that incorporates these practices was proposed.

Different DA techniques exist and are used; one in the military field was the application of
the SMART method in some part of the process of a most cost-effective mix of low-altitude
air defence weapons for the US Army air defences. Buede & Bresnick (1992). “Decision
analysis was used to help a group, consisting of both technical experts and senior officers,
to rank alternative weapon mixes. The process enabled a large number of criteria to be
identified (e.g., flexibility at night, refuel capability, capability of defeating enemy fixed-wing
aircraft) and allowed options to be explicitly evaluated by taking into account all of these
criteria.” Wright, G., & Goodwin, P. (2004, p.8). Decision analysis can help with different
types of problems, as mentioned in some of the many cases where it was applied. Let us
now consider a methodology to address problems with less or no uncertainty about possible
course outcomes.

2.3 Multiple-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA)

The first significant definition of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) was given in 1976
by Ralph Keeney and Howard Raiffa in their book Decisions with Multiple Objectives:
Preferences and Value Trade-offs, which is still widely used today. They drew on decision
theory, which is associated with decision trees and uncertainty models. It describes many
of the complex problems faced by decision-makers which involve multiple conflicting
objectives and the decision to achieve the critically important trade-off. In the following years,
the number of publications on MCDA in different commercial, industrial, and governmental
sectors increased.

A text definition can be presented as; “MCDA is the set of tools and methods providing the
mathematical methodology that incorporates the value of decision-makers and stakeholders
as well as technical information to select the best solution for problems and to make a more
logical and scientifically defensible decision to be made.” (Linkov & Moberg, 2012, p.3). This
methodology helps decision-makers to address the problem more straightforwardly by
breaking down the process into steps. It also provides tools for preferences to be developed
coherently. These are not assumed at the outset, but the methodology’s approach allows
individuals and organisations to achieve preferences reasonably and coherently within the
framework of the problem. Once coherent preferences are stated, decisions can be made
with greater cogency and confidence.

13
Belton & Stewart (2002) described some aims and descriptions on MCDA in the book
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. These methods help decision-
makers organise, synthesise, and understand the information so that they feel comfortable
and confident with making a decision, and trying to minimise that post-decision feeling of
remorse by ensuring that all factors and criteria have been considered in the decision-
making process. There is no correct answer to our problem, even with the use of models.
MCDA is used to aid decision making in a process that seeks to integrate objective
measurement with value judgement. It facilitates decision makers’ understanding of the
problem by learning and understanding the problem faced in a personal or organisational
decision. Values and objectives should be explored in context to help identify a possible
course of action.

The methodology aims to analyse the preference and performance of different alternatives
clearly and concisely. A few basic steps are described below that help to understand better
the methodology and how it is separated for analysis. (Linkov & Moberg, 2012, p.4).

1. “Problem Identification: The problem is defined in terms of relevant stakeholders and

overall structure but is not yet described quantitatively.
2. Problem Structuring: The problem is fleshed out by defining alternatives and criteria.
Alternatives—the potential management options—are defined.
3. Model Assessment and Building: The alternatives and criteria are given numeric values.
The alternatives are scored against the criteria. This gives us the information on how well
each alternative performs on each criterion and how much we care about performance on
each criterion.
4. Model Application: The inputs—the criteria weights and alternative scoring— are used in
an MCDA model to decide the best alternative according to the data given.
5. Planning and Extension: Once the model has been run, the output can be used to make
decisions or inform further planning.”

As mentioned, the purpose of the method is to serve as an aid to thinking and decision-
making. It provides different techniques to disaggregate a difficult problem, assign values to
objectives and restructure the pieces of the problem. A definition which summarises what
has been discussed is described as “MCDA is a way of looking at complex problems that
are characterised by any mixture of monetary and non-monetary objectives, of breaking the
problem into more manageable pieces to allow data and judgements to be brought to bear
on the pieces, and then of reassembling the pieces to present a coherent overall picture to
decision-makers.” Great Britain. Department for Communities and Local Government.
(2009).

Numerous MCDA models can be used to identify a single most suitable alternative or rank
alternatives, enumerate a few alternatives for further detailed assessment or distinguish

14
acceptable and unacceptable possibilities. Some of the most commonly used are the
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT), Technique for
Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), Simple Multi-Attribute Rating
Technique (SMART) and Outranking. However, comparing the strengths or weaknesses of
these methods and determine which method is the most appropriate for the current decision
situation has been relatively limited. (Park, 2014). This research aims to establish a decision
model to assess the acquisition of a logistic ship for the Colombian Navy between specific
alternatives. Therefore, the decision-maker should question which MCDA method to use to
integrate the most favourable results towards their problem and not just use the most popular
method.

2.3.1 Application of MCDA

The years that followed the publication of Keeney and Raiffa’s book showed an increase in
MCDA applications in the public and the private sector. One example that made headlines
was analysing alternative sites for nuclear waste disposal in the United States. Five different
potential locations were analysed using MCDA, which resulted in an overall classification of
the facilities. (Merkhofer & Keeney, 1997; Great Britain. Department for Communities and
Local Government, 2009). In healthcare, Mühlbacher & Kaczynski (2016) mention some of
the applications of the MCDA methodology to improve healthcare and in the advancement
of technology in medicine. They also identify some areas where MCDA can support complex
decision situations in medical care.

In the Navy, a case study was developed in the UK Royal Navy Type 45 Destroyer deciding
which combination of capabilities for a new ship type was affordable while meeting the terms
of delivery within a prioritised portfolio of systems. Resource allocation can also be applied
to systems engineering to achieve an efficient procurement process. This process was
carried out in a series of meetings that identified all the key stakeholders, and a prioritisation
model based on MCDA achieved three main objectives. First, it determined the best
combination that would be affordable for the government, i.e., decided the best solution.
Second, to ensure that the first ship of this class would be ready and delivered by 2006 and
align all key actors to minimise delays in reviews and administrative processes. Third, a
capacity-cost trade-off model was used to determine the affordable capability (Phillips,
2011).

Perhaps the most suitable persons to evaluate this type of method are those involved in the
process and are responsible for obtaining a solution. This was stated by Rear Admiral Philip
Greenish, Director of Operational Requirements Royal Navy, from 1997 to 2000.

“We were faced with a very urgent need to define an affordable capability for the Type 45
destroyer when the UK withdrew from the Horizon Project. We were unlikely to have
sufficient funding to provide the full Horizon capability – at least in the first of class – and we

15
did not have time for traditional approaches to trading cost and capability. With some limited
experience in the use of decision conferencing and multi-criteria decision analysis, we
embarked on what could best be termed a voyage of exploration and discovery. The result
was extraordinary: consensus was achieved across all aspects of capability with a rapidity
that was scarcely believable for such a complex scenario and with such difficult constraints.
Furthermore, the decisions made [were] then sustained. It was widely agreed by all
participants that there had been a thorough, comprehensive and open debate which had
been supported by an appropriate methodology that everyone had bought in to.” (Phillips,
2011, p.73).

Another application of MCDA methodologies in the Navy was selecting a hospital ship to
assist in the covid 19 pandemic in Brazil. Costa et al. (2020). The study makes a valuable
contribution to society and academia. It represents the application of a multi-criteria decision
support method to solve a real problem that affects millions of lives in Brazil and around the
world. This method helped to identify the best alternative that met the requirements of the
floating hospital. MCDA methods are a robust approach that allows and combines the
decision-maker’s preferences with the performance of each alternative to arrive at the
desired outcome. In the field of ship selection, Xie, Xinlian. et al. (2008) conducted a study
on ship selection using a multi-criteria decision analysis approach under uncertainty where
attributes were analysed qualitatively and quantitatively, using three steps. This project will
explore the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) model for the optimal
selection of the logistics vessel.

2.4 Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique (SMART)

As mentioned in this project, these methodologies intend to simplify the problem into smaller
parts by working on each one separately. As a result, the decision-maker will have a much
more comprehensive understanding of the problem rather than seeing it as a whole. The
SMART method was introduced by Edwards (1971) (1977), which is widely used and
employs the principles of multi-attribute utility theory MAUT more straightforwardly. (Oslon
1996). Over the years, some weaknesses were found in the method and corrections were
introduced. These allowed the development of the SMARTS and SMARTER methods.
(Edwards and Barron, 1994).

One of the advantages of this method is the simplicity of the questions and answers, which
influences the decision-maker on the process used in solving problems. Furthermore, it is
independent of the alternatives, “Since the ratings of alternatives are not relative, changing
the number of alternatives considered will not in itself change the decision scores of the
original alternatives.” (Valiris et al., 2005, p.163). This feature is particularly suitable when
new alternatives are added to the existing comparison. Another significant advantage of
SMART “… it is simple to use, and it actually allows for any type of weight assignment
techniques (i.e., relative, absolute, etc.). It requires less effort by decision-makers than
MAUT. It also handles data well under each criterion.” (Velasquez and Hester, 2013, p.61).

16
The SMART method is based on a “…linear additive model, this means that an overall value
of a given alternative is calculated as the total sum of the performance score (value) of each
criterion (attribute) multiplied with the weight of that criterion.” (Barfod & Leleur, 2014, p.
24). Their simplicity of use is of great help when a considerable amount of information is
available, and access to decision-makers is relatively straightforward. Some of the most
common uses of SMART are in the fields of construction, environment, transport, assembly
problems, military, manufacturing, and logistics. (Velasquez and Hester, 2013; Bhatt, Patel,
& Vashi, 2017).

The main steps of the method are listed below. These were extracted from Oslon (1996)
and Goodwin & Wright (2004, p.30). During the methodology development, each step
applied to our problem will be explained in more detail.

“Stage 1: Identify the decision-maker (or decision-makers).

Stage 2: Identify the alternative courses of action.
Stage 3: Identify the attributes which are relevant to the decision problem.
Stage 4: For each attribute, assign values to measure the performance of the alternatives
on that attribute.
Stage 5: Determine a weight for each attribute.
Stage 6: For each alternative, take a weighted average of the values assigned to that
alternative.
Stage 7: Make a provisional decision.
Stage 8: Perform sensitivity analysis to reach the final decision.”

As mentioned, this method, over the years, went through some iterations and is found in
different forms; however, the different stages mentioned are still the SMART process’s main
backbone available in the literature and research.

One of the main processes of the model is the assignment of values and weights. As a
highlight in the procedure, the following quotation summarises the author’s argument, “In
SMART, ratings of alternatives assigned directly. In a view to keeping the weighting of the
criteria and the rating of the alternatives needs to be separate as possible, the different
scales of criteria need to convert into a standard internal scale. The process in this technique
is done mathematically by the decision-maker using a Value Function. The simplest and
most widely used form of a value function method is the additive model, which in the easiest
cases can be applied using a linear scale (e.g., going from 0 to 100)”. (Bhatt, Patel, & Vashi,
2017, p.3).

17
This method has been applied to several studies and research; one of the most recent
applications was in 2018, in which the Indonesian government applied the SMART Method
in the vendor selection for Satellite Systems. (Sadly et al. 2018). This study is one of the
steps in an ongoing research project, showing excellent results in organising and addressing
a large and complex problem. In this selection of a satellite provider, the system involves
multiple stakeholders with multiple decision-making criteria. In the end, the criteria and cost-
benefit results were analysed using the method, and this allowed the problem to be broken
down into a more simplified set of analyses, thus directly influencing stakeholders’
understanding of the problem to find a solution.

Furthermore, as mentioned before, the SMART method was also applied in the military field
to select low-altitude air defence weapons for the US Army air defences. Buede & Bresnick
(1992). Considering the advantages of this method and its use in different decision making
in a wide range of disciplines, we apply this methodology for selecting the logistic vessel,
considering each of the parameters and requirements by the Navy.

2.5 Summary

Throughout this chapter, we look at the key definitions of Decision Analysis, the steps, and
applications for this process in various scenarios. We analyse the implementation of
Decision Analysis in major corporations and its uses and applications in the military field,
highlighting the importance of this decision-making process. Starting from the broad scope,
we delve into the more specific method of multi-criteria decision analysis. The specific use
of this method has allowed significant developments in the governmental field and its
application to divide a complicated problem into smaller sections that are easier to analyse
to allow for a better decision-making process. There are a great variety of methods within
MCDA; in this literature, only some of the most important and used were mentioned.
However, their applications were not explained nor cited. For this project, we only explain
and analyse the SMART method, which will be the one we will apply to our decision-making
process.

The SMART method is described, and some of the advantages of applying this tool are
presented. Unfortunately, no definite articles indicate which method should be applied
among the great variety that currently exists. However, the research illustrates each
method’s advantages and disadvantages and their most used and appropriate application
area. (Velasquez & Hester, 2013; Kabli, 2009). Among the application areas cited, it has
been used mainly for different decision-making scenarios in the military field. The
advantages presented by this method are that it is relatively simple to use, allows any weight
allocation technique to be applied, and require less effort from the decision-makers.

The MCDA methodology is now frequently used, resulting in significant savings for
companies, including cost-benefits analysis. In addition, it has enabled simpler and more

18
detailed analysis by decision-makers for their organisations. In the future, we will continue
to see these methodologies being applied and evolving over the years as many methods
are being studied and researched. By allowing us to use the SMART method as our process
for decision-making on the procurement for the logistics ship for the Navy, we will analyse
the alternatives and attributes to consider in our problem, arriving at a more accurate
decision. Other methods could be applied, which could be an opportunity for future
researchers to further analyse this challenge with a different approach.

19
3 METHODOLOGY

3.1 Chapter Introduction

This chapter describes the method used in this thesis to achieve the objective: selecting an
optimal logistic vessel for the Navy. The strategic programmes directorate provided data on
the alternatives evaluated by the Navy to find the most optimal logistical vessel that meets
the capabilities requirements. The ship is required to satisfy the lack of units with logistical
support, surveillance, and control capabilities on the high seas. The vessel will be a platform
for maritime patrol and logistic support operations, with personnel, water, fuel, and general
cargo carrying capabilities. In addition, it will have a reduced manning concept and low
operating and sustainment costs, comparable to the replacing units.

The objective of this methodology is to assist the decision-makers to obtain a clearer

understanding of the problem in logistics vessel selection, taking into account considerations
not only of the financial attributes (i.e., cost of acquisition, operation, and maintenance) of
the vessels as well as other non-financial (subjective) issues (e.g., operational capabilities,
sustainment of operations, support capabilities) that add value to the vessel. The following
section will provide an exhaustive explanation of the different steps and stages of the
methodology using the SMART method.

3.2 Logistic Ship Selection Methodology

The methodology used to analyse the selection of the logistics vessel was based on the
SMART method. This technique has been used on several occasions within the MCDA
methodology due to the simplicity of the responses by the decision-maker and the form in
which the responses are analysed. This process is based on eight steps (Goodwin & Wright
2004; Olson 1996). For the current project, a modification in the order of the steps was
made to help the decision-maker and experts evaluate the problem more simply and
dynamically, considering the extent of attributes involved. The process was divided into
three stages: preparation, evaluation, and selection. The main steps of the method are
described in the figure below.

The preparatory stage is to identify the decision-maker and the alternatives, considering the
objective to be achieved. Then the most relevant and essential attributes are identified,
which each ship alternative will be evaluated against. The following steps are in the
evaluation stage, where it assigns weights to each attribute following the ranking and
measures each alternative’s performance on each attribute. If the decision-maker is fulfilled
with the values and scores given to the weights allocated to the attributes, then move on to
the selection stage.

20
 Figure 2. Flowchart of Decision-Making Methodology for Ship Selection.

During the selection stage, the decision-maker agrees on the constraints and seeks to
satisfy the objectives based on the decision made. In the last step, sensitivity analysis is
applied to reach a final decision on vessel selection. The methodology used for decision
making uses techniques and methods known for their applicability and simplicity in this
environment. A complete narrative of the method is given below for our decision problem.

21
3.2.1 Preparatory Stage

At this stage, the objective is to select the appropriate decision-maker(s) to develop and
apply the method. As mentioned in The Royal Navy’s Type 45 Story: A Case Study by
Lawrence Phillips (2011), aligning all key stakeholders to minimise delays in the review and
administrative processes is a critical element of this process. Information and data collection
is also essential at this stage. It is necessary to be precise concerning the objective, the
limitations, and the critical characteristics in the decision problem context. The steps in the
preparation stage are:

3.2.1.1 Step 1: Identify the Decision Maker(s)

The first step in this decision-making process is identifying the right decision-maker to select
a logistic vessel for the Navy. For the development of this thesis, our decision-maker was
identified in the office for Strategic Programmes Directorate, which reports to the Chief of
Naval Planning. This division oversees the Operational Requirement Document process to
develop a new class of offshore patrol vessels to replace the units that have reached the
end of their life cycle. Additionally, the division is responsible for researching, presenting,
and identifying in the Navy’s capability planning all aspects related to the operational context
where the tactical challenge is to be addressed, the capability area and the mission area to
be impacted by this new ship. Therefore, the decision-maker has the aptitudes and
knowledge required to understand the objectives of the Navy in search of a logistics vessel.
Furthermore, for assessing the attributes within the fundamental objectives (FO’s), experts’
opinion was considered to provide a value of swing and scores to the attributes within the
FOs, as explained in step four.

3.2.1.2 Step 2: Identify the alternatives

The second step is to pinpoint the possible alternatives from which the decision is to be
made. In this process, it is important to know our objective, what we are seeking to achieve,
considering priorities and needs. In this process, the results of possible actions were
identified through a data collection process.

The Naval Development Plan 2042 (2020) includes, within the Naval Construction and
Optimisation Plan (PROCYON), the need to replace the ARC “Valle del Cauca” and ARC
“San Andrés” vessels at the end of their life cycle with ships that add greater value to the
general operation of the fleet, that contribute to standardisation or high commonality
between naval platforms and facilitate the logistical support process. In the operational need
document, a problem analysis of the threat components was established to determine
behaviours and courses of action concerning natural events, unarmed human actions, and
armed human actions to identify the project’s weaknesses, threats, strengths, and
opportunities. According to the end of the life cycle of the units, there is a need to acquire

22
capabilities more appropriate to the operational requirement and thus fulfil maritime security,
surveillance, control, and logistic support functions.

Therefore, it is necessary to identify the surface platform with the appropriate capabilities,
describing the technical and operational characteristics that will positively impact the
required missions established by the Colombian Navy. Based on the information obtained,
the principal missions to be fulfilled by the new vessels are:

✓ Carry out patrolling, surveillance, and control operations to island areas.

✓ Carry out support operations and logistical support to island areas.
✓ Carry out maritime control to guarantee security in maritime jurisdictional areas.
✓ Carry out patrolling and interdiction to deny using the sea as a mobility corridor to
develop illicit activities supporting drug trafficking and terrorism.
✓ Carry out activities to help guarantee safety in navigation and the protection of
human life at sea.
✓ Carry out humanitarian aid operations in support of regional civil authorities in the
event of natural or human-made disasters.
✓ Participate in multinational forces in peacekeeping and humanitarian aid operations.

The Navy requires the vessel to have specific minimum functional capacities according to
institutional needs. For instance, there is a maximum depth of draught to enter the channel
and berth the vessel in the archipelago of San Andres and Providencia. The unit must meet
this requirement since if this is not the case, the vessel will lose one of the main requirements
for which it is considered. Likewise, the Navy requires the vessel to comply with specific
minimum characteristics such as a water capacity of not less than 85 cubic metres or a
range greater than 1500 nautical miles to carry out patrols at economical speed in the
isolated, insular zones under the Navy’s jurisdiction. The table of required functional
capacities containing characteristics, requirements and descriptions is presented below.

Characteristics Requirement Description

Autonomy 30 – 35 It must have the ability to maintain sustained
(days) operations with minimum fuel consumption,
guaranteeing its presence in the area.
Nautical miles >1500 It must have the capability to move into the
Range area and conduct patrols at economical speed
in the isolated island areas under the Navy’s
jurisdiction.

23
 It must be able to dock at the docks available
in the island areas, based on the most
restrictive parameters identified below:
Zone Channel Dock Dock sizes
Minimum (Minimum approx.
depth depth
Restrictions approx. approx.)
SAI 5.1 meters Departmental Dock area:
7.1 meters 420 mts

Coast guard 122 meters

station: 3.8 - 4
meters

Providence Current: 1,4 - 2 mts Total: 96 mts

2.7 - 3 mts Docking
area: 65 mts
1st phase: 4,5 meters Total: 96
4.5 mts meters
Docking
area: 80 mts
2nd phase: 6,5 meters Total: 96
6.5 mts meters
Docking
area: 80 mts
* Currently, Providencia is carrying out
dredging works of the channel and dock
planned in two phases, increasing the depth
and berthing capacity for ships of greater
draught and length.
Transportation of It must transport food and material required for
food the relays of the Archipelago of San Andrés
and Malpelo.
Transportation of 20 minimum It must have the fixed capacity for transport
additional and accommodation of personnel for
personnel maintenance of the Bases, maritime
signalling, relays San Andres archipelagos,
and Malpelo post.
Water capacity Threshold 85 m³ It must have the capacity to transport and
(22,454 gallons) generate additional water to supply the keys
Target 150 m³ and Malpelo.
(39,625.8 gallons)
Fuel capacity It must have the capacity to transport and
transfer fuel at sea from organic boats and
coastguard interceptor units. If it has them, it
must have the capacity to supply fuel for naval
units and unmanned aerial vehicles.
Flight deck Optional Take-off and landing operations for the Navy
aerial platform for emergency evacuations,
surveillance, and sovereignty operations.
Aircraft fuel capacities.
Flight deck for (01) light helicopter (up to 5
tons) and one (01) vertical take-off UAV.

24
 Cargo handling Manoeuvring facilities with own boats,
coastguard rapid reaction units, mission
modules and cargo movement
Semi-rigid boat The ship must have a semi-rigid boat to
embark on and disembark personnel and
material in the island areas. This boat must
have an independent lifting and lowering
mechanism.
Interdiction Boat The ship must deploy at least (01) boat for
maritime interdiction, two desirables.
Cargo Capacity Storage warehouses for various products and
spaces for transport ammunition and cargo for
logistical support to isolated island areas and
humanitarian assistance.
Armament The ship shall have a weapon system
integrating at least one main armament
assembly and its respective director of fire to
contribute to the self-protection of the unit,
neutralisation of surface threats and
asymmetric threats.
Medical treatment Complexity level II The ship must contemplate the medical
capabilities spaces for the care, observation and
safeguarding of the life of the crew and the
personnel on board, guaranteeing to have one
(01) separate room for the examination and
treatment of patients; and one (01) separate
room for the recovery of the sick and/or
injured.
Table 1. Required functional capabilities. (Strategic Project Directorate 2020).

The required vessels will allow for more efficient operations due to the capabilities
specifically designed to meet the predominant needs in island areas, generating greater
security, defence, and logistical support. Furthermore, this design guarantees the
optimisation of resources in their operation and maintenance. The manning capacity of the
current vessels are 53 and 73 persons; according to the capacity projection, a reduced crew
is expected, the final number depends on the vessel’s final capabilities, including helicopter
support capability. The vessel alternatives analysed are presented below.

3.2.1.2.1 Alternative A: KERSHIP B2M (Bâtiment Multi-Mission)

KERSHIP is a French company founded in 2013 by PIRIOU and NAVAL GROUP. The
former has more than 50 years of experience in shipbuilding, and the second is one of the
world’s leading companies in the naval defence market. This alternative is a sea-proven
vessel capable of carrying out a wide range of missions with continuous navigation
qualification. The vessel is equipped with two rigid hull inflatable boats (RHIB) for rapid

25
reaction, plus a landing craft unit to deliver cargo ashore. It can also accommodate special
diver teams, carry weapons and ammunition in secure compartments, operational stores,
and a crane for loading or unloading material. As stated by the Naval Today (2019), “B2M
ships are constructed to carry out overseas missions of sovereignty, law enforcement and
logistic support missions. The 65-meter units displace 2,300 tons and are crewed by 20
sailors. They are capable of operating for up to 30 days before returning to port and achieve
some 200 operational days a year.”

Figure 3. KERSHIP B2M (Kership, 2021).

3.2.1.2.2 Alternative B: FASSMER MPV 70 MKII

Fassmer is a company based in Bern / Germany which specialises in shipbuilding of boats

and davits, various deck equipment, composite technology, and after-sales services. The
MPV70 MKII is a vessel capable of combining surveillance and control with the C4I
configuration in combination with its two aft-launched interceptor boats; it also has a large
flight deck capable of carrying up to 11 tonnes. In addition, the vessel provides patrol and
deterrence capabilities, has significant logistic capabilities, provides a space for several
containers, liquid cargo and is designed with Replenishment at Sea (RAS) transfer systems
to support other vessels. The ship’s armament is a 76 mm Leonardo super rapid automatic
gun and two remotely operated small-calibre guns. (Fassmer, 2019).

26
Fassmer’s naval vessels focus on the combination of support and patrol functions, providing
fleet-wide asset optimisation and enhanced capabilities for disaster relief and humanitarian
aid. A wide range of unique vessels has been developed by Fassmer to meet these varying
requirements, each of which demonstrates outstanding performance at sea.

In December 2019, the Ecuadorian Navy signed a contract with the German shipbuilding
company Fassmer for a Fassmer MPV70 Mk in the South American region. II multipurpose
surveillance vessel. The Astinave EP shipyard will carry out the construction with the
assistance of the German firm, including the supply of parts. This indicates that a similar
project can be carried out in Colombia using the COTECMAR shipyard.

Figure 4. FASSMER MPV 70 MKII (Fassmer, 2019).

3.2.1.2.3 Alternative C: DAMEN Logistic Support Vessel (LSV) 6513

Damen is a Dutch shipyard founded in 1927, with more than 30 shipyards and companies
worldwide. The company is engaged in shipbuilding as well as maintenance and repair
activities. They have extensive experience in constructing warships and civil vessels, from
frigates and corvettes to seagoing tugboats. One of the ship’s primary functions is to provide
humanitarian assistance during natural disasters. It also serves as a command-and-control
centre for amphibious operations, including transporting equipment required for these
operations. It has two deck cranes to facilitate these tasks, one supporting 25 tonnes and
the other 7 tons with a crane height of 14 metres. The vessel also includes a six-metre RHIB

27
speedboat with an outboard engine, holds ammunition, supplies, fluids and has various
repair workshops on board. (Tos, 2012).

A fact to consider for this alternative is that in 2018 the Royal Netherlands Navy contracted
the COTECMAR shipyard to routine maintenance of its logistic support vessel HNLMS
Pelikaan, the same class as the one referred to in this alternative. The repairs included steel
replacement, applying a paint scheme, and verifying the propulsion and steering system.
This process was carried out after a bidding process. As a result, the Colombian shipyard
presented the best offer in project duration, prices, and the respective certifications for its
development. (Saumeth, 2018). Therefore, this allows having precise maintenance and
costs to carry out on board this ship if selected and maintenance experience in this class of
vessels.

Figure 5. Logistic Support Vessel (LSV) 6513 (Bustraan, 2014).

28
3.2.1.2.4 Alternative D: BCC 6012 (Cargo and cabotage vessel) – COTECMAR

As the last alternative within the options, we have the BCC 6012. This vessel is of Colombian
design and construction by the COTECMAR shipyard. It is capable of carrying out
humanitarian aid operations in maritime and coastal areas. It is a multifunctional platform
adapted to different tasks such as logistical support, humanitarian support, disaster relief
operations and transport of troops, containers, and general cargo. The vessel is designed
for 29 crew members and can accommodate an additional 25 persons in transit, including
four hospitalised. It is designed to carry 590 tonnes of cargo on deck, plus 200 cubic metres
of water and 190 cubic metres of fuel. This design is more affordable to modifications
according to the Navy’s requirements for the type of logistic vessel required.

Disaster Control
Centre (Coordination
Communications)

360° bridge

Container
cargo

Space for health

care
Crane 20 tons @10 metres
Liquid cargo and
warehouses

Figure 6. BCC 6012 (Commercial information provided by COTECMAR shipyard)

Once the four alternatives have been defined, the decision will be made between the
exposed vessels. The next step is defining the attributes that allow us to evaluate each
alternative within this set of criteria.

29
3.2.1.3 Step 3: Identify the Attributes that Alternatives will be Evaluated Against

This step is to recognize the attributes which the decision-maker thinks are relevant and
essential to their problem. It is worth mentioning that an attribute is used to measure the
performance of the course of action concerning the decision-makers objective. (Goodwin &
Wright, 2004). This leads to determine that it is necessary to identify the attributes of the
alternatives to be evaluated on a numerical scale. Decision-making attributes can be very
general, breaking them down into more specific before any measurement can be made. A
hierarchy tree can be used to identify the different levels of attributes in the decision-making
problem. (Saaty, 2000). First, to start building the tree, it is necessary to identify the functions
or mission and the fundamental objectives of the decision-maker.

To determine all the necessary attributes in the hierarchical tree, the value-focused thinking
(VFT) process was considered, contemplating the nine benefits Keeney (2009) mentioned.
However, an essential aspect of VFT is that it can capture the intended course of action of
the decision-maker; it can also evaluate alternatives, contemplating its fundamental principle
of what you want, and figure out how to get it. (Keeney, 2009). This method serves to
uncover hidden or unidentified objectives and leads to the collection of more critical
information—the significant benefit from value-focused thinking is to generate better
alternatives and improved attributes for any decision making. (Keeney, 1994). Several
military applications are using value-focused thinking with multi-objective decision analysis.
(Keefer et al., 2004). Parnell (2007) summarise analysing military decisions applications for
the two types of decision with VFT. The single decisions, where the best alternative is
selected from a pool of potential alternatives and portfolio-decision applications, where the
best group of decisions is selected.

Our first step is to determine the decision-makers objective. This should be a clear and
concise statement of the reason to identify the objectives that define value. The data was
collected from strategic documents, naval doctrine manuals, interviews with decision-
makers and commanders. Finally, value measures are identified by research and interview
with subject matter experts. As Ralph Keeney (2008, p.7) described in his paper called
Applying Value Focused Thinking, “[VFT] often results in a better set of objectives for
evaluating the alternatives, as generating objectives is an explicit focus of value-focused
thinking.”

Our decision-making’s fundamental objective is to acquire the most efficient logistic vessel
that suits the requirements and operational needs of the Navy within a fixed cost range. In
addition, to maximise the ship’s effectiveness in performing its assigned functions while
maintaining a reduced cost. Therefore, considering a low-cost vessel, according to the
market exploration, the directorate of strategic programmes office establishes a rough order
of magnitude (ROM) cost for acquiring the vessel of approximately 40 to 50 million USD.

30
In order to achieve the fundamental objectives proposed, there is means objective; these
are “…objectives whose achievement influences the degree to which the fundamental
objectives are achieved.” (Keeney, 2008, p. 9). Three means objectives were identified to
fulfil the fundamental objective of cost. These are acquisition cost, operational cost, and
maintenance cost. Acquisition cost refers to the vessel’s purchase price in global terms. For
the operating cost, these are multidimensional costs, and they can be summarised in fuel
and crew; The propulsion consumption system configuration and logistical support to sustain
the crew at sea were reviewed for assessment. Finally, the maintenance cost is defined as
the vessel’s fixed recurring costs for major repairs. To determine this factor, the
displacement of the vessels is analysed since the more significant displacement, the greater
the size. Therefore, a more considerable percentage change in the steel plates. Hence,
more work in the auxiliary systems is also reflected in a higher cost per day in a shipyard.
(Serrano, 2013).

In addition to the costs mentioned above, these can be developed at a higher level of detail
to verify other aspects such as supply chain, standardisation issues, and in-country
representation, among other factors. Within the maintenance cost, there is a subjective
factor tied to each country’s maintenance culture. For instance, the maintenance culture of
the US Navy, which has much more resources, is not the same as that of the Colombian
Navy, which requires more care of its equipment to prolong its useful life as there are fewer
financial resources available. Costs will be reviewed later in step seven.

When assessing effectiveness, it is essential to recognize the purpose of the vessel.

Therefore, the capability planning methodology guide is used to conceptually identify the
vessel’s capabilities, considering the operational context where the tactical challenge is to
be met and its operational environment—at the same time, considering the required
functional capabilities that the vessel must have. Thus, it was decided that two fundamental
objectives were recognized, ship operations capabilities and support capabilities. These two
objectives bring together the whole series of attributes and requirements that the unit must
contain to perform according to the needs of the Navy. These objectives must then be
broken down to a level at which they can be assessed, one method of achieving this is to
use the top-down approach. For each objective to be achieved, a series of variables are
required that must be identified and analysed to determine the final performance.

The operational capabilities were divided into four fundamental objectives, which can be
compared and summarised as essential characteristics for a logistics vessel’s proper
operational capability. These objectives are ‘movement and manoeuvring’, ‘Survivability’
(Physical protection of human and material resources), ‘Sustainability’ and ‘Offensive
Capabilities’. On the other hand, support capacity objectives can be divided into ‘Supply
logistic services’ and ‘Provide transport’, two significant features in a logistic vessel. The
next lower level of attributes shall be referred to as the decision elements of the problem.

31
It is necessary to identify a measure that allows us to evaluate the proposed fundamental
objectives. For this reason, we refer to this measure as an attribute. “An attribute is a scale
used to indicate the degree to which an associated objective is met.” (Keeney, 2008, p. 9).
As Keeney & Gregory (2005) mention, this measure is essential to clarify the meaning of
each objective, allowing us to measure the different consequences of several alternatives.
There are three attributes used to assess objective achievement: natural, constructed, and
proxy attributes. The natural attributes directly indicate the amount of accomplishment on a
scale explicitly commonly used. For example, these attributes can be measured or counted
in money, days, hours, speed. The proxy attribute differs from the natural attribute in that it
does not directly indicate the fulfilment of target achievement but indirectly relates to the
achievement of that objective. The last attribute is applied when there is no natural or proxy
scale for an objective, and as the name suggests, a scale is constructed to measure the
attribute.

For the fundamental objective of ‘movement and manoeuvre’, four attributes were identified:
‘Naval mobility’, where the essential characteristics of the unit such as length, breadth,
draught, displacement are considered. These characteristics are important since, in Table
1, required functional capabilities, specific criteria were stipulated for consideration. As
mentioned, the port entry in the islands of San Andres and Providencia is limited by
dredging. As well, these vessels should also be “small” with easy manoeuvrability and
control. Another important attribute is to possess a boat for maritime interdictions and is
stipulated in the navy's requirements, while the carrying and reception of helicopters are
optional. However, it is undoubtedly an added value that the alternative would gain in
different roles such as patrolling, amphibious operations, transport of supplies, logistical
support to ships with the transport of (personnel, spare parts of other relatively light items)
to ships or islands over long distances in less time as well as medical evacuation among
other uses. The bow thruster attribute affects the manoeuvrability of the ship in docking and
departure manoeuvres of the unit. This is not a primary requirement by the Navy; however,
it does endorse the fundamental objective of ‘movement and manoeuvre’.

On the fundamental objective ‘survivability’, three attributes were defined. ‘Damage control
and safety of life at sea’ meet survivability attributes in maritime safety and damage control
exercise. Every vessel must have a minimum of damage control equipment to deal with fire
and flooding emergencies to keep the vessel operational or allow a safe return to port.
Another essential part of a ship's survivability is its navigation sensors and radars, and
armament for self-defence in case of attack by another unit. Although these ships are
logistical, this attribute will be analysed as it is considered essential to a ship's survivability
in the event of an attack. Finally, ‘manned stations’ is a measure of the capability of each
alternative, where the ship's crew, from the effects of an impact or emergency on board
(whatever its origin), can adopt emergency and damage control measures that will prevent
loss or damage to the ship, minimising the effect of the impact on people and restoring or
maintaining the ship's vital systems. This requires personnel to man the emergency stations,
which means the smaller the number of personnel, the more vulnerable the ship is to an
emergency, depending on its size.

32
‘Sustainability’ is measured by the ‘maximum speed’ and ‘range’ that the alternatives have.
These two attributes are significant in measuring this fundamental objective. Emergency
natural disasters require reaching the site in the minimum possible time, humanitarian aid in
remote locations, and troop relief and supply of the seven keys in the Caribbean Sea.
Sustainability in the area of operations is essential to maintain ships and islands with
supplies. ‘Offensive capabilities’ is measured by the ability to provide naval close fire support
and the small armament available to the unit to defend or attack other units. This capability
is a requirement of the Navy.

On the other branch of the tree are the fundamental objectives Supply logistic services’ and
‘Provide transport’. The first is measured by five main attributes that enable the fulfilment of
the main objective, i.e., water and fuel storage capacity, two vital assets essential to any
naval operation and shore-based replenishment. The attribute capacity to provide medical
care for patients onboard and in humanitarian aid missions by providing medical spaces for
the treatment, observation, and safeguarding of the lives of the crew and personnel on
board. For loading and unloading of material, at least one crane is necessary to facilitate the
task—the attribute cargo handling supports the fundamental objective and, finally, the
capacity for replenishment at sea. Being capable of supplying fuel to other vessels at sea is
significant in the logistical support provided to the different units of the navy.

Three attributes are identified in the fundamental objective of providing transport: 'additional
personnel transport', 'cargo transport', and 'naval towing capacity'. In humanitarian tasks,
the transport of personnel and material is of paramount importance. This could be witnessed
after the passage of hurricane 'Iota', Category 5, over the Archipelago of San Andrés,
Providencia, and Santa Catalina, on 20 November 2020. The Colombian navy encountered
difficulties in the rapid transport of material and personnel to the disaster zone due to the
lack of specialised units to deal with these events. For this purpose, it is vital to transport
tons of humanitarian aid and life-support equipment to people in remote areas or areas
affected by natural disasters. For the last attribute, the towing of smaller units provides extra
capacity to the alternatives in emergencies or the capacity of towing small coastguard units
for fuel-saving issues. The following hierarchical tree is presented below, with all the
fundamental objectives and attributes explained above.

33
Figure 7. Hierarchical Tree Optimal Logistic Ship Selection.

34
Once completed the hierarchical tree, there are five criteria by Keeney and Raiffa (1993)
that allow us to judge whether the tree is accurate and useful. First, completeness means
that all attributes that are of interest to decision-makers are included. The second criterion
is operationality, which determines whether all decision elements in the hierarchy tree are
specific enough to evaluate and compare the alternatives. The third criterion,
decomposability, requires that an attribute’s performance on an alternative can be judged
independently of its performance on other attributes. The following criterion is the absence
of redundancy. It manifests that if two attributes are duplicated, it may be redundant,
meaning double counting in the score and changing the intended result. Finally, we have
the minimum size, where attributes should only be split or decomposed to the level where
they can be assessed; a considerable tree may mean that analysis becomes challenging or
impossible to perform. It is not always easy to meet all the criteria in some cases, and in
some situations, their applicability may be relative. (Goodwin & Wright, 2004). These criteria
were applied in the development of the hierarchical tree. Therefore, several versions were
reviewed, and each attribute was studied in detail to fulfil the fundamental objectives.

3.2.2 Evaluation Stage

The subsequent steps below represent the evaluation stage. This phase is crucial as it
determines the values assigned to each attribute mentioned above in the hierarchical tree
and the weight for each attribute decision. Each attribute was first ranked and weighted
within each fundamental objective in this project, compared to the SMART method, where
attributes are first assigned values and then ranked and assigned weights. Furthermore, the
attributes are given a value according to the characteristics of the alternatives. As shown in
Figure two, if a decision is not reached further from this stage in the process, it is necessary
to return to this phase to re-analyse the steps and carry out a different evaluation.

3.2.2.1 Step 4: Determine a weight for each decision attribute

For this step, each fundamental objective of the effectiveness branch was broken down
independently to be assessed by an expert. Each expert was carefully selected according
to their knowledge and their contribution to each FOs. The specific requirements in acquiring
this new logistic vessel were explained at the beginning of the survey to have a more
transparent overview of the requirements and specifications the Navy is working towards
with this new acquisition.

First, in the following table, the main characteristics of the selected alternatives are
presented. The features are focused in accordance with the requirements and needs that
the navy is aiming for with the acquisition of this new vessel. The data was supplied and
obtained through the strategic programme office and commercial information found on the
shipbuilding companies’ websites and data supplied by the shipyards. This data served as
input for the values in the attributes.

35
 ALTERNATIVE/
KERSHIP B2M FASSMER MPV 70 MKII DAMEN LSV 6513 BCC 6012 COTECMAR
CHARACTERISTICS
Length 64.95 m 70 m 65.40 m 60 m
Beam 14 m 15.6 m 13.20 m 12.50 m
Maximum design
4.2 m 4.5 m 3m 2.70 m
draught
Displacement 2300 t 2400 t 1150 t 1360 t
2 × Caterpillar 3516 BTA diesel
engines, each consisting of:
02xCUMMINS 1SK50 1340kW A conventional diesel
Propulsion 04 MTU 1140kW One (01) diesel engine with a
at 1800rpm propulsion system is available.
power of 1491 bkW at 1,800
rpm.
2 Diesel GENSETS 272 kWe at 2 Caterpillar generators C 18-
Main generation
1800rpm ta, 548 kva 60 Hz
Maximum speed 14 knots 13 knots 15 knots 12 knots
Economic speed 12 knots 10 knots 10 knots 10 knots
Fuel capacity 47551 gal / 180 m3 12548.17 gal / 48 m3 46230.1 gal / 175 m3 50192.68 gal / 190 m3
Additional fuel capacity Yes Yes No No
Drinking water capacity 39625.8 gal / 150 m3 49532.26 gal / 187 m3 23511.3 gal / 89 m3 52834,4 gal / 200 m3
Range (Nautical Miles) 5000 NM @ 12 knots 1800 NM @ 10 knots 2500 NM @ 10 knots 2500 NM @ 10 knots
Autonomy 30 Days 35 Days
28 Crew members (Long stay 29 Crew members (Additional
20 Crew (Additional
Crew 30 Crew 24 persons, short stay 39 25 persons in transit 04
Accommodation 40)
persons) hospitalised)
Navigation equipment; One
IPMS, 02 X-band radars with
(01) X-band Radar; One (01) S-
ARPA, 01 GYRO, 01 magnetic
band Radar; One (01) ECDIS,
compass, 02 GPS, 02 echo
interfaced to both radar
sounders, 01 trajectory data Astinave EP'S Orion combat In accordance with the navy's
systems; One (01) DGPS; One
Navigation and sensors recorder, 01 weather station, system, integrated mast with requirements for navigation
(01) magnetic compass; One
AIS, ECDIS, autopilot, fully digital radar. systems.
(01) gyrocompass; One (01)
navigation repeaters, BNWAS.
echo sounder; Global Maritime
alarm system, 01 NAVTEX, 02
Distress & Safety System;
VHF, 02 INMARSAT-C stations.
Automatic Identification System.

36
 Primary armament: 02 mounts
for 12.7mm or 7.62mm machine
01 Naval Gun LEONARDO
guns with 360 degrees of
76/62, 40mm double BOFOR
coverage. Option to have Two × 12.7 mm (0.5 in) 04 machine gun mounts for .50
Armament RAFEAL TYPHOON weapon
several pin mounts for more machine guns and 7.62 calibres
system. Different mounts for
M2HB, MAG58, AANF1 type
7.62 mm
armament. Special ammunition
locker.
Other Medical capability Medical capability Medical capability Medical attention (04 persons)

Cargo capacity of 6 TEU, 02

four-wheeled vehicles + 1 of
Cargo Capacity
10t, 01 special room for divers
and their equipment.
4 Land Rovers, four trucks, one
Space for Twenty-foot
water trailer, generator, forklift 590 tonnes, up to 24 TEU
Equivalent Unit TEU
and 2 TEU.

Bow Thruster 01 of 500kw 01 of 1000kw No No

Hydraulic crane 12 t - 14m Yes 25t/11m and 7t/14m 20 t – 10 m
Flight Deck Yes Yes / 11 Tonnes No No
02 EHIB boats of 2.7 tonnes
each - 02 electro-hydraulic
DAVITS boats - 01 support boat
Two stern launched interceptor 6m fast RHIB with outboard Zodiac boat for personnel
Boats for vehicle loading up to 3t in
boats engine transport
sea three at a speed of 12
knots - capacity for special
forces boats
Replenishments at sea
No Yes No No
(RAS)
Naval Towing 30 Tonnes Yes Yes No
Specific Fuel
213,47 gal/h 338,38 gal/h 178,95 gal/h 124,02 gal/h
Consumption

Table 2. Alternative’s characteristics

37
Experts were asked to combine the different attributes' values to evaluate each vessel’s
effectiveness. This process is carried out by assigning weights to each of the attributes
according to their importance in the interests of the Navy. There are different methods for
assigning weights to attributes, ranking, rating, and pairwise comparison methods. To
determine which attribute weighting technique to use depends on how the decision-maker
is most comfortable and the scoring technique used in step 4. The swing weights from the
rating method are best for both conditions. A description of the method is mentioned by Kabli
(2009, p. 242).

“[Swing weights] are derived by asking the decision-maker to compare a change (or swing)
from the least preferred to the most-preferred value on one attribute to a similar change in
another attribute within the same group. The alternative approach involves arbitrarily
assigning a raw weight of 100 to the attribute were switching from the worst to the best
option on that attribute is most desirable. The desirability of making similar worst-to-best
switches on each of the other attributes is then assessed relative to this, yielding raw weights
on a scale with a maximum of 100. Finally, the weights are normalised to sum either 1 or
100.”

For the development of this step, a questionnaire was designed for each fundamental
objective. (Part I and II in Appendix A, B, C, D, E and F). The experts were asked and stated
the following scenario according to the fundamental objective they had to assess. The
scenario in Appendix A on the FO ‘movement & manoeuvre’ will be presented as an
example. Consider the lowest level attributes for each FOs in the value tree Figure 7. Think
of a hypothetical logistic vessel with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just
one of these attributes from Table 3 could be moved to its best level, which would the expert
choose? The same question remains until all attributes are ranked. Then, in part 2 of the
questionnaire, the expert is then asked to perform the value swing according to how the
expert thinks their value swing compares to the highest-ranked value swing. As Goodwin
and Wright mentioned; (2004, p. 41). “Swing weight is derived by asking the decision-maker
to compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. The results obtained in all the
questionnaires can be evidence in Appendix G.

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Naval Mobility Length=70 m, Draft 4,5
Length=60 m, Draft 2.7 m.
(Dimensions) m.
B Portage of Interdiction 01 Zodiac 01 Interceptor Boats
Boat and RHIB 02 RHIB (Rigid Hulled
Inflatable Boat)
C Portage of Aircraft No flight deck Flight decks up to 11 tonnes
Units (Medium-weight helicopters)
D Bow Thruster No Capability 01 Bow Thruster
Table 3. Least and most preferred levels from movement & manoeuvre attributes.

38
From table 3, the expert, according to the question, imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be
moved to its best level, which would you choose? According to his judgement and expertise,
the order he provided was. The first attribute was ‘naval mobility’, then portage of aircraft
units, followed by a ‘portage of interception boat and RHIB’ and finally ‘bow thruster
capability’. (Appendix G). The highest-ranked attribute is given a value swing of 100. The
other attributes are assigned relative value swings according to how the expert think their
value swing compares to the highest-ranked value swing.

In compliance with the above, in part II of the questionnaire, the expert is asked to consider
a value swing from the worst ‘portage of aircraft units’ to the best, shown in Table 3. In his
opinion, he stated the overall improvement this value swing contributes to the FO as a
percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred ‘naval mobility’.
The value swing given to this attribute was 65. Hence, the expert decides that a value swing
in ‘portage of aircraft units’ is 65% as important as the swing in ‘naval mobility’.

Similarly, for ‘portage of interception boat and RHIB’, the expert was asked to consider a
value swing from the worst ‘portage of interception boat and RHIB’ units to the best, shown
in Table 3, stating what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as a
percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred ‘naval mobility’ in
table 3. This exact procedure is repeated for the last lower-level attribute, yielding the
following results.

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 Naval Mobility 100
2 Portage of Aircraft Units 65
3 Portage of Interdiction Boat and RHIB 40
4 Bow Thruster 10
Table 4. Value Swings for Movement & Manoeuvre attributes

Different experts evaluated each questionnaire according to their knowledge and expertise
and weighed all six fundamental objectives identified in the effectiveness branch. The
answers for each fundamental objective can be evidenced in appendix G. For the next step,
the questions are supported in appendix A, B, C, D, E and F as part 3.

39
3.2.2.2 Step 5: Assign values for each attribute. Measure the performance of each
alternative on that attribute.

The following step is to determine how well the different alternatives perform on each of the
attributes in the hierarchy. In the meantime, we will leave the costs to be evaluated after the
analysis and trade-off cost against effectiveness. When measuring the attributes in our
hierarchical tree Figure 7, the variables representing these attributes should be identified.
For example, in the fundamental objective ‘movement & manoeuvring’, the mobility of the
vessel can be measured by the dimensions of the ship, which are given in metres. However,
other attributes, such as ‘damage control and safety of life at sea equipment’, is more
challenging to find a variable that can be quantified. For this reason, three alternative
approaches can be used to measure the performance of the alternative in each attribute.
These methods are direct rating (attributes which easily quantifiable variables cannot
represent), value function (attributes which easily quantified variables can represent), and
performance scales (constructing scales for the attributes, indicating how strong, moderate,
or weak the performance of the alternative is). (Goodwin & Wright 2004; Kabli, 2009).

3.2.2.2.1 Direct Rating

Attributes that an easily quantified variable cannot represent were considered here. The
answers given in the questionnaire Appendix A will explain when this method was used. In
part 3 of the questionnaire, an expert is asked to rank the vessels in terms of the ‘portage of
interdiction boat and RHIB’ from the most preferred to the least preferred. As there is no
easily measurable quantifiable variable, the expert considered each alternative's
characteristics according to the attribute. Among these, the characteristics and facilities of
each interceptor boat and RHIB boat were evaluated in Table 5, considering the benefits
this type of craft provides to fulfil the required mission.

Alternative A B C D
02 RHIB boats of 2.7 tonnes
each - 02 electro-hydraulic
Two sterns 6m fast Zodiac boat
DAVITS boats - 01 support
launched RHIB with for
Interdiction boats boat for vehicle loading up
interceptor outboard personnel
to 3t in sea three at a speed
boats engine transport
of 12 knots - capacity for
special forces boats
Rank
Table 5. Interdiction boat and RHIB characteristics for the alternatives.

When analysing Table 5 and considering the specifications provided by the boats, the expert
ranked the alternative as follows.

40
 Rank Alternatives
1 (A) KERSHIP B2M
2 (C) DAMEN LSV 6513
3 (B) FASSMER MPV 70 MKII
4 (D) BCC 6012 COTECMAR
Table 6. Ranked alternatives in terms of the portage of interdiction boat.

The expert preference was to give first place to the B2M vessel, considering the versatility
and number of support and interdiction boats that this vessel possesses. Hence, alternative
with rank number one, the best ship with a ‘portage of interdiction boat and RHIB’, is now
given a value of 100, as it has the maximum value as shown in table global-scale value
scores for attributes in appendix A and alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least
portage of interdiction boat and RHIB, is given a value of 0.
Subsequently, the expert is required to value the other alternatives so that the space
between the values he gives to the alternatives represents his strength of preference for one
vessel over another in terms of the portage of interdiction boat and RHIB. The answers to
these questions are depicted in the figure below.

Figure 8. Value scale for portage of interdiction boat and RHIB.

41
Once the values for this attribute on the alternatives have been established, it must be
verified to see if it consistently represents the expert's preferences. This was achieved by
asking whether he agrees that improving this attribute between LSV 6513 and B2M is
approximately as preferable as improving the attribute between BCC 6012 and MVP 70.
Similarly, the expert is asked whether he agrees that the improvement in the attribute
between BCC 6012 and MPV 70 is less preferable than between LSV 6513 and B2M? Based
on the answers to these questions, the assigned values may be re-evaluated. Goodwin and
Wright (2004) suggest that if it is difficult to make such judgements, it is recommended to
review the hierarchy tree to see if this attribute can be broken down into more measurable
attributes.

This procedure is continued to obtain the values for the other attributes found in direct rating.
The values assigned by the expert for the attributes ‘naval mobility’, ‘portage of aircraft units’
and ‘bow thruster’ are shown in appendix G.

3.2.2.2.2 Value Functions

For this process, we consider attributes that easily quantifiable variables can represent. An
example from Appendix E is the questions for attribute weighting in Supply Logistic Services,
as the attribute ‘water-carrying capacity’ is represented in gallons or cubic metres and is,
therefore, an easily quantifiable variable. Accordingly, the following analysis was carried out.
An increase in water carrying capacity from 89 to 150 cubic metres may be more beneficial
and attractive to the expert as a significant increase in water carrying capacity is obtained.
However, the increase in capacity from 160 cubic metres to 200 cubic metres may be
marginal and make it much less attractive. The primary objective of logistical support is to
ensure the provisioning of resources required for the sustainability of the military forces in
the development of operations and support to civilian populations in states of emergency or
need. Therefore, it is necessary to achieve a significant amount of support with the available
resources. Therefore, we convert the carrying capacity from cubic metres to values, as
shown below.

However, increasing this capacity from 160 cubic meters is no longer valuable. The same
water supply capacities in isolated regions can be supplied with a specific limit of water
already established, suggesting that the higher capacity does not have the same desired
value. Therefore, examining the alternatives, the vessel BCC 6012 has the maximum water
carrying capacity of 52834.4 gal / 200 m3, providing this setting with a value of 100. In a
more mathematical form of notation, we say that v (200) =100. The minimum water capacity
accepted by the navy is 85 cubic meters. Therefore, we assign a value of 0 to this measure,
i.e., v (85) =0. It is then required to find the value of the water capacity of the other
alternatives that fall between the two values mentioned. The expert sought to identify the
water carrying capacity, whose value is halfway between the least preferred capacity (85
m3) and the most preferred area (200 m3).

42
Several methods are used to obtain a value function; one of the most implemented is
bisection. (Goodwin & Wright 2004). This method requires the expert to identify the
alternatives’ water carrying capacity, whose value is between the least preferred capacity
(85 m3) and the most preferred area (200 m3). The expert indicates that the midpoint
carrying capacity is 125 cubic metres. This implies that an increase in water carrying
capacity from 85 cubic metres to 125 cubic metres is as attractive as an increase from 125
to 200 cubic metres. Hence, v (125) =50.

Once the midpoint value is known, the expert was asked to identify the quarter points. First,
he identified the value between the least preferred values, 85 to 125 cubic metres. Then, he
decided that the value is 100 cubic meters, therefore v (100) =25. Next, he was asked to
identify the carrying capacity halfway between the average capacity of 125 and the
maximum capacity of 200 cubic metres. Finally, he decides that the value is 160 cubic
meters, which means v (160) =75. Hence, these results lead to obtaining five water
capacities with these values, which allows plotting the graph as a function of the water
carrying capacity against the value. With this graph, the values of the load-carrying
capacities of the other alternatives were estimated. For this case, the B2M vessel has a
capacity of 150 cubic metres; according to the graph, a value of 69 corresponds. Whereas
for the Fassmer vessel MVP 70, with a capacity of 187 cubic metres, a value of 92 applies.
Finally, the LSV 6513 with 89 cubic meters obtain a value of 10. The results were obtained
from the following graph.

100

90

80

70

60
Value

50

40

30

20

10

0
85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195
Water Capacity

Figure 9. Constructing a value function for water capacity.

43
This method was used for the attributes, ‘water capacity’, ‘fuel capacity’, ‘maximum speed’,
‘range’, ‘additional personnel’, and ‘cargo capacity’. The graphs plotted values against the
range of each attribute from the lowest to the highest desired value, based on the answers
given by the experts in the respective questionnaires is given in Appendix G.

3.2.2.2.3 Performance Scales

This method is used when experts are confronted with two types of data: attributes lacking
quantifiable variables and those attributes that quantifiable variables can easily represent.
One approach selects the highest point and calls it ‘strong’, the middle point ‘moderate’ and
the lowest point on the scale is called ‘weak’. This method helps with this type of problem
as it allows the construction of scales for the attributes. Another standard scale defines
points as ‘below expectation’, ‘meeting expectation’, and ‘exceeding expectation’ when an
existing standard is met on an objective. This scale allows us to identify how strong or weak
the performance of an alternative is in the mentioned attribute.

The expert rates each alternative individually on the scales for each attribute, indicating the
alternative’s performance on that attribute. One of the strengths of this method, as pointed
out by Kabli (2009, p. 106), “…is not only dealing with both subjective and objective data but
also the flexibility where each [alternative] can be assessed without the need to see the data
related to other [alternatives].” An additional advantage includes that at any stage of the
analysis, the decision-maker can change the scores of one alternative without needing to
modify the scores of the other alternatives.

Before moving on to the selection stage, it should be checked with the experts that the
weights and values assigned are correct to ensure that the values are not changed further
on in the process. If necessary, step four can be repeated, and the values assigned to the
attributes can be re-assigned.

3.2.3 Selection Stage

In this phase, the optimal alternative is selected based on the results obtained. However,
the decision-maker must take an additional step to assess the overall scenario considering
the six fundamental objectives and the costs. Once the vessels have been evaluated and
ranked, some analyses and procedures must be assessed before selecting the best
alternative. The steps of ship selection are described below.

44
3.2.3.1 Step 6: Calculate a weighted average of the values assigned to each alternative.

For the application of the SMART method to our decision making, it was first established to
assess the fundamental objectives individually by the experts, assigning a weighting and
subsequently a value to each attribute as shown in steps 4 and 5. Based on the results
obtained in the questionnaires, the best-ranked attribute of each fundamental objective was
chosen and presented to the decision-maker. As there are six FO’s, the decision-maker
assessed six attributes. With this modification to the original SMART model, it was first
possible for each expert to review and evaluate the chosen attributes within their area of
expertise, allowing a maximum of 5 attributes to be assessed. In the process, the decision-
maker would not have to evaluate all nineteen attributes, which would be a complex task to
make a fair decision. Then instead, he will focus on the essential attributes chosen by the
experts within each fundamental objective.

In Appendix H, questionnaire for final attribute weighting, it was stated to the decision-maker
that experts had considered several fundamental objectives in the field, each contributed to
by several attributes, and where each one was evaluated. The questionnaire addresses a
single attribute from each fundamental objective. As a decision-maker considering his
knowledge of the project and in light of the Navy's requirements for this decision-making
problem, he was asked a series of questions to compare the attributes from the following
table.

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Naval Mobility Length=70 m, Draft 4,5 Length=60 m, Draft 2.7 m.
(Dimensions) m.
Essential damage control Advanced damage control
equipment, watertight equipment, engine room
Damage Control and compartments, life rafts fire-fighting system,
B Safety of life at sea for the crew. watertight compartments
Equipment throughout the ship, life rafts
for crew and additional
personnel.
C Range 1800 NM @ 10 knots 5000 NM @ 12 knots
D Naval Close Fire It does not contain One main gun, 76 mm.
Support
E Fuel Capacity 48 m3 190 m3
F Cargo Capacity 300 Tonnes 590 Tonnes
Table 7. Least and most preferred levels for the best attributes selected.

The decision-maker was addressed with the following statement. He is deciding on a new
logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel with all these attributes
shown in Table 7 at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be moved
to its best level, which would he choose? The results obtained through these questions are

45
presented in appendix H and are explained in Chapter four. Once the results are obtained,
the total cost of each alternative was analysed considering the acquisition cost of each
alternative and the operating cost of each vessel. This procedure is explained in a cost
analysis further below. Finally, the cost versus the final effectiveness of each alternative was
compared according to the values assigned by experts and decision-makers. Through a
graph, it is possible to identify the best alternatives based on the efficient frontier.

46
4 RESULTS

The main objective of this project is the application of the MCDA methodology for the
selection of a logistics vessel for the Colombian Navy. The process consists of applying the
SMART method followed by a series of phases that have been explained. In this chapter,
the results obtained by the decision-maker is presented. Furthermore, the application and
explanation of steps 7 and 8 with a cost analysis are presented.

First, we will show a compilation of the results obtained by the experts. These results can
be seen in appendix G. The compiled results for all fundamental objectives are presented in
the following table.

Scores for alternatives

Value
ATTRIBUTE A B C D
Swing
Naval mobility 100 85 40 55 95
Portage of aircraft units 65 70 90 0 0
Portage of Interdiction boat 40 100 50 60 0
Bow Thruster 10 80 80 0 0
Damage Control and Safety of life at sea
100 55 70 50 60
Equipment
Manned stations 60 40 60 56 58
Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence
40 70 85 60 60
weapons
Range 100 75 6 12 12
Maximum Speed 80 50 40 57 32
Naval Close Fire Support 100 0 100 0 0
Small Arms 70 50 80 45 60
Fuel Capacity 100 92 10 90 95
Capability of Replenishment at Sea 80 0 100 0 0
Water Capacity 70 69 92 10 100
Medical Treatment Capabilities 50 80 60 60 70
Cargo Handling 20 40 20 90 60
Cargo Capacity 100 79 51 75 90
Additional Personnel 70 50 0 49 12
Naval Towing Capacity 30 40 30 30 0

Fundamental Objectives:

Movement & Offensive Supply Logistics Provide

Manoeuvre Survivability Sustainability Capabilities Services Transport
Table 8. Compiled results of the fundamental objectives.

47
Table 8 presents the results obtained in each of the attributes which the experts in each
fundamental objective assessed. The table shows the value swing and value given to each
alternative. Based on these results, and as explained in step 6. The best-ranked attribute of
each fundamental objective was chosen, hence presented to the decision-maker. Results
are shown as follows. Once the results were presented to the decision-maker and as
mentioned in the previous chapter, a questionnaire was carried out (Appendix H), giving the
following results.

4.1 Results obtained from the decision-maker

Based on his experience with the project and considering institutional requirements that the
Navy is targeting with this new unit, the decision-maker ranked the attributes shown in table
7 as follows:

ATTRIBUTE Rank
Cargo Capacity 1
Fuel Capacity 2
Range 3
Naval mobility 4
Damage Control and Safety of life at sea Equipment 5
Naval Close Fire Support 6
Table 9. Rank attributes from the decision-maker.

The analysis carried out by the decision-maker was based on institutional needs and
requirements. As the primary mission is a logistic ship, these attributes that support the
accomplishment of this task were ranked higher. In the last place was ranked the attribute
of naval close fire support, as this attribute is an extra feature and does not contribute any
assistance to the fulfilment of the mission of the logistics ship. The next step carried out with
the decision-maker was to assign value swing to each attribute. Hence, the ship’s overall
effectiveness improved by the value swing from the least preferred to the most preferred
level of the attribute ‘cargo capacity’ in Table 7 is given a value swing of 100. The overall
improvement brought about by changes in the other attributes are now assigned relative
value swings according to how the decision-maker thinks their value swing compares to the
highest-ranked value swing.

For this process, the decision-maker considered a value swing from the worst ‘fuel capacity’
to the best shown in Table 7. In his opinion, he stated what improvement this value swing
contributes to the ship’s overall effectiveness as a percentage of the improvement brought
about by the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred in ‘cargo capacity’ in
Table 7. The answer was to assign a swing value of 80 to this attribute. Similarly, the same

48
scenario was presented with the other attributes to assign the value swing to each one. The
response from the decision-maker was as follows:

ATTRIBUTE Value Swing

Cargo capacity 100
Fuel capacity 80
Range 50
Naval mobility 20
Damage control and safety of life at sea equipment 12
Naval close fire support 10
Table 10. Value swings assign by the decision-maker to the final attributes.

From obtaining these values, it can be determined the original weights for each attribute.
This was performed by multiplying the value swings assigned by experts with the value
swings assigned by the decision-maker according to each fundamental objective. E.g., for
the attribute in naval mobility, the value swing is given in Table 4 by the expert. This value
was multiplied by 0.2 as the decision-maker assigned a value swing of 20 to the naval
mobility attribute, which is part of the fundamental objective ‘movement & manoeuvre’.
Hence all weights assigned to this fundamental objective are multiplied by this value (0.2).
The range attribute was assigned a value swing by the decision-maker of 50; therefore, the
attributes assigned to the fundamental objective of sustainability are multiplied by 0.5. The
same operation was performed with the other attributes, whereby the highest value assigned
by the decision-maker was the ‘cargo capacity’ attribute with a swing value of 100, meaning
that all the attributes from the fundamental objective ‘provide transport’ were multiplied by
1, i.e., they maintained their original values assigned by the expert.

Given by Given by
experts decision-maker
Value Original Normalised
ATTRIBUTE Rank Value Swing
Swing Weights weights
Naval mobility 1 100 20 0,0317
Portage of Interdiction boat 3 40 8 0,0127
0,2
Portage of aircraft units 2 65 13 0,0206
Bow Thruster 4 10 2 0,0032
Damage Control and Safety of life
at sea Equipment 1 100 12 0,0190
Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and 0,12
Self-defence weapons 3 40 4,8 0,0076
Manned stations 2 60 7,2 0,0114
Maximum Speed 2 80 40 0,0635
0,5
Range 1 100 50 0,0794
Naval Close Fire Support 1 100 10 0,0159
0,1
Small Arms 2 70 7 0,0111

49
 Water Capacity 3 70 56 0,0889
Fuel Capacity 1 100 80 0,1270
Medical Treatment Capabilities 4 50 0,8 40 0,0635
Cargo Handling 5 20 16 0,0254
Capability of Replenishment at Sea 2 80 64 0,1016
Additional Personnel 2 70 70 0,1111
Cargo Capacity 1 100 1 100 0,1587
Naval Towing Capacity 3 35 30 0,0476
Fundamental Objectives:

Movement & Offensive Supply Logistics Provide

Manoeuvre Survivability Sustainability Capabilities Services Transport
Table 11. Normalized weights.

In Table 11, we observe each attribute divided by colour according to its fundamental
objective. The ranking and value given by the expert were analysed in accordance with each
attribute and the value swing given by the decision-maker. This leads to the fifth column with
the original weights, and in the last column, the normalised weights. To normalise the
weights, this process was achieved by adding all the original weights. This sum results in a
value of 630. The following step is to divide each original weight by the total sum of the
weights. For example, the ‘naval mobility’ attribute original weight 20 was divided by 630,
resulting in 0,0317, and the operations continue for each attribute in the table. The total sum
of the normalised weights is equal to one.

A brief analysis of the weights of each attribute in Table 11 highlights that the attribute with
the highest weighting is ‘cargo capacity’. Thus, it was the attribute with the best value swing
provided by the expert and, in turn, by the decision-maker. The attribute with the lowest
weight is ‘bow thruster’, since obtaining a value swing by the expert of 10, the lowest weight
assigned to all attributes and when multiplied by the value swing determined by the decision-
maker 0,2, resulted in an original weight of two and when normalised the value corresponds
to 0,0032. Moreover, it is also evident from the table that the weights to the fundamental
objectives of ‘supply logistics services’ and ‘provide transport’ are higher than the other FO’s.
Hence, this allows us to assume that the alternatives with a higher value assigned to these
attributes will obtain a higher efficiency value.

The weights for the fundamental objectives ‘movement & manoeuvre’, ‘survivability’,
‘sustainability’, ‘offensive capabilities’, ‘supply logistics services’ and ‘provide transport’ are
determined by adding the lower-level weights from the attributes. Hence the weight for
‘movement & manoeuvre’ is 0,0683 (i.e., 0,0317+0,0127+0,0206+0,0032), the weight for
‘survivability’ is 0,0381 (i.e., 0,0190 + 0,0076 + 0,0114). For ‘sustainability’, the weight is
0,1429, ‘offensive Capabilities’ is 0,0270, ‘supply logistics services’ is 0,4063 and ‘provide
transport’ is 0,3175.

50
 Fundamental Objective Weight
Movement & Manoeuvre 0,0683
Survivability 0,0381
Sustainability 0,1429
Offensive Capabilities 0,0270
Supply Logistics Services 0,4063
Provide Transport 0,3175
Table 12. Fundamental objective weight.

From Figure 7, the hierarchical tree, two objectives were framed, and the fundamental
objectives were derived. These are ‘operational capabilities’ and ‘support capacity’. The
weight assigned to each objective results from the sum of the fundamental objectives. Hence
for ‘operational capabilities’, the weight is the sum of ∑ (‘movement & manoeuvre’,
‘survivability’, ‘sustainability’, ‘offensive capabilities’), resulting in 0,2762, and for ‘support
capacity’ ∑ (‘supply logistics services’ and ‘provide transport’) is 0,7238. With these results,
it is possible to calculate the effectiveness of each alternative by combining the values
assigned to each attribute concerning the alternatives.

From the weights obtained for each fundamental objective, we analyse how the objective
related to the logistical capacity of the vessel, including the FO of supply logistic services,
has the most significant weight. This offers an idea that the navy is aiming for a ship with
more logistical than operational capabilities, especially considering the current shortfalls in
logistics vessels in the naval fleet. The offensive capabilities of the ships carry less weight,
evidencing that this characteristic of the vessels is of lesser importance to the decision-
maker and the interests of the navy. Considering the purpose for which a logistics ship is
required, it is not surprising to see these weights assigned.

The selected format for implementing the model was through excel. In the spreadsheet,
formulas of the SMART model were applied by adding the values obtained from the experts
and the decision-maker. This spreadsheet allows us to manipulate numerical data, which
will later be used for sensitive analysis. It also allows changes to the assigned weights and
values to immediately visualise the result for further decision making. In this step, once more,
the weights and values assigned to the attributes can be checked. If consensus is reached,
the next step is performed; otherwise, the assigned weights can be verified.

4.2 Step 7: Produce a list of ranked alternatives and make a provisional decision.

This step evaluates how “good” an alternative is compared to the others by applying the
SMART method we evaluated previously. The decision-maker is most likely to select the
alternative ranked with the highest effectiveness value as the provisional decision. Some
further analysis is mentioned in the following section. If the decision-maker with the

51
commander’s group does not agree with the result obtained, return to step 4 and develop
modifications on the alternatives values and weights.

With the above steps, we obtained a measure to assess how well an alternative performs
on each attribute and the weights to compare the values assigned to one attribute with the
others. This allows us to determine the performance of each alternative overall concerning
the attributes. This is achieved by summing the weighted value scores of an alternative to
measuring the overall benefits. The additive model is one of the most used (Goodwin &
Wright, 2004). This method requires summing the weighted value scores of an alternative
to obtain a measure of the effectiveness that this vessel offers.

The model calculations are shown in the table below, illustrating the results obtained for the
B2M alternative. Each value is multiplied by the weight assigned to that attribute. The
resulting product is summed for each attribute resulting in the total effectiveness of the
alternative.

ATTRIBUTE B2M Values Normalised weights Value x Weight

Naval mobility 85 0,0317 2,698
Portage of Interdiction boat 100 0,0127 1,270
Portage of aircraft units 70 0,0206 1,444
Bow Thruster 80 0,0032 0,254
Damage Control and Safety of life at
55 0,0190 1,048
sea Equipment
Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and
70 0,0076 0,533
Self-defence weapons
Manned stations 40 0,0114 0,457
Maximum Speed 50 0,0635 3,175
Range 75 0,0794 5,952
Naval Close Fire Support 0 0,0159 0,000
Small Arms 50 0,0111 0,556
Water Capacity 69 0,0889 6,133
Fuel Capacity 92 0,1270 11,683
Medical Treatment Capabilities 80 0,0635 5,079
Cargo Handling 40 0,0254 1,016
Capability of Replenishment at Sea 0 0,1016 0,000
Additional Personnel 50 0,1111 5,556
Cargo Capacity 79 0,1587 12,540
Naval Towing Capacity 40 0,0476 1,905
∑ 61,298
Table 13. Additive model for B2M.

52
In Table 13, we obtained an effectiveness of 61,298 for the B2M alternative. The model is
repeated with the other alternatives, and the following results are obtained, indicating the
value obtained for each fundamental objective and the total effectiveness for each
alternative.

Fundamental Objective B2M MPV 70 LSV 6513 BCC 6012

Movement & Manoeuvre 5,667 4,016 2,508 3,016
Survivability 2,038 2,667 2,050 2,263
Sustainability 9,127 3,016 4,571 2,984
Offensive Capabilities 0,556 2,476 0,500 0,667
Supply Logistics Services 23,911 23,924 18,413 26,921
Provide Transport 20,000 9,524 18,778 15,619

Operational Capabilities 17,387 12,175 9,629 8,930

Support Capacity 43,911 33,448 37,190 42,540

Effectiveness 61,298 45,622 46,819 51,469

Table 14. Total effectiveness for the alternatives.

Table 14 presents the values obtained for all alternatives. Here, alternative B2M has the
highest value of effectiveness and MPV 70 the lowest. According to the model, the
alternative BCC 6012 was five values above LSV 6513 and ten values below the best
alternative. However, the costs associated with the vessels have not been considered so
far; hence we will show this criterion within our decision making.

4.2.1 Cost analysis

The cost of the alternatives is subdivided into acquisition cost, operating cost, and
maintenance cost. As mentioned previously, other associated costs depend on marketing
and legalisation factors. However, these costs were not considered in the development of
this project as they are therefore dependent on certain governmental and external factors.
The total acquisition cost of the different alternatives is given in the following table: the
Navy’s planning office obtained this commercial information in prior negotiations and
quotations with the shipyards and companies involved. In Table 15, we observe the ROM
cost of each alternative. In this context, the difference between the lowest acquisition cost,
the BCC 6012 alternative, and the highest cost, the B2M alternative, is an increase of 320%.
This represents a considerable cost increase; therefore, the effectiveness obtained by each
alternative was analysed with the total cost of the vessels concerning the criteria by the
decision-maker. The cost between the alternative MPV 70 and LSV 6513 is quite similar.

53
 Type of Vessel Cost (ROM)
KERSHIP B2M 50 million USD
MPV 70 MKII FASSMER 42 million USD
DAMEN LSV 6513 42,9 million USD
BCC 6012 COTECMAR 15,4 million USD
Table 15. ROM cost of alternatives.

COST (ROM)
$60.000.000

$50.000.000
$50.000.000
$40.000.000
$42.000.000 $42.900.000

$30.000.000

$20.000.000

$10.000.000 $15.400.000

$-

KERSHIP B2M MPV 70 MKII FASSMER DAMEN LSV 6513 BCC 6012 COTECMAR

Figure 10. ROM cost of alternatives.

For maintenance costs, it requires planning and quotation by the company COTECMAR,
which carries out minor and major maintenance for the different units of the Navy. For the
development of this project, these costs will not be considered as this information is of a
reserved and confidential nature; hence it was not possible to obtain this data. However,
they are mentioned in the associated costs in the hierarchical tree as it is a feature to be
considered in this type of decision making, considering that ships generate elevated costs
in preventive maintenance and major repairs. The maintenance costs between the different
alternatives should not be very different since the alternatives are relatively similar in length,
breadth, and draught, representing very similar hull repair costs. The maintenance of the
main and auxiliary machinery equipment on board will depend on the manufacturer.

The operating costs were divided into fuel consumption gallons per hour at an economical
speed and the cost per crew day embarked for each alternative based on the number of
persons on board. In Table 16, the data of the two vessels to be replaced, the ARC “Valle
del Cauca” and “San Andres”, are listed for comparison with the new alternatives.

54
 Daily Consumption Total cost of
Crew
Type of vessel Economy Speed operation per
Average cost
gl / 24hr Cost TOE day
per day
ARC Valle del Cauca 1368 $ 3.146 77 $ 1.246 $ 4.392
ARC San Andres 768 $ 1.766 50 $ 846 $ 2.613
KERSHIP B2M 2383 $ 5.480 20 $ 330 $ 5.810
MPV 70 MKII FASSMER 4057 $ 9.329 30 $ 495 $ 9.824
DAMEN LSV 6513 2069 $ 4.759 28 $ 465 $ 5.224
BCC 6012 COTECMAR 1434 $ 3.298 29 $ 480 $ 3.778
Note: The fuel calculation was made with the value of $8.509 per gallon, data Caribbean Naval Force (2021).
Cost in dollars according to foreign exchange rate $3.700 Colombian Pesos (2021).
TOE: Table of Organisation and equipment (Personnel).

Table 16. Operation cost

Total Cost of Operation per Day

$12.000
$9.824
$10.000

$8.000
$5.810
$6.000 $5.224
$4.392
$3.778
$4.000 $2.613
$2.000

$0
ARC Valle ARC San KERSHIP MPV 70 MKII DAMEN LSV BCC 6012
del Cauca Andres B2M FASSMER 6513 COTECMAR

Figure 11. The total cost of operation per day.

In Table 16, within the alternatives to consider, the Fassmer MVP 70 vessel has the highest
fuel consumption per hour, representing a higher cost, whereas the BCC 6012 has the most
economical daily fuel consumption. The costs associated with personnel expenditure are
similar in the MPV 70, LSV 6513 and BCC 6012 alternatives as they handle very related
crews. The B2M vessel has the lowest cost for having only 20 crew on board. Furthermore,
the number of the crew would be considerably reduced from 50 to 30 in the worst-case
scenario, which means a reduction in 20 persons. Considering the vessels to be replaced,
they all have a high manning requirement on board.

The most economical total operating cost per day is the alternative BCC 6012 of
COTECMAR, followed by the LSV 6513 from DAMEN and B2M of KERSHIP. The most
expensive alternative in operating costs is the vessel MPV 70 from Fassmer with 9824
dollars per day in sailing conditions. The difference between operational cost from MPV 70
and BCC 6012 alternatives is $6046 per day; this is a high relative cost if it is considered
over several years. Although the new alternatives all have a fewer crew, the average fuel

55
consumption is higher than the units to be replaced, resulting in higher costs. Only the
COTECMAR alternative generates lower operating costs than the ARC “Valle del Cauca”
vessel by an average of $600 per day. Even so, it is not more economical than the
operational costs of the ARC “San Andres”, which maintains a reduced fuel consumption
compared to the other vessels.

Nevertheless, these operating costs reflect the result of one day’s operation. To reflect the
total cost of the alternatives (acquisition cost and the operating cost), a 30-year guideline
was stipulated according to the life expectancy expected for these vessels to identify any
budget increase contemplating an approximate life cycle of these vessels. The crew cost is
obtained by multiplying the cost per day by 10950 days (30 years). For the cost of fuel
consumption, according to information provided by the units to be replaced and obtaining
an estimate of navigation per year, it was determined that, on average, one of these vessels
navigates 240 days per year, excluding docking repairs and the ship is operational throw out
the entire year. This provides an overall cost of the alternatives as reflected below.

Estimated TOTAL COST

Estimated Crew Total Operation
Type of vessel Comsumption (Acquisition cost &
Cost Cost (Fuel+Crew)
Fuel Operational cost)
KERSHIP B2M $ 39.453.206 $ 3.613.334 $ 43.066.540 $ 93.066.540
MPV 70 MKII FASSMER $ 67.171.388 $ 5.419.998 $ 72.591.387 $ 114.591.387
DAMEN LSV 6513 $ 34.264.364 $ 5.089.832 $ 39.354.196 $ 82.254.196
BCC 6012 COTECMAR $ 23.745.518 $ 5.254.917 $ 29.000.435 $ 44.400.435
* Estimated costs over a 30 year time horizon.
** All costs are reflected in US dollars.

Table 17. Total cost per year and acquisition cost.

Table 17 indicates the costs in fuel consumption according to the average number of days
sailed per year and the annual cost of the crews. Note that these values are an
approximation and do not contemplate fuel price increases over the years and a fluctuation
in the representative market rate of the dollar. However, it allows insight into the cost of
operating the alternatives, as variations in prices would generally affect the cost of all
alternatives equally. Therefore, the most expensive cost of the alternatives is the MPV 70
vessel, followed by B2M. The alternative LSV 6513 was ranked third in terms of the most
expensive considering these costs. The most economical alternative is the BCC 6012
vessel, with a significant advantage of a lower total cost. From the results, it is also possible
to predict an increase in the total long-term cost of the MPV70 vessel. If only acquisition
costs are considered, this alternative is ranked in third place. However, when operational
costs are included in this projection over time, it becomes the most expensive alternative,
exceeding its predecessor by more than 20 million dollars and the BCC 6012 alternative by
more than 70 million.

56
This cost study allows the decision-maker to evidence operating costs over an extended
timeline, highlighting cost increases between alternatives. These are tools to facilitate and
assist in decision making where all factors must be considered in the decision-making
process. Alternative BCC 6012 remains an economical option with lower acquisition and
operational costs. A cost-benefit analysis was carried out, considering the effectiveness of
the alternatives. The cost reflected in the figure below is only the acquisition cost.

Effectiveness VS Cost
100

90

80

70

60 B2M ; 61,298

50 BCC 6012 ; 51,469 LSV 6513 ; 46,819

40 MPV 70; 45,622

30

20

10

0
$- $10.000.000 $20.000.000 $30.000.000 $40.000.000 $50.000.000 $60.000.000

Figure 12. Effectiveness VS Cost.

Figure 12 illustrates the results obtained by comparing effectiveness with costs—the Pareto
frontier connects the two best alternatives, B2M and BCC 6012. The SMART method
showed that vessel B2M is the best-ranked alternative with a total investment of 50 million
dollars. Decision-makers should consider this as a provisional decision. However, the BCC
6012 alternative, despite having lower effectiveness according to the weights and values
assigned by experts and decision-makers, is the most economical. According to the graph,
the other two alternatives are dominated. If we compare the alternatives BCC 6012 with LSV
6513 and MPV 70, the COTECMAR alternative is more effective at a lower cost, which is
why they are considered dominated by the BCC 6012 alternative.

The decision between the two alternatives on the efficient frontier will depend on the relative
weight of the decision-maker on cost and effectiveness. If the Navy requires a more
economical vessel in acquisition costs, the BCC 6012 would be the alternative. Alternatively,

57
if the Navy aims for a vessel that provides the best effectiveness in its assigned tasks as a
logistics vessel, the B2M alternative would be the more optimal choice regardless of cost.
The long-term operating costs are also worth analysing, demonstrating that the BCC 6012
alternative can be US$14 million more economical over 30 years period time than the B2M
vessel.

At this point, the decision-maker may have a clearer understanding of the decision problem.
Nonetheless, the next step applies further analysis and provides some visualisation tools to
arrive at a final decision.

4.3 Step 8: Apply sensitivity analysis and make a final decision concerning the
logistic ship.

The sensitivity analysis SA demonstrates how varying the different weightings of the
alternatives can affect the ranking of vessels. This method is meant to answer the question,
“What makes a difference in this decision?” (Clemen & Reilly 2013, p. 180). SA is nearly as
relevant in the analysis of the research as the results themselves. The weights assigned by
the experts and decision-maker in the previous steps demonstrate how they influenced the
rantings model, contributing to the final ranking. Therefore, this provides some uncertainty
about the judgements made by the survey respondents, influencing the level of confidence
generated in the weightings.

For this reason, it is appropriate to perform a SA. For the study, it is essential to determine
the robustness of the decision, provide an overall description of which criteria are the most
critical for the decision-making process, and identify possible alternative scenarios and
outcomes. (Chen & Kocaoglu, 2008). In summary, SA primarily provides the decision-maker
with a tool for choice to determine how the ranking of alternatives are affected by changes
in the preference criteria.

The top two fundamental objectives ranked with the highest weighting were analysed
(‘supply logistics services’ and ‘provide transport’). For this purpose, the experts who
assessed these FOs were contacted to request a new evaluation. In this new scenario, the
experts were asked to rate the four alternatives using direct rating, where 0 is every attribute
within the FO at its worst value, and 100 is every attribute in the FO at its best value. For
this purpose, the experts were presented with relevant aspects of each alternative within the
attributes. Hence, allowing them to rate such alternatives overall between the defined 0 and
100 anchor points. The results obtained by the two experts on each fundamental objective
are presented in the following table.

58
 Fundamental Objective B2M MVP 70 LSV 6513 BCC 6012
Supply Logistics Services 56,2 56,4 50,0 65,0
Provide Transport 56,3 27,0 51,3 34,0
New Evaluation
Supply Logistics Services 60 45 50 75
Provide Transport 70 30 40 55
Table 18. Direct rating to value FOs in each alternative.

In table 18, at the top of the table are the first values given by the experts; at the bottom are
the new values. An arrow can be spotted indicating whether the value increased,
maintained, or decreased according to the average assigned to the previous values provided
by the experts. Thus, this will allow additional sensitivity analysis on the scores for these two
top-ranked FOs. The next step is to vary the scores of each FO between the current scores
that we have before and the new ‘holistic’ scores using parameter k varying between 0 and
1. Such a parameter is effectively a weight; hence, it calculates any linear combination of
the two sets of scores. When k=0, the holistic scores for these FOs are determined, and
when k=1, is the original scores.

Fundamental Objective B2M MPV 70 LSV 6513 BCC 6012

Supply Logistics Services 23,911 23,924 18,413 26,921
Provide Transport 20,000 9,524 18,778 15,619
Supply Logistics Services 24,381 18,286 20,317 30,476
Provide Transport 22,222 9,524 12,698 17,460
Table 19. Current Scores and new holistic scores.

Table 19 indicates the current scores at the top of the table in orange-coloured, and the new
scores at the bottom of the table in green-coloured according to the values provided by the
experts in the second survey. These values were obtained by multiplying the values given
by the experts by the weight assigned to each FO. As an example, let the values associated
with the B2M alternative be considered. Thus, we assigned S1 as the current FO overall
score for ‘supply logistic services’ (23,911) and S2 as the newly elicited holistic score for
that same FO (24,381). A linear combination or weighted average of those two scores was
calculated by adding kS1 + (1-k) S2, where k is the weight placed on the original score. As
k varies from 0 to 1, the score on that FO will move from S2 to S1. At the same time, the
overall top-level effectiveness score for each alternative changed. Hence, it is determined
how sensitive the final ranking of alternatives is to the weights placed on the two alternative
ways of deriving scores for that FO. In the following table, we will present how the overall
effectiveness of the B2M alternative changes as the values in the two fundamental
objectives was modified.

59
 Original Change in Change in Change in
Fundamental Objective value SLS PT both Fos
Supply Logistics Services 23,911 24,381 23,911 24,381
Provide Transport 20,000 20,000 22,222 22,222
Movement & Manoeuvre 5,667
Survivability 2,038
Sustainability 9,127
Offensive Capabilities 0,556
Effectiveness 61,298 61,768 63,521 63,990
Table 20. Changes in the overall effectiveness of B2M

Table 20 shows in the second column the effectiveness value obtained in the original
assignment of values. In the third column, the values change is presented if the value of
supply logistic services is changed from one extreme to the other from values given by the
expert. I.e., passing the parameter K from 1 to 0. In the fourth column, the same applies for
providing transport and finally, a change in both values is presented in the last column. The
values for the other FOs (movement & manoeuvre, survivability, sustainability, and offensive
capabilities) remain the same as no change has been made to their values. As is apparent
in this case, the effectiveness of the alternative B2M happens to increase by 2.7 values
when both parameters change, which does not make much difference. The following table
presents the results obtained by carrying out the same procedure for all alternatives.

B2M MPV 70 LSV 6513 BCC 6012

Original Effectiveness 61,298 45,622 46,819 51,469
Effectiveness by altering value in supply
logistic services 61,768 39,984 48,724 55,025
Effectiveness by altering value in provide
transport 63,521 45,622 40,740 53,310
Effectiveness by altering both FOs values 63,990 39,984 42,645 56,866
Table 21. Effectiveness altering values

By altering both fundamental objectives by the new values given by the experts, an increase
in the effectiveness of two alternatives, B2M and BCC 6012, is apparent. While the
alternatives MPV 70 and LSV 6513 reduce their values of 5,63 and 4,75, respectively. The
most favoured alternative is the BCC 6012 vessel, increasing 5,39 from the total original
effectiveness. This latest result allowed the experts to evaluate the top two ranked
fundamental objectives holistically with different values, accentuating the results obtained in
the first instance. Some minor variations were presented in the total effectiveness of the
alternatives, maintaining as favourites on the Pareto frontier the B2M vessel and BCC 6012.
This new analysis allows determining that from the expert's point of view, the MPV 70 and
LSV 6513 alternatives have lower scores when evaluated for their logistical capabilities and
bearing in mind the navy's considerations in seeking a logistical vessel with strong logistical
capabilities, these alternatives are not among the options to be chosen. In the excel model,

60
the values of K can be altered between 0 and 1, which allows the variation of the different
values obtained for each fundamental objective. This is a fast and efficient tool to check the
effectiveness of the alternatives while changing the weights.

Another SA is to verify the weights attached to ‘operational capabilities’ (0,2762) and

‘support capacity’ (0,7238), analysing what happens if these weights change. For example,
if ‘support capacity’ is weighted 0, this would imply that the fundamental objectives of ‘supply
logistic services’ and ‘provide transport’ will also have 0 weights. Hence, the other four FOs
will now have a normalized weight of ‘movement & manoeuvre’ 0,2471, ‘survivability’ 0,1379,
‘sustainability’ 0,5172 and ‘offensive capabilities’ 0,0977. These weights are based on the
value swings assigned by the experts to each attribute within the FOs.

100

90

80
Value of effectiveness

70 60,67
62,95

60 58,77
51,38
50 44,1

40 34,86 46,2

30
32,33
20

10

0
0 Current weight (72,38) 100
Weight place on Support capacity

B2M MPV 70 LSV 6513 BCC 6012

Figure 13. Sensitivity analysis for weight placed on support capacity.

For example, this is reflected in the effectiveness of LSV 6513. This alternative will have an
effective value of 34,864, while at the other end, if ‘support capacity’ had a weight of 100
and therefore ‘operational capabilities’ a weight of zero, the effectiveness for the LSV 6513
would have been 51,381. The figure above shows the same procedure with all alternatives.
On the left side, we have a weight for ‘support capacity’ of 0 and on the right side of 100.

61
The line connecting these points represents the value of the effectiveness for each
alternative when rotation weights between 0 and 100. Figure 13 illustrates how the B2M
alternative remains the most effective even when shifting the ‘support capacity’ weights from
one extreme to another. However, the BCC 6012 alternative is two value points away if the
weight corresponding to this capacity is 100, while the value points are 30,62 in differences
when the weight corresponds to zero. The values with the weight of ‘support capacity’ in 100
correspond to a vessel exclusively considering the logistic capacities and leaving aside the
operational capacities. The values with the weight of support capacity in 100 correspond to
a vessel exclusively considering the logistic capacities and leaving aside the operational
capacities. Values with the weight of 0 correspond to a vessel with only operational
capabilities taken into consideration.

The graph also illustrates the current weight of this objective (0,7238), and on this green
dotted line, the results obtained in Table 14 are shown for the total effectiveness of the
alternatives. Furthermore, alternative LSV 6513 has the highest effectiveness value over
alternative BCC 6012 if the weighting assigned to support capacity is less than 23,3. If the
weighting is above this value, the alternative BCC 6012 is more effective. The same is
between the alternative BCC 6012 and MVP 70 when the weight equals 48,6. If the
weighting is above this value, the alternative BCC 6012 is more effective. Finally, between
the alternatives LSV 6513 and MPV 70, when the weight is less than 0.68, the vessel MPV
70 is more effective, but once this value is passed, the other alternative overcomes in
effectiveness.

Similar analyses can be performed at lower levels of attributes. Conducting this sensitivity
analysis helps provide a more specific visualisation of the problem for the decision-maker,
determining whether some of the values provided need to be reconsidered and modified.
Having conducted the sensitivity analyses and based on the results, the B2M alternative
maintains its preference as the most effective vessel in operational and logistical capacity.
It is therefore ratified as the best-evaluated alternative based on the attributes chosen.

At this point, the decision-maker should have a more precise overview of the best alternative,
considering the requirements and needs of the Navy. These analytical assessment tools
assist in simplifying and decomposing the problem into more straightforward decisions. The
final decision is assumed by the committee of admirals, where the analysis and results
obtained are presented to them to select the best logistics ship for the Colombian navy from
amongst the alternatives presented. The discussion of decision-making and conclusions are
presented in the following chapter.

62
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

5.1 Introduction

This project's main objective was to apply an MCDA model to aid decision-making in
selecting the most optimal logistics vessel according to the requirements set by the navy
and consider the operational environment that these units will be facing. This process has
resulted in the development of a decision-making methodology combining and modifying the
SMART method technique with the support of VFT to select the fundamental objectives and
criteria of the alternatives. The methodology was divided into three stages, each with specific
steps to follow, as shown in Figure 2. By applying these steps, it was possible to demonstrate
the importance of these models in decomposing a significant and challenging problem into
smaller and easier to understand decisions for the decision-maker(s).

In this chapter, the general topics addressed in the thesis will be outlined briefly and
discussed. The conclusions of this project will be presented at the end.

5.2 Multicriteria Decision Analysis in the naval sector

MCDA and especially SMART methods have not been used in great quantity in decision
making in the maritime sector and even more within the military naval industry. From
applications and literature in other fields, it is clear that suitable constructing of problems
and decisions aids identify the most relevant criteria and attributes, reducing redundancy.
Decision-making generally consists of finding alternatives and attributes within a problem
and evaluating trade-offs. MCDA helps to identify, structure, and rank the most optimal
solution in each decision context. The main objective of this project was to demonstrate the
application of MCDA through the SMART method in a naval ship selection problem.

One outcome in the development of this project resulted in the environmental factor not
being considered in the criteria for alternatives and should be treated with the same scrutiny
by decision-makers, especially with the increased regulation of ship emissions. In 1954 the
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil (OILPOL
Convention) assumed responsibility for regulating pollution to prevent and control damage
caused by ships and mitigate the effects of shipping accidents. The International Maritime
Organization (IMO), in 1973, adopted the international convention MARPOL, which deals
with the prevention of pollution from ships. There are currently twenty-one IMO regulations
directly related to the environment. (IMO, 2019). The main objective of these regulations is
to promote the use and proper management of all sources of marine pollution by taking
measures on pollution of the sea by dumping of wastes and other related matters.

63
In 1974, Colombia approved the Convention on the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative
Organisation through the law treaty No. 6, ratifying its commitment to the IMO and the United
Nations and considering the aspects framed in the environmental care and preservation of
the environment of the International Maritime Organisation. As an active member, the
Colombian Navy must consider this fundamental criterion in decision-making problems and
maritime aspects of interest to the navy. The weight given to this criterion will have to be
assessed by decision-makers or experts based on all the positive and negative variables
that may result from the difference between one alternative and another.

5.3 Application of SMART in vessel selection

SMART aims to assist the decision-maker in attempting to decide on the best option among
several alternatives. This is achieved by breaking down the problem into smaller parts,
analysing these separate elements in detail, and combining them into a final solution. This
is advantageous in obtaining a better and more complete result, considering the decision
maker's preferences. For the development of this study, the separation of the attributes
assessment into fundamental objectives by the experts was favourable since it allowed the
evaluation in a more simplified, transparent, and less complex way due to the number of
attributes evaluated. One reason to use SMART for vessel selection decision making is that
it is a neutral, straightforward, intuitive, and transparent method. SMART is easy to use and
offers simple interaction with decision-makers and experts to assign weights to the criteria.
Although this study was conducted for specific alternatives, the approach can be adopted
as a model and applied in similar cases for the Navy and other institutions.

It is worth mentioning that while the SMART method is only one of many well-known
methods in the MCDA methodology, it also raises specific points against it. When involving
experts or decision-makers in conducting hypothetical judgements, it became apparent in
the interviews that some participants disliked or found it challenging to make these
judgments. This can diversify the outcome, leading to misunderstandings by the person
making the assessment and assigning values and weights to different attributes. In addition,
the decision-maker must make judgements that involve considering several factors
simultaneously, which is complex when considering the criteria that the military command is
addressing with the logistics ship decision.

The application of the methodology, unlike other methods, allows the assignment of ratings
and weights directly. An advantage in applying SMART is, regardless of the number of
alternatives to be evaluated, if it is desired to analyse another alternative among the options
at a certain point in the decision-making process, this will not change the scores obtained at
the outset for the other options. This is because the assignment of weights and values to
the alternatives is not related. This advantage is very beneficial, especially in decision
making in military processes, where market options are constantly evolving due to the
implementation of new technologies and equipment deployed on military vessels.

64
This study contributes to obtaining information and knowledge of the decision-making
process in selecting ships for the navy to identify relevant and important aspects for a
decision-maker and demonstrate the significance that decision support provides. Some of
the decisions were based on the experience of experts and the decision-makers; however,
when new technologies emerge or criteria and preferences change, levels of uncertainty
can arise. For this reason, the support of these methodologies becomes essential in these
processes. This study can be further developed at a management level to assist the maritime
sector's decision-making process.

5.4 Discussion

For the development of this project, the review of decision-making methods and concepts
was important to this study to create a methodology to assist in decision making. Numerous
models and methods exist in MCDA, some of which may require adaptation to suit the ship
selection problem. The decision-making methodology presented in chapter three showed
the application of MCDA for selecting a ship based on alternatives already determined for
the Colombian Navy. The method described the application of different steps in the SMART
methodology. The researcher developed a model that serves as a basis for future
modifications to apply other decision-making with different attributes and fundamental
objectives if needed. Using the model in spreadsheets facilitates future decision-making and
the application of sensitivity analysis to the results generated.

Identifying six fundamental objectives evaluated separately by experts facilitated the

decision-maker task and allowed a more transparent decision to be reached. Within each
FO, the experts could analyse the different attributes in a more concise and straightforward
approach, focusing on their area of expertise. If all attributes had been evaluated together
by one person, the decision-maker would have to analyse nineteen attributes assigning a
ranking and value swing to each representing a more complicated and time-consuming
process. Hence, this modification in the methodology was because the more attributes and
criteria are considered among the alternatives, the more complex the assessment of
attributes became. Evidencing and confirming one of the counterpoints by this method by
Bhatt et al. (2017).

The results obtained in the previous chapter provide a more comprehensive insight
regarding the effectiveness of the alternatives concerning the fundamental objectives
established. Fundamental objectives aimed at fulfilling the functions of the logistics vessel
according to the institutional needs and requirements of the navy. The two prominent
alternatives (B2M & BCC 6012) demonstrated superior performance on the two fundamental
objectives with the highest weights: supply logistics services and provided transport. Based
on the weights given by the decision-maker to the attributes of each fundamental objective,
the navy considers the characteristics of a logistics ship to be of greater importance than
operational capabilities. Not surprisingly, the navy currently has a shortage of logistics units,
especially with the decommissioning of the two multi-purpose ships it had two years ago,
losing its capacity to transport material, food, water, fuel, and personnel on a larger scale.

65
Based on the results, data can be obtained regarding the performance of the alternatives on
each fundamental objective. Thus, it provides a helpful aid in understanding the strengths
and weaknesses that each vessel has. Not necessarily the overall best effectiveness score
should be the choice to be considered, these methodologies aid decision-making, and other
methodologies can be considered to corroborate or provide a different perspective.
However, other factors, which may not be represented in the model, come into consideration
when reaching the final decision.

The model can be used with different experts and decision-makers. The researcher selected
the people who, according to their experience, matched the profile. Nonetheless, this does
not mean that they are the right or most knowledgeable people in their area of expertise.
The perspective of the experts and decision-makers may vary according to the knowledge
each person has, which leads to different results if the model is repeated. This variation of
experts and decision-makers would be valuable to understand different outcomes obtained
by different opinions, which would broaden the range of results analysed in a subsequent
project.

The applied methodology allowed to help the decision-maker and experts with information
and visualisation tools. Through sensitivity analysis, the decision-maker was supported to
assess how efficient the vessel selection is and thus achieve an optimal choice within the
alternatives. The main output of this thesis has been the implementation of a decision model
to assist decision-making in selecting a logistics vessel for the navy.

5.5 Conclusions

The Naval Development Plan 2042 includes the Naval Construction and Optimisation Plan
(PROCYON), the expansion of the naval fleet, and the renewal of the "Almirante Padilla"
missile frigates, the ARC “San Andres” and ARC “Valle del Cauca”. At the same time, the
process of replacing the ocean-going submarines is being contemplated. At the command-
and-control level, the implementation of a light combat management system for OPV-type
units is planned, allowing the autonomous integration of sensors and weapons. In addition,
there are plans to increase the number of different coastguards, naval aviation, and marine
infantry units. The purpose of all these projects is to contribute to national defence and
security matters, protecting sovereignty and maritime interests, strategic natural resources,
maritime lines of communication, and contributing to the country's sustainable development.

As described above, there is a growing need for tools to support decision-making on large-
scale projects of national interest and due to budget cuts resulting from the emergence and
global spread of a new sars-cov-2 coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19, which
has caused global health, economic and social cataclysm that has led most economies into
recession. The new situation created by the spread of the virus has completely changed the
expected economic and fiscal scenario for 2020, 2021 and subsequent years in Colombia.

66
(Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, 2020). The resources allocated by the state for the
purchase and acquisition of new units should be used to the maximum benefit of the navy.
There is no margin for squandering resources and acquiring vessels that do not meet the
required expectations. For this reason, the correct use of methodologies to facilitate and
assist decision making is fundamental in selecting the suitable alternatives to obtain the
most significant benefit within the allocated budget. As a result of the support of this study,
there are broader and improved tools to assist and evaluate decision making in the
replacement and acquisition of future units of the Colombian Navy.

This thesis intended to use an MCDA methodology to facilitate selecting a new logistics
vessel for the navy. Additionally, the aim was to apply the SMART method to several criteria
related to the considerations specified by the navy. This project has described the
modification and application of the method considering the most critical fundamental
objectives for the procurement of a logistics vessel. The method considered was applied
because of its simplicity in dealing with complicated MCDA problems. Moreover, because
of its applicability in military matters and additional research developed in this field.
(Velasquez & Hester, 2013). The different stages used in the methodology provide the
decision-maker with the necessary insight to evaluate and select the best alternative in a
step-by-step procedure described in an easy-to-follow and user-friendly manner.

The selection of a logistics vessel for the requirements and needs of the navy is not a simple
problem. This research revealed the amount of effort and information needed to tackle a
problem of this magnitude. However, the applied method simplified this process by dividing
it into different steps for decision-makers to arrive at a solution or obtain a more precise
overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the alternatives. Applying this model to a real-
life study provided further insights in identifying the right attributes and determining the
fundamental objectives. These included the primary and most salient characteristics for the
selection of the logistics vessel. The attributes and FOs had to satisfy the experts, the
requirements, and the needs of the navy. The literature studied provided different attributes
and characteristics, although deciding which ones met the navy's requirements was not a
simple task. The multi-attribute decision analysis methodology for selecting a logistic vessel
for the navy went through various modification and process improvement stages on the
fundamental objectives and attributes to be in this final version.

The result in the selection decision for a logistic vessel demonstrates that a vessel with
better logistic capabilities outperforms a vessel with better operational capabilities. However,
this depends on the final context of the decision. The sensitivity analysis showed that when
some criteria are more or less preferable, the effectiveness score of the alternatives will
change. The most important fundamental objectives identified were ‘supply logistics
services’ and ‘provide transport’. This study shows that the ranking of the alternatives would
be drastically in favour of the BCC 6012 alternative if the support capability criterion is more
privileged, i.e., it obtains more weight. In the study, the decision-maker ranked the
fundamental objective of offensive capabilities lowest. However, he recognised the

67
importance of this criterion to be considered in an international conflict and include other
weapon capabilities as an attribute.

The experts and decision-makers had well received the adoption and application of the
SMART and MCDA methods. It provided results that give them more significant insights and
knowledge, providing more straightforward and guarantees when presenting the proposal
selection to the naval high command. Through this study, decision-makers were helped to
understand and structure the problem, analyse the trade-offs, and assess the most preferred
option for the Navy.

5.6 Limitation and further research

Some limitations were identified during the development of this project. For this study, only
one decision-maker was considered. A separate analysis of decision-makers could be
performed by identifying more decision-makers, and further analysis could be included. For
a more comprehensive study, the head of naval planning and the COTECMAR shipyard
could be included as additional decision-makers. This might enhance the study by allowing
the researchers to discriminate between the values of different decision-makers. This will
allow overcoming the problems that arise in developing this project and modifying specific
characteristics of the alternative BCC 6012, allowing to improve its effectiveness since this
design will be built by the Colombian shipyard. In the concept of IMO maritime regulations,
discussed in chapter four, the new Energy Efficiency Ship Index could be included as an
environmental performance attribute.

The results obtained from this study indicated that the fundamental objectives in support
capabilities have greater weight and relevance in choosing a logistics vessel. In this project,
only the most essential characteristics were selected. Further research can improve the
results obtained by including more attributes that impact the fundamental objectives. Within
the different MCDA methods, the AHP methodology can be applied to obtain different results
from the methodology used. AHP will strengthen the decision on the best alternatives or
obtain another perspective using a different methodology.

68
REFERENCES

Araníbar, L. E. and Callamanda, R. L. (2008). Requirements analysis through the application

of AHP as a basis for developing the conceptual design of an LCU type ship. Ship science
and technology, 2(3), pp. 47-58. Available at:
https://shipjournal.co/index.php/sst/article/view/15 (Accessed: 5 May 2021).

Baron, J., (2000). Thinking and deciding. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Available at:
https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=es&lr=&id=H3nCwyx8bf8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=B
ARON,+J.,+2000.+Thinking+and+Deciding&ots=yn7V_7qLS9&sig=wYTwS255CCvC7j1S
XlcPNbEBA9k#v=onepage&q&f=false (Accessed: 14 May 2021).

Barfod, M. B., & Leleur, S. (2014). Multi-criteria decision analysis for use in transport
decision making. (2 ed.) DTU Transport. Available at:
https://backend.orbit.dtu.dk/ws/portalfiles/portal/104276012/DTU_Transport_Compendium
_Part_2_MCDA_.pdf (Accessed: 26 May 2021).

Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated
approach. (Ed.). Springer Publishing.

Bhatt, V.B., Patel, M., & Vashi, M. (2017). SMART-Multi-criteria decision-making technique
for use in planning activities. Proceedings of New Horizons in Civil Engineering (NHCE).
Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bhasker-
Bhatt/publication/315825133_SMART-Multi-criteria_decision-
making_technique_for_use_in_planning_activities/links/58e8ef54a6fdccb4a831fe89/SMA
RT-Multi-criteria-decision-making-technique-for-use-in-planning-activities.pdf (Accessed:
26 May 2021).

Borsuk, M.E. (2008). Bayesian Networks. Encyclopaedia of Ecology. Sven Erik Jørgensen,
Brian D. Fath. Academic Press. Pages 307-317. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080454054001440 (Accessed: 13
May 2021).

Brown, A., Salcedo, J. (2003). ‘Multiple-Objective Optimization in Naval Ship Design.’ Naval
Engineers Journal, Vol. 115, No. 4, pp. 49-61. Available at:
https://www.aoe.vt.edu/content/dam/aoe_vt_edu/people/faculty/albrown5/papers/asne200
2paper.pdf (Accessed: 7 May 2021).

69
Buede, D., & Bresnick, T. (1992). Applications of Decision Analysis to the Military Systems
Acquisition Process. Interfaces, 22(6), 110-125. Available at:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25061684 (Accessed: 5 May 2021).

Burk, R.C., Parnell, G.S. (2011). ‘Portfolio Decision Analysis: Lessons from Military
Applications’, in Salo, A., Keisler, J., & Morton, A. (ed.) Portfolio Decision Analysis: Improved
Methods for Resource Allocation (International Series in Operations Research &
Management Science Book 162). Springer, pp 333-358. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-9943-6 (Accessed: 20 May 2021).

Bustraan, C. (2014). HNLMS Pelikaan A804 [Photograph]. Available at:

http://www.shipspotting.com/gallery/photo.php?lid=2037766html (Accessed: 06 June
2021).

Cambridge Dictionary. (2021). Decision meaning. Available at:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/es/diccionario/ingles/decision (Accessed: 14 May 2021).

Chen, H. & Kocaoglu, D. F. (2008). A sensitivity analysis algorithm for hierarchical decision
models. European Journal of Operational Research, Volume 185, Issue 1, pp. 266-288.

Clemen, R. T., & Reilly, T. (2013). Making Hard Decisions with Decision tools (3rd ed.).
Cengage Learning. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/41552002/Making_Hard_Decisions_with_DecisionTools
(Accessed: 13 May 2021).

Colombian Navy. (2020). Naval Development Plan 2042. Bogota. Available at:
https://www.armada.mil.co/sites/default/files/descargas/Plan%20de%20Desarrollo%20Nav
al.%20PDN2042.pdf (Accessed: 5 May 2021).

Costa, I.P.A., Maêda, S.M.N., Teixeira, L.F.H.S.B., Gomes, C.F.S., Santos M. (2020).
Choosing a hospital assistance ship to fight the covid-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Health.
54:79 Available at: https://www.revistas.usp.br/rsp/article/view/173467/162651 (Accessed:
25 May 2021).

Cui, X., Bharadwaj, U. (2017). ‘A framework for multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA)
applied to conceptual stage of ship design.’ International Maritime Association of the
Mediterranean. Lisbon, Portugal, 9 -11 October 2017. TWI Ltd, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow. Available at: https://www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/published-

70
papers/a-framework-for-multi-criteria-decision-analysis-mcda-applied-to-conceptual-stage-
of-ship-design (Accessed: 7 May 2021).

Edwards, W. (1971). Social utilities. The Engineering Economist Summer Symposium

Series 6, 119–129.

Edwards, W. (1977). How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision-
making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-7:5, 326–340.

Edwards, W., and Barron, F. H. (1994). SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple
Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 60, pp. 306-325. Available at:
https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0749597884710879?token=251639CAD6E8E35
E47FC87D5FCFA4436D934FB2A07FF710C9CB6A0BAAAEDB42C2514AA83E91F044D
569B4813DAD9B4E8&originRegion=eu-west-1&originCreation=20210526132351
(Accessed: 26 May 2021).

Ewing, P., Tarantino, W., & Parnell, G. (2006). Use of decision analysis is the army base
realignment and closure (BRAC) 2005 Military Value Analysis. Decision Analysis, 3(1), 33–
49. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220210114_Use_of_Decision_Analysis_in_the_
Army_Base_Realignment_and_Closure_BRAC_2005_Military_Value_Analysis (Accessed:
7 May 2021).

Fassmer. (2019). Fassmer to deliver MPV70 MKII for the Ecuadorian Navy. Available at:
https://www.fassmer.de/en/news/2020/fassmer-to-deliver-mpv70-mkii-for-the-ecuadorian-
navy (Accessed: 19 June 2021).

French, S. (1996) Multi-Attribute Decision Support in the Event of a Nuclear Accident,

Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 5, 39–57. Available at:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1360(199603)5:1%3C39::AID-
MCDA109%3E3.0.CO;2-Q (Accessed: 13 May 2021).

Goodwin, P., & Wright, G. (2004). Decision Analysis for Management Judgment. 3er edn.
Chichester UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

71
Gomez, J., Arinabar, R., Delgado, C. (2013). Development of an alternative assessment
framework as a basis for the conceptual design of the strategic platform surface (PES) for
the national armada of Colombia. MSc thesis. Superior School of War. ESDEG.

Great Britain. Department for Communities and Local Government. (2009). Multi-criteria
Analysis. Communities and Local Government. Available at:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_
data/file/191506/Mult-crisis_analysis_a_manual.pdf (Accessed: 22 May 2021).

Guerra, A., & Jenssen, M.M. (2014). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in the
Norwegian maritime sector: Adding environmental criteria in maritime decision support
systems. MSc thesis. Norwegian University of Science and Technology. Available at:
https://ntnuopen.ntnu.no/ntnuxmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/242536/752188_FULLTEXT01
.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 22 June 2021).

Hansen, P., & Devlin, N. (2019). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Healthcare
Decision-Making. Oxford Research Encyclopaedia of Economics and Finance. Available at:
https://oxfordre.com/economics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190625979.001.0001/acrefore
-9780190625979-e-98. (Accessed: 28 May 2021).

IMO. (2019). Marine Environment. Available at:

https://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/Pages/Default.aspx (Accessed: 22 July
2021).

Kabli, M.R. (2009). A multi-attribute decision-making methodology for selecting new R&D
projects portfolio with a case study of Saudi oil refining industry. PhD thesis, University of
Nottingham. Available at:
http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/10975/1/A_MULTI%02ATTRIBUTE_DECISION_MAKING_
METHODOLOGY_FOR_SELECTING_NEW_R%26D_PROJECTS_PORTFOLIO_WITH_
A_CASE_STUDY_OF_SAUDI_OIL_REFINING_INDUSTRY_-_MOHAMMAD_KABLI_-
_2009.pdf (Accessed: 18 May 2021).

Keefer, D.L., Corner, J., & Kirkwood, C. (2004). Perspectives on Decision Analysis
Applications, 1990−2001. Decision Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1: 4-22. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220210095_Perspective_on_Decision_Analysis_
Applications_1990-2001 (Accessed: 18 June 2021).

Keeney, R., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value
Trade-Offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Available at:

72
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/decisions-with-multiple-
objectives/DEF338459C327778C3F8C4C4A682032F (Accessed: 21 May 2021).

Keeney, R.L. (1982) Decision Analysis: An Overview. Operations Research, 30, 803-838.
Available at: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/opre.30.5.803 (Accessed: 13
May 2021).

Keeney, R.L, & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value
Trade-Offs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Keeney, R.L. (1994). Creativity in decision making with value-focused thinking. Sloan
Management Review, 35, 33-33. Available at:
http://cdncf38.usip.org/Courses/NEG.OL2EN/Documents/Session+2/Creativity+in+Decisio
n-Making.pdf (Accessed: 22 June 2021).

Keeney, R.L, & Gregory, R.S. (2005). Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of
Objectives, Operations Research, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 1–11. Available at:
https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/opre.1040.0158 (Accessed: 23 June 2021).

Keeney, R.L. (2008). Applying Value-Focused Thinking. Military Operations Research.

Volume 13. pp. 7-17. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717349_Applying_Value-Focused_Thinking
(Accessed: 22 June 2021).

Keeney, R.L. (2009). Value-Focused Thinking: a path to creative decision-making. Harvard

University Press. Available at:
https://www.vlebooks.com/Vleweb/Product/Index/15358?page=0 (Accessed: 21 June
2021).

Kership. (2021). MSV 65 Multipurpose Vessel. Available at:

http://www.kership.com/en/vessels/b2m (Accessed: 09 June 2021).

Linkov, I., & Moberg, E. (2012). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis: Environmental Applications
and Case Studies (1st ed.). Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press. Taylor & Francis Group. Available
at: https://doi.org/10.1201/b11471 (Accessed: 20 May 2021).

73
Merkhofer, M. W., & Keeney, R.L (1987) A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites
for the disposal of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis Volume 7 Issue (2): 173–94. Available at:
http://www.prioritysystem.com/PDF/muarepositorysites.pdf (Accessed: 24 May 2021).

Ministry of Finance and Public Credit. 2020. National General Budget 2021. Presidential
Message, bill. Available at:
https://www.minhacienda.gov.co/webcenter/ShowProperty?nodeId=/ConexionContent/WC
C_CLUSTER-140006 (Accessed: 24 July 2021).

Morton A, Airoldi M, Phillips LD. (2009) Nuclear risk management on stage: a decision
analysis perspective on the UK’s Committee on Radioactive Waste Management. Risk
Analisis. An International Journal. Volume 29, Issue5, p. 764-79. Available at:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19178656/ (Accessed: 15 May 2021).

Muenning, P. (2017). Decision Analytic Modeling. International Encyclopedia of Public

Health (Second Edition). Academic Press. Pages 211-216. Available at:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128036785000990 (Accessed: 13
May 2021).

Mühlbacher, A. C., & Kaczynski, A. (2016). Making good decisions in healthcare with multi-
criteria decision analysis: the use, current research, and future development of
MCDA. Applied health economics and health policy, 14(1), 29-40. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s40258-015-0203-4.pdf (Accessed: 28 May
2021).

National Navy. (2014). Naval material doctrine. (1st ed., Vol. II). Bogotá.

Naval Today. (2019). Kership delivers final B2M multi-mission ship to French Navy.
Available at: https://www.navaltoday.com/2019/04/17/kership-delivers-final-b2m-multi-
mission-ship-to-french-navy/ (Accessed: 09 June 2021).

Olson D.L. (1996). Smart. In: Decision Aids for Selection Problems. Springer Series in
Operations Research. Springer, New York, NY. Available at:
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-1-4612-3982-6_4 Accessed: 24 May
2021).

Park, S. (2014). An Evaluation Framework and Decision-Making Model for Defense

Acquisition Projects − Real Options and Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). PhD

74
thesis. Graduate Faculty of Auburn University. Available at:
http://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle/10415/4184/Dissertation%20%28Seungbae%20Par
k%29.pdf?sequence=2&isAllowed=y (Accessed: 24 May 2021).

Parnell, G.S. (2007). Value-focused thinking using multiple objective decision analysis.
Methods for conducting military operational analysis: best practices in use throughout the
Department of Defense, 619-656. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/2817001/Value_Focused_Thinking (Accessed: 24 June 2021).

Parnell, G. S., Bresnick, M. B. A., Tani, S. N., Johnson, E. R., & Terry Bresnick, M. B. A.
(2013). Handbook of Decision Analysis. Wiley.

Phillips, L.D. (2011). ‘The Royal Navy’s Type 45 Story: A Case Study.’ in Salo, A., Keisler,
J., & Morton, A. (ed.) Portfolio Decision Analysis: Improved Methods for Resource Allocation
(International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Book 162). Springer,
pp 53-78. Available at: https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007%2F978-1-4419-9943-6
(Accessed: 24 May 2021).

Saaty, T.L., (2000). Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory. RWS
Publications.

Sadly, M., Agustan, S., Yulianto, S., Bintoro, O.B., Sutrisno, D., and Alhasanah, F. (2018)
An Application of SMART Method in vendor selection of Satellite Systems Case study of
Indonesia Remote Sensing Satellite Systems (InaRSSat). IEEE International Conference on
Aerospace Electronics and Remote Sensing Technology (ICARES), 2018, pp. 1-6. Available
at: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=8547075 (Accessed: 26
May 2021).

Saumeth, E. (2018). Infodefensa. The Netherlands contracts with Cotecmar for the
maintenance of the vessel Pelikaan. Available at:
https://www.infodefensa.com/latam/2018/01/23/noticia-colombianota24es-armada-paises-
bajos-contrata-cotecmar-colombia-breve-mantenimiento-buque.html (Accessed: 26 June
2021).

Segovia, C. (2019). Approach to the characterization of warships based on their design and
operational use in the national Navy. Spanish Armed Engineering Technical Bulletin.
(ETSIAN-JEPER-DIENA), Number 16, 17–34. Available at:
https://www.academia.edu/43503672/APROXIMACI%C3%93N_A_LA_CARACTERIZACI

75
%C3%93N_DE_LOS_BUQUES_DE_GUERRA_A_PARTIR_DE_SU_DISE%C3%91O_Y_
EMPLEO_OPERACIONAL_EN_LA_ARMADA_NACIONAL (Accessed: 5 May 2021).

Serrano, L. (2013). AHP methodology application for ship selection amphibious landing
optimal for the Navy National. Journal of Security and Defense Studies 8 (16): 59-67.
Available at: https://esdeguerevistacientifica.edu.co/index.php/estudios/article/view/76/157
(Accessed: 5 May 2021).

Strategic Project Directorate. (2020). Operational Need Document: Develop a new offshore
patrol vessel to replace units that have reached the end of their life cycle. Colombian Navy.
Chief of Naval Operations Staff.

Tascón, O, Del Gordo, A., and Jimenez, J. (2007). Methodology for Rational Decision
Making in the Acquisition of National Navy Ships. Force Work ESDEGUE CEM. Bogotá D.C.
Available at: https://nanopdf.com/download/desarrollo-de-una-metodologia-de-soporte-
para-la-toma-racional-de_pdf (Accessed: 6 May 2021).

Tos. (2012). Ship Delivery HM. MS. Pelikaan. Available at: https://www.tos.nl/2012/06/ship-
delivery-hm-ms-pelikaan/ (Accessed: 9 June 2021).

Valiris, G., Chytas, P. and Glykas, M. (2005). Making decisions using the balanced
scorecard and the simple multi‐attribute rating technique, Performance Measurement and
Metrics, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 159-171. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241701716_Making_decisions_using_the_balan
ced_scorecard_and_the_simple_multi-attribute_rating_technique (Accessed: 26 May
2021).
Velasquez, M., & Hester, P.T. (2013). An Analysis of Multi-Criteria Decision-Making
Methods. International Journal of Operations Research. Vol. 10, No. 2, 56−66. Available at:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275960103_An_analysis_of_multi-
criteria_decision_making_methods (Accessed: 26 May 2021).

Winston, W. L., & Goldberg, J. B. (2004). Operations Research. Applications and algorithms.
4th edn. Thomson Brooks/Cole.

Xie, X., Xu, D. L., Yang, J. B., Wang, J., Ren, J., & Yu, S. (2008). Ship selection using a
multiple-criteria synthesis approach. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 13(1), 50-
62. Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00773-007-0259-4.pdf
(Accessed: 26 May 2021).

76
APPENDICES

Appendix A Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Movement & Manoeuvre)

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

Part 1. Ranking. Experts are considering several fundamental objectives (F.O.s) in the
field, and this questionnaire addresses only one of these fundamental objectives. In the
following survey, you will be asked a series of questions according to your area of
expertise.
Fundamental Objective: Movement & Manoeuvre
No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels
A Naval Mobility Length=70 m, Draft 4,5
Length=60 m, Draft 2.7 m.
(Dimensions) m.
B Portage of Interdiction 01 Zodiac 01 Interceptor Boats
Boat and RHIB 02 RHIB (Rigid Hulled
Inflatable Boat)
C Portage of Aircraft No flight deck Flight decks up to 11 tonnes
Units (Medium-weight helicopters)
D Bow Thruster No Capability 01 Bow Thruster

You are deciding on a new logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could
be moved to its best level, which would you choose?

A x B C D
x attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
Which
x
x
A x B C D

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B C D
Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
A B C D

77
Part 2. Value Swing
“Compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. (Goodwin and Wright, 2004).
No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels
A Naval Mobility Length=70 m, Draft 4,5
Length=60 m, Draft 2.7 m.
(Dimensions) m.
B Portage of Interdiction 01 Zodiac 01 Interceptor Boats
Boat and RHIB 02 RHIB (Rigid Hulled
Inflatable Boat)
C Portage of Aircraft No flight deck Flight decks up to 11 tonnes
Units (Medium-weight helicopters)
D Bow Thruster No Capability 01 Bow Thruster
Table 1. Least and most preferred levels attributes.
According to your answers to the previous questions, the ranking of the attributes are:
No. Attribute Value of Swing
1 (a) 100
2 (b)
3 (c)
4 (d)

The highest-ranked attribute is given a value swing of 100. The other attributes are
assigned relative value swings according to how you think their value swing compares to
the highest-ranked value swing.

Consider a value swing from the worst (b)______________ to the best, shown in Table 1.
In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as
a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________
in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.
Consider a value swing from the worst (c)_______________to the best shown in Table 1.
In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as
a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________
in Table 1. Value Swing ____%
Finally, consider a value swing from the worst (d)______________ to the best shown in
Table 1. In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the
F.O. as a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred
(a)__________ in Table 1. Value Swing _____%

78
Part 3. Scores
The next step is to determine how well the different alternatives perform on each of the
attributes. Consider first the attributes that have this minimum and maximum characteristic
in a global scale value.
No. Attribute Value 0 Value 100
A Naval Mobility >Length=80 m, Draft 4,5
Length=60 m, Draft 2 m.
(Dimensions) m.
B Portage of Interdiction 01 Zodiac 01 Interceptor Boats
Boat and RHIB 02 RHIB (Rigid Hulled
Inflatable Boat)
C Portage of Aircraft No flight deck Flight decks up to 12 tonnes
Units (Medium-weight helicopters)
D Bow Thruster No Capability 02 thruster. One at the bow
and one at the stern
Table 22. Global-scale value scores for attributes.

Naval Mobility (Dimensions)

Rank the alternatives in terms of their naval mobility from the most preferred to the least
preferred.
Alternative A B C D
Length 64.95 m 70 m 65.40 m 60 m
Beam 14 m 15.6 m 13.20 m 12.50 m
Maximum
4.2 m 4.5 m 3m 2.70 m
design draught
Displacement 2300 t 2400 t 1150 t 1360 t
Rank

Based on the values assigned in table 2, alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with
naval mobility, what value do you give based on its approximation of the value 100?
Rank1:_____.
Alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least naval mobility, what value do you give
based on its approximation of the value 0? Rank 4:____.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to
the alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in
terms of naval mobility.

Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative:______

Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative:______

79
Portage of Interdiction Boat and RHIB
Rank the alternatives in terms of their portage of interdiction boat and RHIB from the most
preferred to the least preferred.
Alternative A B C D
Boats 02 RHIB boats of 2.7 tonnes
each - 02 electro-hydraulic
Two sterns 6m fast Zodiac boat
DAVITS boats - 01 support
launched RHIB with for
boat for vehicle loading up
interceptor outboard personnel
to 3 tonnes in sea 3 at a
boats engine transport
speed of 12 kn - capacity for
special forces boats
Rank

Alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with a portage of interdiction boat and RHIB, is
now given a value of 100, as it has the maximum value as shown in table 2, and
alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least portage of interdiction boat and RHIB,
is given a value of 0.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to
the alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in
terms of the portage of interdiction boat and RHIB.

Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative:______

Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative:______

Portage of Aircraft Units

Rank the alternatives in terms of their portage of aircraft units from the most preferred to
the least preferred.
Alternative A B C D
Flight Deck Yes Yes / 11 Tonnes No No
Rank 3 3

Alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with a portage of aircraft units, what value do you
give based on its approximation of the value 100? Rank1:_____.
Alternative with ranks No. 3, the vessels with no portage of aircraft units’ capacity is given
a value of 0.
Rate the other alternative in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternative represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
the portage of aircraft units.
Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative:______

80
Bow Thruster
Rank the alternatives in terms of their portage of bow thruster capability from the most
preferred to the least preferred.
Alternative A B C D
Bow Thruster 01 of 500kw 01 of 1000kw No No
Rank 3 3

Alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with a bow thruster capability, what value do you
give based on its approximation of the value 100? Rank1:_____.
Alternative with rank No. 3, the vessel with no bow thruster capability is given a value of 0.
Rate the other alternative in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternative represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
bow thruster capability.
Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative:______

81
Appendix B Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Survivability)

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

Part 1. Ranking. Experts are considering several fundamental objectives (F.O.s) in the field,
and this questionnaire addresses only one of these fundamental objectives. In the following
survey, you will be asked a series of questions according to your area of expertise.
Fundamental Objective: Survivability

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

Advanced damage control
equipment, engine room
Essential damage control
Damage Control and fire-fighting system,
equipment, watertight
A Safety of life at sea watertight compartments
compartments, life rafts
Equipment throughout the ship, life rafts
for the crew.
for crew and additional
personnel.
Surface Surveillance Advanced navigation
One basic navigation
B (Sensors) and Self- system, fire control radar,
and sensor system
defence weapons 3D surveillance radar.
C Manned stations 20 30

You are deciding on a new logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be
moved to its best level, which would you choose?

A x B C
x attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
Which
x
x
A x B C

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B C

82
Part 2. Value Swing
“Compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. (Goodwin and Wright, 2004).

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

Advanced damage control
equipment, engine room
Essential damage control
Damage Control and fire-fighting system,
equipment, watertight
A Safety of life at sea watertight compartments
compartments, life rafts
Equipment throughout the ship, life rafts
for the crew.
for crew and additional
personnel.
Surface Surveillance Advanced navigation
One basic navigation
B (Sensors) and Self- system, fire control radar,
and sensor system
defence weapons 3D surveillance radar.
C Manned stations 20 30
Table 1. Least and most preferred levels attributes

According to your answers to the previous questions, the ranking of the attributes are:

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 (a) 100
2 (b)
3 (c)

The highest-ranked attribute is given a value swing of 100. The other attributes are assigned
relative value swings according to how you think their value swing compares to the highest-
ranked value swing.

Consider a value swing from the worst (b)______________to the best, shown in Table 1.
In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as
a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)____________
in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.
Finally, consider a value swing from the worst (c)_____________to the best shown in Table
1. In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O.
as a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred
(a)_________________ in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

83
Part 3. Scores
The next step is to determine how well the different alternatives perform on each of the
attributes. Consider first the attributes that have this minimum and maximum characteristic
in a global scale value.

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

Advanced damage control
equipment, engine room
Essential damage control
Damage Control and fire-fighting system,
equipment, watertight
A Safety of life at sea watertight compartments
compartments, life rafts
Equipment throughout the ship, life rafts
for the crew.
for crew and additional
personnel.
Surface Surveillance Advanced navigation
One basic navigation
B (Sensors) and Self- system, fire control radar,
and sensor system
defence weapons 3D surveillance radar.
C Manned stations 15 50
Table 2. Global-scale value scores for attributes.

Damage Control and Safety of life at sea Equipment

Rank the alternatives in terms of their Damage Control and Safety of life at sea Equipment
from the most preferred to the least preferred.

Alternative A B C D
Rank

Based on the values assigned in table 2, alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with
damage control and safety of life at sea equipment, what value do you give based on its
approximation of the value 100? Rank1:_____.
Alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least damage control and safety of life at sea
equipment, what value do you give based on its approximation of the value 0? Rank 4:____.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
Damage Control and Safety of life at sea Equipment.

Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative: ______

Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative: ______

84
Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence weapons
Rank the alternatives in terms of their Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence
weapons from the most preferred to the least preferred.

Alternative A B C D
Rank

Based on the values assigned in table 2, alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with
Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence weapons, what value do you give based
on its approximation of the value 100? Rank1:_____.
Alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and
Self-defence weapons, what value do you give based on its approximation of the value 0?
Rank 4:_____.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence weapons.

Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative: ______

Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative: ______

Manned stations
Rank the alternatives in terms of their portage of manned stations from the most preferred
to the least preferred.
Alternative A B C D
Crew 20 30 28 29
Rank

Based on the values assigned in table 2, alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with
manned stations, what value do you give based on its approximation of the value 100?
Rank1:_____.
Alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least manned stations, what value do you
give based on its approximation of the value 0? Rank 4:____.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
manned stations.
Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative:______
Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative:______

85
Appendix C Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Sustainability)

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

Part 1. Ranking. Experts are considering several fundamental objectives (F.O.s) in the
field, and this questionnaire addresses only one of these fundamental objectives. In the
following survey, you will be asked a series of questions according to your area of expertise.
Fundamental Objective: Sustainability

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Maximum speed 12 knots 15 knots
B Range 1800 NM @ 10 knots 5000 NM @ 12 knots

You are deciding on a new logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be
moved to its best level, which would you choose?

A B

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B

86
Part 2. Value Swing
“Compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. (Goodwin and Wright, 2004).

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Maximum speed 12 knots 15 knots
B Range 1800 NM @ 10 knots 5000 NM @ 12 knots
Table 1. Least and most preferred levels attributes.

According to your answers to the previous questions, the ranking of the attributes are:

No. Attribute Value of Swing

1 (a) 100
2 (b)

The highest-ranked attribute is given a value swing of 100. The other attributes are assigned
relative value swings according to how you think their value swing compares to the highest-
ranked value swing.

Consider a value swing from the worst (b)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as a
percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________ in
Table 1. Value Swing ____%

87
Part 3. Scores
The next step is to determine how well the different alternatives perform on each of the
attributes. Consider the attributes maximum speed and range have this minimum and
maximum characteristic in a global scale value.

Attribute Value 0 Value 100

Maximum speed 8 knots 20 knots
Range 1500 NM @ 10 knots 6000 NM @ 12 knots
Table 2. Global-scale value scores for attributes.

Maximum Speed

Alternative A B C D
Maximum speed 14 knots 13 knots 15 knots 12 knots

We set the attribute of maximum speed with 20 knots, providing this setting with a value of
100. In a more mathematical form of notation, we say that v(20)=100. The minimum,
maximum speed capacity accepted is 8 knots. Therefore, we assign a value of 0 to this
measure, i.e., v(8)=0. It is then required to find the maximum speed value of the other
alternatives that fall between the two mentioned. Identify the maximum speed, whose value
is halfway between the least preferred capacity (8 knots) and the most preferred maximum
speed (20 knots).
The midpoint maximum speed is (a)______ knots. Hence, V(___)=50
Identified the maximum speed with a value halfway between the least preferred values 8
knots to (a)_____ maximum speed. V(___)=25
Identify the maximum speed with a value halfway between the average capacity of (a)_____
and the maximum speed of 20 knots. The value is _____. V(___)=75.

We obtain five maximum speeds with these values, which allows us to plot the graph as a
function of the maximum speed against the value. With this graph, the values of the
maximum speed capacities of the other alternatives can be estimated.

Range

Alternative A B C D
Range 5000 NM @ 12 1800 NM @ 10 2500 NM @ 10 2500 NM @ 10
knots knots knots knots

We set the attribute of range with 6000 nm, providing this setting with a value of 100. In a
more mathematical form of notation, we say that v(6000)=100. The minimum range
accepted is 1500 nm. Therefore, we assign a value of 0 to this measure, i.e., v(1500)=0. It
is then required to find the value of the range of the other alternatives that fall between the

88
two mentioned. Identify the alternatives’ range, whose value is halfway between the least
preferred capacity (1500 nm) and the most preferred area (6000 nm).
The midpoint range capacity is (a)______ nm. Hence, V(___)=50
Identified the range capacity with a value halfway between the least preferred values 1500
nautical miles to (a)_____ nautical miles. V(___)=25
Identify the range capacity with a value halfway between the average capacity of (a)____
and the maximum capacity of 6000 nautical miles. The value is _____. V(___)=75.
We obtain five range capacities with these values, which allow us to plot the graph as a
function of the range capacity against the value. With this graph, the values of the range
capacities of the other alternatives can be estimated.

89
Appendix D Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Offensive Capabilities)

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

Part 1. Ranking. Experts are considering several fundamental objectives (F.O.s) in the field,
and this questionnaire addresses only one of these fundamental objectives. In the following
survey, you will be asked a series of questions according to your area of expertise.
Fundamental Objective: Offensive Capabilities

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Naval Close Fire Support It does not contain One main gun, 76 mm.
B Small Arms Self-defence weapons, four
Two machine guns
machine guns, 40 mm gun.

You are deciding on a new logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be
moved to its best level, which would you choose?

A x B
x attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
Which
x
x
A x B

90
Part 2. Value Swing
“Compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. (Goodwin and Wright, 2004).

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Naval Close Fire
It does not contain One main gun, 76 mm.
Support
B Small Arms Self-defence weapons, four
Two machine guns
machine guns, 40 mm gun.
Table 1. Least and most preferred levels attributes.

According to your answers to the previous questions, the ranking of the attributes are:

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 (a) 100
2 (b)

The highest-ranked attribute is given a value swing of 100. The other attributes are assigned
relative value swings according to how you think their value swing compares to the highest-
ranked value swing.

Consider a value swing from the worst (b)______________ to the best, shown in Table 1.
In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as
a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________
in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

91
Part 3. Scores
The next step is to determine how well the different alternatives perform on each of the
attributes. Consider first the attributes that have this minimum and maximum characteristic
in a global scale value.

No. Attribute Value 0 Value 100

A Naval Close Fire
It does not contain One main gun 76 mm.
Support
B Small Arms Self-defence weapons, four
It does not contain machine guns, one 40 mm
gun and one 20mm gun.
Table 2. Global-scale value scores for attributes.

Naval Close Fire Support

Rank the alternatives in terms of their naval close fire support capacity from the most
preferred to the least preferred.

Alternative A B C D
Naval Close Fire Support Yes, 01 Naval Gun
No No No
Capacity LEONARDO 76/62
Rank 2 1 2 2

Alternative with rank No. 1, the ship with the capability of naval close fire support, is now
given a value of 100, and alternatives with rank No. 2, the vessel with no capacity in naval
close fire support, is given a value of 0.

Small Arms
Rank the alternatives regarding their small arms defence capability capacity from the most
preferred to the least preferred.

Alternative A B C D
Two mounts for
12.7mm or 7.62mm 01 Naval Gun
machine guns with LEONARDO
Four
360 degrees of 76/62, 40mm
Two × 12.7 machine
coverage. Option to double BOFOR
Small Arms mm (0.5 in) gun mounts
have several pin RAFEAL
machine for .50 and
mounts for more TYPHOON
guns 7.62
M2HB, MAG58, weapon system.
calibres
AANF1 type Different mounts
armament. Special for 7.62 mm
ammunition locker.
Rank

92
Based on the values assigned in table 2, alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with small
arms capability, what value do you give based on its approximation of the value 100?
Rank1:____
Alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least small arms capability, what value do
you give based on its approximation of the value 0? Rank 4:____.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
small arms capability.
Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative: ______
Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative: ______

93
Appendix E Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Supply Logistic Services)

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

Part 1. Ranking. Experts are considering several fundamental objectives (F.O.s) in the
field, and this questionnaire addresses only one of these fundamental objectives. In the
following survey, you will be asked a series of questions according to your area of expertise.
Fundamental Objective: Supply Logistic Services

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Water Capacity 89 m3 200 m3
B Fuel Capacity 48 m3 190 m3
C Medical Treatment 01 Room, low medical 02 Room, Medium medical
Capabilities treatment. treatment.
D Cargo Handling 01 Crane 12 Tonnes 02 Crane (25 and 7 Tonnes)
E Capability of No Capability Capability
Replenishment at Sea

You are deciding on a new logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be
moved to its best level, which would you choose?

A B C D E

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B C D E

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B C D E

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B C D E

94
Part 2. Value Swing
“Compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. (Goodwin and Wright, 2004).

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Water Capacity 89 m3 200 m3
B Fuel Capacity 48 m3 190 m3
C Medical Treatment 01 Room, low medical 02 Room, Medium medical
Capabilities treatment. treatment.
D Cargo Handling 01 Crane 12 Tonnes 02 Crane (25 and 7 Tonnes)
E Capability of No Capability Capability
Replenishment at Sea
Table 1. Least and most preferred levels attributes.

According to your answers to the previous questions, the ranking of the attributes are:

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 (a) 100
2 (b)
3 (c)
4 (d)
5 (e)

The highest-ranked attribute is given a value swing of 100. The other attributes are assigned
relative value swings according to how you think their value swing compares to the highest-
ranked value swing.

Consider a value swing from the worst (b)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as a
percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________ in
Table 1. Value Swing ____%.
Consider a value swing from the (c)_______________to the best shown in Table 1. In your
opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as a
percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________ in
Table 1. Value Swing ____%.
Consider a value swing from the worst (d)_______________to the best shown in Table 1.
In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as
a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________
in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.
Finally, consider a value swing from the worst (e)_______________to the best shown in
Table 1. In your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the
F.O. as a percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred
(a)__________ in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

95
Part 3. Scores
The next step is to determine how well the different alternatives perform on each of the
attributes. Consider first the attributes that have this minimum and maximum characteristic
in a global scale value.

Attribute Value 0 Value 100

Water Capacity Minimum 85 m3 200 m3
Fuel Capacity Minimum 45 m3 200 m3
Medical Treatment Capabilities (01) room with medical (02) room with medical
capabilities capabilities
Cargo Handling 01 crane (10 tonnes) 02 crane (25 tonnes)
Capability of Replenishment at Sea It does not contain this It does contain this
capability capability
Table 2. Global-scale value scores for attributes.

Water Capacity
Alternative A B C D
Water Capacity 39625.8 gal / 49532.26 gal / 23511.3 gal / 89 52834,4 gal / 200
150 m3 187 m3 m3 m3
Rank

We set the attribute of water carrying capacity with 200 m3, providing this setting with a
value of 100. In a more mathematical form of notation, we say that v(200)=100. The
minimum water capacity accepted is 85 m3. Therefore, we assign a value of 0 to this
measure, i.e., v(85)=0. It is then required to find the value of the water capacity of the other
alternatives that fall between the two mentioned. Identify the water carrying capacity, whose
value is halfway between the least preferred capacity (85 m3) and the most preferred area
(200 m3).
The midpoint carrying capacity is (a)______ m3. Hence, V(___)=50
Identified the water capacity with a value halfway between the least preferred values 85
cubic metres to (a)_____ cubic metres. V(___)=25
Identify the water carrying capacity with a value halfway between the average capacity of
(a)_____ and the maximum capacity of 200 cubic metres. The value is _____. V(___)=75.

We obtain five water capacities with these values, which allows us to plot the graph as a
function of the water carrying capacity against the value. With this graph, the values of the
load-carrying capacities of the other alternatives can be estimated.

96
Fuel Capacity

Alternative A B C D
Fuel Capacity 47551 gal / 12548.17 gal / 46230.1 gal / 175 50192.68 gal /
180 m3 48 m3 m3 190 m3
Rank

We set the attribute of fuel carrying capacity with 200 m3, providing this setting with a value
of 100. In a more mathematical form of notation, we say that v(200)=100. The minimum fuel
capacity accepted is 45 m3. Therefore, we assign a value of 0 to this measure, i.e., v(45)=0.
It is then required to find the value of the fuel capacity of the other alternatives that fall
between the two mentioned. Identify the alternatives’ fuel carrying capacity, whose value is
halfway between the least preferred capacity (45 m3) and the most preferred area (200 m3).
The midpoint carrying capacity is (a)______ m3. Hence, V(___)=50
Identified the fuel capacity with a value halfway between the least preferred values 45 cubic
metres to (a)_____ cubic metres. V(___)=25
Identify the fuel carrying capacity with a value halfway between the average capacity of
(a)_____ and the maximum capacity of 200 cubic metres. The value is _____. V(___)=75.
We obtain five fuel capacities with these values, plotting the graph as a function of the fuel
carrying capacity against the value. With this graph, the values of the load-carrying
capacities of the other alternatives can be estimated.

Cargo Handling
Rank the alternatives in terms of their cargo handling from the most preferred to the least
preferred.
Alternative A B C D
Cargo Handling 12 t - 14m 10 t – 10 m 25t/11m and 20 t – 10 m
7t/14m
Rank

Based on the values assigned in table 2, alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with cargo
handling, what value do you give based on its approximation of the value 100?
Rank1:_____.
Alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least cargo handling capabilities, is given a
value of 0, as it satisfies the minimum requirement in table 2. Rate the other alternatives in
such a way that the space between the values you give to the alternatives represents your
strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of cargo handling.
Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative: ______
Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative: ______

97
Medical Treatment Capabilities
Rank the alternatives in terms of their medical treatment capabilities from the most preferred
to the least preferred.

Alternative A B C D
Medical
Treatment
Capabilities
Rank

Alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with medical treatment capabilities, is now given a
value of 100, and alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with the least medical treatment
capabilities, is given a value of 0.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
medical treatment capabilities.

Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative:______

Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative:______

Capability of Replenishment at Sea

Rank the alternatives regarding their replenishment capability at sea from the most preferred
to the least preferred.

Alternative A B C D
Bow Thruster No Yes No No
Rank 2 1 2 2

Alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with replenishment at sea capability, is now given
a value of 100, and alternative with rank No. 2, the vessel with no capability of replenishment
of sea, is given a value of 0.

98
Appendix F Questionnaire for Attribute Weighting (Provide Transport)

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

Part 1. Ranking. Experts are considering several fundamental objectives (F.O.s) in the
field, and this questionnaire addresses only one of these fundamental objectives. In the
following survey, you will be asked a series of questions according to your area of expertise.
Fundamental Objective: Provide Transport

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Additional Personnel 20 Personnel 40 Personnel
B Cargo Capacity 300 Tonnes 590 Tonnes
C Naval Towing Capacity No capacity Capacity for 30 Tonnes

You are deciding on a new logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be
moved to its best level, which would you choose?

A B C

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B C

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?

A B C

99
Part 2. Value Swing
“Compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. (Goodwin and Wright, 2004).

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Additional Personnel 20 Personnel 40 Personnel
B Cargo 300 Tonnes 590 Tonnes
C Naval Towing Capacity No capacity Capacity for 30 Tonnes
Table 1. Least and most preferred levels attributes.

According to your answers to the previous questions, the ranking of the attributes are:

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 (a) 100
2 (b)
3 (c)

The highest-ranked attribute is given a value swing of 100. The other attributes are assigned
relative value swings according to how you think their value swing compares to the highest-
ranked value swing.

Consider a value swing from the worst (b)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as a
percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most preferred (a)__________ in
Table 1. Value Swing ____%.
Consider a value swing from the worst (c)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what overall improvement this value swing contributes to the F.O. as a
percentage of the value swing from the least preferred to most (a)__________ in Table 1.
Value Swing ____%.

100
Part 3. Scores
The next step is to determine how well the different alternatives perform on each of the
attributes. Consider first the attributes that have this minimum and maximum characteristic
in a global scale value.

Attribute Value 0 Value 100

Additional Personnel 20 60
Cargo 100 Tonnes 700 Tonnes
It does not contain this Towing depending on the
Naval Towing Capacity
capability tonnage (140 Tonnes)
Table 2. Global-scale value scores for attributes.

Additional Personnel

Alternative A B C D
Additional Personnel 40 20 39 25

We set the attribute of additional personnel capacity with 60 persons, providing this setting
with a value of 100. In a more mathematical form of notation, we say that v(60)=100. The
minimum number of additional personnel accepted is 20. Therefore, we assign a value of 0
to this measure, i.e., v(20)=0. It is then required to find the value of the additional personnel
of the other alternatives that fall between the two mentioned. Identify the additional
personnel capacity, whose value is halfway between the least preferred capacity (20) and
the most preferred one (60).
The midpoint additional personnel is (a)______ people. Hence, V(___)=50
Identified the additional personnel with a value halfway between the least preferred values
20 people to (a)_____ people. V(___)=25
Identify the additional personnel capacity with a value halfway between the average capacity
of (a)_____ and the maximum capacity of 60 people. The value is _____. V(___)=75.

We obtain five additional personnel capacities with these values, plotting the graph as a
function of additional personnel capacity against the value. With this graph, the values of the
additional personnel capacities of the other alternatives can be estimated.

Cargo Capacity

Alternative A B C D
Cargo capacity of 6 4 Land Rovers,
Space for
TEU, 02 four-wheeled four trucks, one
Twenty-foot
Cargo vehicles + 1 of 10t, 01 water trailer, 590 tonnes, up
Equivalent Unit
Capacity special room for divers generator, forklift to 24 TEU
TEU. 300
and equipment. and 2 TEU. 450
Tonnes approx.
480 Tonne approx. Tonnes approx.

101
We set the attribute of cargo capacity with 700 tonnes, providing this setting with a value of
100. In a more mathematical form of notation, we say that v(700)=100. The minimum cargo
capacity accepted is 100 tonnes. Therefore, we assign a value of 0 to this measure, i.e.,
v(100)=0. It is then required to find the value of the cargo capacity of the other alternatives
that fall between the two mentioned. Identify the alternatives’ cargo-carrying capacity, whose
value is halfway between the least preferred capacity (100 tonnes) and the most preferred
area (700 tonnes).
The midpoint carrying capacity is (a)______ tonnes. Hence, V(___)=50
Identified the cargo capacity with a value halfway between the least preferred values 100
tonnes to (a)_____ tonnes. V(___)=25
Identify the cargo-carrying capacity with a value halfway between the average capacity of
(a)_____ and the maximum capacity of 700 tonnes. The value is _____. V(___)=75.
We obtain five cargo capacities with these values, which allows us to plot the graph as a
function of the cargo-carrying capacity against the value. With this graph, the values of the
cargo-carrying capacities of the other alternatives can be estimated.

Naval Towing Capacity

Rank the alternatives in terms of their naval towing capacity from the most preferred to the
least preferred.

Alternative A B C D
Naval Towing Capacity 30 Tonnes Yes Yes No
Rank 4

Based on the values assigned in table 2, alternative with rank No. 1, the best ship with naval
towing capacity, what value do you give based on its approximation of the value 100?
Rank1:_____.
Alternative with rank No. 4, the vessel with no capacity is naval towing, is given a value of
0.
Rate the other alternatives in such a way that the space between the values you give to the
alternatives represents your strength of preference for one vessel over another in terms of
naval towing capacity.

Value rating for 2nd ranked alternative: ______

Value rating for 3rd ranked alternative: ______

102
Appendix G Results of Questionnaires (A, B, C, D, E, F)

The results obtained in Appendix A, B, C, D, E and F are shown as follows:

Questionnaire A Fundamental Objective: Movement & Manoeuvre

Part 1 Ranking

Ranking Attribute
1 Naval Mobility
2 Portage of Aircraft Units
3 Portage of Interdiction Boat and RHIB
4 Bow Thruster

Part 2 Value Swings

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 Naval Mobility 100
2 Portage of Aircraft Units 65
3 Portage of Interdiction Boat and RHIB 40
4 Bow Thruster 10

Part 3 scores
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
NAVAL MOBILITY 85 40 55 95
PORTAGE OF AIRCRAFT UNITS 70 90 0 0
PORTAGE OF INTERDICTION BOAT 100 50 60 0
AND RHIB
BOW THRUSTER 80 80 0 0

Questionnaire B Fundamental Objectives: Survivability

Part 1 Ranking

Ranking Attribute
1 Damage Control and Safety of life at sea Equipment
2 Manned stations
3 Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence weapons

Part 2 Value Swings

No. Attribute Value Swing
1 Damage Control and Safety of life at sea Equipment 100
2 Manned stations 60
3 Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence weapons 40

103
Part 3 scores
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
DAMAGE CONTROL AND SAFETY OF LIFE AT SEA 55 70 50 60
EQUIPMENT
MANNED STATIONS 40 60 56 58
SURFACE SURVEILLANCE (SENSORS) AND SELF- 70 85 60 60
DEFENCE WEAPONS

Questionnaire C Fundamental Objective: Sustainability

Part 1 Ranking

Ranking Attribute
1 Range
2 Maximum speed

Part 2 Value Swings

No. Attribute Value Swing
1 Range 100
2 Maximum speed 80

Part 3 scores
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
RANGE 75 6 12 12
MAXIMUM SPEED 50 40 57 32

Range Maximum Speed

V(6000)=100 V(20)=100
V(5000)=75 V(17)=75
V(4500)=50 V(14)=50
V(3500)=25 V(11)=25
V(1500)=0 V(8)=0

Questionnaire D Fundamental Objective: Offensive Capabilities

Part 1 Ranking

Ranking Attribute
1 Naval Close Fire Support
2 Small Arms
Part 2 Value Swings

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 Naval Close Fire Support 100
2 Small Arms 70

104
Part 3 scores
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
NAVAL CLOSE FIRE SUPPORT 0 100 0 0
SMALL ARMS 50 80 45 60

Questionnaire E Fundamental Objective: Supply Logistic Services

Part 1 Ranking
Ranking Attribute
1 Fuel Capacity
2 Capability of Replenishment at Sea
3 Water Capacity
4 Medical Treatment Capabilities
5 Cargo Handling

Part 2 Value Swings

No. Attribute Value Swing

1 Fuel Capacity 100
2 Capability of Replenishment at Sea 80
3 Water Capacity 70
4 Medical Treatment Capabilities 50
5 Cargo Handling 20

Part 3 scores
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
FUEL CAPACITY 92 10 90 95
CAPABILITY OF REPLENISHMENT 0 100 0 0
AT SEA
WATER CAPACITY 69 92 10 100
MEDICAL TREATMENT 80 60 60 70
CAPABILITIES
CARGO HANDLING 40 20 90 60

Water Capacity Fuel Capacity

V(200)=100 V(200)=100
V(160)=75 V(140)=75
V(125)=50 V(90)=50
V(100)=25 V(60)=25
V(85)=0 V(45)=0

105
Questionnaire F Fundamental Objective: Provide Transport
Part 1 Ranking

Ranking Attribute
1 Cargo
2 Additional Personnel
3 Naval Towing Capacity

Part 2 Value Swings

No. Attribute Value Swing
1 Cargo 100
2 Additional Personnel 70
3 Naval Towing Capacity 30

Part 3 scores
ALTERNATIVE A B C D
CARGO CAPACITY 79 51 75 90
ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL 50 0 49 12
NAVAL TOWING CAPACITY 40 30 30 0

Additional Personnel Cargo Capacity

V(60)=100 V(700)=100
V(50)=75 V(450)=75
V(40)=50 V(295)=50
V(30)=25 V(180)=25
V(20)=0 V(100)=0

The compiled results of all fundamental objectives are presented in the following table.

106
 Scores for alternatives
Value
ATTRIBUTE A B C D
Swing
Naval mobility 100 85 40 55 95
Portage of aircraft units 65 70 90 0 0
Portage of Interdiction boat 40 100 50 60 0
Bow Thruster 10 80 80 0 0
Damage Control and Safety of life at sea
100 55 70 50 60
Equipment
Manned stations 60 40 60 56 58
Surface Surveillance (Sensors) and Self-defence
40 70 85 60 60
weapons
Range 100 75 6 12 12
Maximum Speed 80 50 40 57 32
Naval Close Fire Support 100 0 100 0 0
Small Arms 70 50 80 45 60
Fuel Capacity 100 92 10 90 95
Capability of Replenishment at Sea 80 0 100 0 0
Water Capacity 70 69 92 10 100
Medical Treatment Capabilities 50 80 60 60 70
Cargo Handling 20 40 20 90 60
Cargo Capacity 100 79 51 75 90
Additional Personnel 70 50 0 49 12
Naval Towing Capacity 30 40 30 30 0

Graph Results

The following graphs are based on the results obtained in water capacity, fuel capacity,
maximum speed, range, additional personnel, and cargo capacity. The graphs plotted
values against the range of each attribute from the lowest to the highest desired value, based
on the answers given by the experts in the respective questionnaires.

107
 100
90
80
70
60
Value

50
40
30
20
10
0
85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195
Water Capacity

Fuel Capacity
V(200)=100
V(140)=75
V(90)=50
V(60)=25
V(45)=0

100
90
80
70
60
Value

50
40
30
20
10
0
45 55 65 75 85 95 105 115 125 135 145 155 165 175 185 195
Fuel Capacity

Water Capacity
V(200)=100
V(160)=75
V(125)=50
V(100)=25
V(85)=0

108
 100
90
80
70
60
Value

50
40
30
20
10
0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Maximum Speed

Maximum Speed
V(20)=100
V(17)=75
V(14)=50
V(11)=25
V(8)=0

100
90
80
70
60
Value

50
40
30
20
10
0
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Range

Range
V(6000)=100
V(5000)=75
V(4500)=50
V(3500)=25
V(1500)=0

109
 100
90
80
70
60
Value

50
40
30
20
10
0
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Additional Personnel

Additional Personnel
V(60)=100
V(50)=75
V(40)=50
V(30)=25
V(20)=0

100
90
80
70
60
Value

50
40
30
20
10
0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Cargo Capacity

Cargo Capacity
V(700)=100
V(450)=75
V(295)=50
V(180)=25
V(100)=0

110
Appendix H Questionnaire for Final Attribute Weighting

A MULTI-ATTRIBUTE DECISION-MAKING METHODOLOGY FOR SELECTING AN

OPTIMAL LOGISTIC SHIP FOR THE COLOMBIAN NAVY

Part 1. Ranking. Experts considered several fundamental objectives (F.O.s) in the field,
each contributed to by several attributes and evaluated each one. This questionnaire
addresses a single attribute from each fundamental objective. As a decision-maker
considering your knowledge of the project and requirements that the navy aims for in this
decision-making problem, you will be asked a series of questions to compare the attributes.

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Naval Mobility Length=70 m, Draft 4,5
Length=60 m, Draft 2.7 m.
(Dimensions) m.
Advanced damage control
equipment, engine room
Essential damage control
Damage Control and fire-fighting system,
equipment, watertight
B Safety of life at sea watertight compartments
compartments, life rafts
Equipment throughout the ship, life rafts
for the crew.
for crew and additional
personnel.
C Range 1800 NM @ 10 knots 5000 NM @ 12 knots
D Naval Close Fire
It does not contain One main gun, 76 mm.
Support
E Fuel Capacity 48 m3 190 m3
F Cargo Capacity 300 Tonnes 590 Tonnes

You are deciding on a new logistic vessel selection. Imagine a hypothetical logistic vessel
with all these attributes at their least preferred levels. If just one of these attributes could be
moved to its best level, which would you choose?

A B C D E F

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
A B C D E F

Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
A B C D E F

111
Which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
A B C D E F

Finally, which attribute would you next choose to move to its best level?
A B C D E F

Part 2. Value Swings

“Compare a change (or swing) from the least-preferred to the most-preferred value on one
attribute to a similar change in another attribute”. (Goodwin and Wright, 2004).

No. Attribute Least-preferred levels Most preferred levels

A Naval Mobility Length=70 m, Draft 4,5
Length=60 m, Draft 2.7 m.
(Dimensions) m.
Advanced damage control
equipment, engine room
Essential damage control
Damage Control and fire-fighting system,
equipment, watertight
B Safety of life at sea watertight compartments
compartments, life rafts
Equipment throughout the ship, life rafts
for the crew.
for crew and additional
personnel.
C Range 1800 NM @ 10 knots 5000 NM @ 12 knots
D Naval Close Fire
It does not contain One main gun, 76 mm.
Support
E Fuel Capacity 48 m3 190 m3
F Cargo Capacity 300 Tonnes 590 Tonnes
Table 1. Least and most preferred levels attributes.

According to your answers to the previous questions, the ranking of the attributes value
swings are:
No. Attribute Value Swing
1 (a) 100
2 (b)
3 (c)
4 (d)
5 (e)
6 (f)

The improvement in the ship’s overall effectiveness brought about by the value swing from
the least preferred to the most preferred level of the attribute (a) in Table 1 is given a value
swing of 100. The overall improvement brought about by changes in the other attributes are
now assigned relative value swings according to how you think their value swing compares
to the highest-ranked value swing.

112
Consider a value swing from the worst (b)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what improvement this value swing contributes to the ship’s overall
effectiveness as a percentage of the improvement brought about by the value swing from
the least preferred to most preferred (a)_____________ in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

Consider a value swing from the worst (c)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what improvement this value swing contributes to the ship’s overall
effectiveness as a percentage of the improvement brought about by the value swing from
the least preferred to most preferred (a)_____________ in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

Consider a value swing from the worst (d)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what improvement this value swing contributes to the ship’s overall
effectiveness as a percentage of the improvement brought about by the value swing from
the least preferred to most preferred (a)_____________ in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

Consider a value swing from the worst (e)______________ to the best shown in Table 1. In
your opinion, state what improvement this value swing contributes to the ship’s overall
effectiveness as a percentage of the improvement brought about by the value swing from
the least preferred to most preferred (a)_____________ in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

Finally, consider a value swing from the worst (f)______________ to the best shown in Table
1. In your opinion, state what improvement this value swing contributes to the ship’s overall
effectiveness as a percentage of the improvement brought about by the value swing from
the least preferred to most preferred (a)_____________ in Table 1. Value Swing ____%.

113