ing Services it was understood that the “Analytical Hierarchy Process” (AHP) introduced by Saaty in 1980, in conjunction with the Kano Model, could be a useful tool for evaluating water and wastewater treatment projects. In the AHP method, criteria and their weights will be generated after discussing the importance of each element with the client and other stakeholders. In this method, the generated weights for criteria are used fundamentally to compute the weight of each alternative for the same criteria. To calculate the weight of each alternative, the “eigenvalue” method based on pairwise comparisons among criteria would be used according to the decision maker’s preferences. (Munier, Hontoria and Jiménez-Sáez 2019)
ilar impacts on stakeholder satisfaction and they should be treated equally. Noriaki Kano developed a methodology known as the Kano model, to determine the impact of different criteria on customer satisfaction. The Kano model classifies the important criteria into three distinct categories. Each category of criteria affects clients differently (Kurt Matzler 1998), (ChunChih Chen 2008). 1. The “must-have” or basic criteria. In this instance, clients become dissatisfied when the performance of any criterion is low, or the product attribute is absent. For example, if the treatment technology could not meet the treatment target or the flow rate is insufficient, the client becomes unhappy and dissatisfied. However, client satisfaction does CRITERIA SELECTION not rise above neutral with a high-perAlthough the main criteria are deter- formance product criterion. Such crimined by the stakeholders and particu- teria are shown in the decision making larly based on the client’s preference, it matrix as an essential (or must) category. doesn’t mean that all of them have sim- 2. One-dimensional or performance
criteria. Here, customer satisfaction is a linear function of a specific parameter performance. High attribute performance leads to high customer satisfaction and vice versa. In water treatment projects, often the one-dimensional criteria are operating and capital (or rental in case of a temporary facility) costs which have an inverted relationship with client satisfaction. 3. Attractive or excitement criteria. In this situation, client satisfaction increases linearly with increasing attribute performance. There is not, however, a corresponding decrease in client satisfaction with a decrease in criterion performance. Examples of these criteria are productivity, modularity, operability and so on. These criteria are identified as criteria that do not belong to the other two categories. DECISION-MAKING PROCESS In the Kano model, the “weight” and “raw score” are two different sets of values
continued overleaf…
CANADA’S #1 RESOURCE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RISK INFORMATION
110010 100110 001111
End-to-end solutions and services:
Database reports Historical products Leading technology Mobile and online tools Fast service and turnaround
info@erisinfo.com erisinfo.com 1-866-517-5204
www.esemag.com @ESEMAG
December 2020 | 23