6.3 Pilot study 3: Oracle’s office locations
6.3.1 Interfaces to design alternatives (step 5)
The main objective of the stakeholders in the workshop in step 5 ‘designing alternatives’ is to maximize the overall preference score. In this pilot the
stakeholders not only designed alternatives themselves. Next, to their own design, an optimization tool was also used to generate alternatives. In this paragraph the design interfaces that have been used by the stakeholders in this pilot will be shown. Note that De Visser (2016) refers to the design interface as GUI which is the abbreviation of Graphical User Interface. In the first main design interface the stakeholders can design alternatives. The second interface shows detailed information per criterion and enables the stakeholders to refer back to their input. In this particular pilot one extra design tool has been created.
This paragraph is based on De Visser (2016, pp. 67, 71-72)58.
Main design interface59
The final GUI is shown in Figure 6.25 and provides the possibility to design portfolio alternatives quite intuitively by filling out a set of checkboxes. This is done in the design table on the left side, which also provides the location preference score. The selected locations appear in the table in the middle, presenting the current design.
58 The cited or summarized text is displayed in purple, added text in black. Paragraph and figure numbers adjusted to this thesis.
59 The numbers in the main design interface are presented with two decimals, which suggests a certain level of precision. The systems engineer and model expert realize that this could give the wrong signal. The stakeholders have been informed about this.
Above this table, the number of locations selected is shown. Once selecting the button ‘Calc. Preference’, the overall preference score for the design appears in the top right corner. In the table on the right side with the criteria and criteria weights, the average physical values and preference scores per criterion appear for the portfolio design. Below this table, the difference between the preference score for the current portfolio and the alternative design appears.
Moreover, De Visser built some additional features that have been implemented to improve the design process. The possibility to name and save design alternatives makes it possible to get back to previous ideas and build upon them by recalling them in the design screen. Other features are the possibility for the stakeholders to disable the design constraint on the number of locations and to unselect all locations at once. Finally, the visual feedback that is provided by De Visser, in the middle of the design interface, shows whether or not the designed alternative is within the design boundaries (De Visser, 2016, pp. 71-72).
Location 1
FIG. 6.25 Main design interface Note from De Visser, 2016, p. 71
Input interface
The input interface provides direct feedback to the interviewee with to their input.
This interface is similar to the design interfaces in the first and second pilot. This interface has been used during the interviews. As the interviews were held via a conference call connection, the systems engineer shared his screen with the
interviewee. As this interface was made in MS Excel and not in Matlab60, it was not possible to give feedback about the portfolio alternatives on the input curves as was done in the first two pilots. This means that this interface was used during the interviews and not during the workshops (De Visser, 2016) (see Figure 6.26).
Assigning preference curves & weights LOB 1 (100%) STEP 1, CRITERIA & 3, WEIGHTS STEP 2, PREFERENCE FUNCTIONS
Stakeholder: Stakeholder weight(%):
LOB 1 (100%) 14% 11% 5%
Weight (%)
Criteria 1 14% LOB 1: Criteria 1 Unit: Unit: Unit: ‐
Criteria 2 11% LOB 1: Criteria 2 value p value p value p
Criteria 3 5% LOB 1: Criteria 3 53.270 100 15 100 5,8 100
Criteria 4 5% LOB 1: Criteria 4 93.000 80 26 50 2,9 20
Criteria 5 5% LOB 1: Criteria 5 146.506 0 50 0 2,4 0
Criteria 6 5% LOB 1: Criteria 6
Criteria 7 5% LOB 1: Criteria 7
Criteria 8 4% LOB 1: Criteria 8
Criteria 9 4% LOB 1: Criteria 9
Criteria 10 4% LOB 1: Criteria 10
Criteria 11 4% LOB 1: Criteria 11 146.506max 50 max 6 max
Criteria 12 4% LOB 1: Criteria 12 53.270 min 15 min 2 min
Criteria 13 5% LOB 1: Criteria 13
Criteria 14 5% LOB 1: Criteria 14
Criteria 15 5% LOB 1: Criteria 15 Definition: Definition:Tax as total percentage Definition:1‐7 rating based on inquiry among executives WEF data
Criteria 16 2% LOB 1: Criteria 16 f(x) = f(x) = f(x) =
Criteria 17 2% LOB 1: Criteria 17
Criteria 18 5% LOB 1: Criteria 18 5% 5% 5%
Criteria 19 1% LOB 1: Criteria 19
Criteria 20 1% LOB 1: Criteria 20
Criteria 21 2% LOB 1: Criteria 21
Criteria 22 2% LOB 1: Criteria 22 Unit: ‐ Unit: Unit:
Criteria 23 value p value p value p
100% 6,5 100 2.700 100 1.000 100
3,0 10 800 60 150 70
2,0 0 200 0 50 0
7 max 2.700 max 1.000 max
2 min 200 min 50 min
0 500 1.000 1.500 2.000 2.500 3.000
preference rating [‐]
0 50.000 100.000 150.000 200.000
preference rating [‐]
0 200 400 600 800 1.000 1.200
preference rating [‐]
LOB 1: Criteria 6
FIG. 6.26 Input interface with overview per stakeholder of step 1 to 3 Note from De Visser, 2016, p. 67
PAS interfaces and DAS
In the third pilot there was no direct link between PAS and DAS.
Additional design tools
One additional design tool was used in the process. Because the physical values and criterion scores for the individual locations were not visible in the main design interface these values were provided separately. These values remained the same during the whole pilot study. The stakeholders used this file during workshops.
The system engineer indicated that it is possible that the stakeholders not fully understood this tool, because they did not select the location with the highest overall preference score into their new portfolio. This means that this overview should have been explained more to the stakeholders.
60 Matlab (matrix laboratory) is a multi-paradigm numerical computing environment and proprietary programming language developed by MathWorks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATLAB