Evaluating Competing Criteria

Developing a system design for government projects typically requires a defense contractor to evaluate and make system decisions based on documents such as a request for proposal (RFP), statement of work (SOW), and concept of operations (CONOP) as shown in Figure 1. From these documents, a contractor must assess system alternatives while maximizing the customer’s expected system goals, objectives, and capabilities. As with any complex design, there may be competing goals and objectives, so a structured method of evaluating criteria, priorities, and alternatives is needed to support design decisions.

The analytical hierarchical process (AHP) is a commonly used multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method that can be used to evaluate design alternatives. AHP is favored over other MCDA methods due to its structured mathematical approach and ease of use.