# 155

Dear Hamed Taherdoost, Atefeh Mohebi

I read your paper

Using SMART Method for MultiCriteria Decision Making: Applications, Advantages and Limitations Archives of Advanced Engineering Science

My comments:

1- On page 1 you say “The calculation of priorities and weights based on a set of criteria is an essential component”

Not always; there are MCDM methods that do not work with weights, even recognizing that not all criteria have the same importance. They ponder them in another way, and are objective, not subjective.

2- “The assessment process involves calculating a ranked list of options that align with the value judgments of the decision maker”

This is inexact, because not all methods consider judgements, some work with real data, and in this case, opinions from experts are incorporated when a result is obtained, and modified, if necessary, by experts’ opinions. In this case, they have a solid base to work on with not altered initial data. If they see that the result is not realistic, they can input new values. This is called ‘The bottom-up approach’, by far more logical.

3- Page 1 “Assessment: The assessment process involves calculating a ranked list of options that align with the value judgments of the decision maker”

Well, if you project is related with selecting a movie or a restaurant to dine, I could agree. However, in real projects there is of course guidelines regarding size, location, transportation, etc., but in general a project is not solved according to experts’ wishes, but based on very tangible and real issues, like funding, environment, public health, government regulations, return, type of materials, labor conflicts, etc., which are not related with preferences. Of course, an entrepreneur wants to have as high a return as possible, but that return must be within reasonable limits according to the current national and international conditions and regulations.

4- Page 2 up of several criteria, each of which has a weight and value ascribed to it based on its relat“Multi-criteria analysis is a decision-making approach that is based on the idea that each alternative is made ive”

I believe that your wording is not appropriate because a project is an identity by itself and it is not made up by several criteria; a project must be subject to a set of criteria for its evaluation

5- Page 5 “The SMART approach is advantageous because it simplifies the decision-making process for customers by providing answers to simple understandable questions”

I do know how the SMART method woks, but it seems to me that there are many important questions for which the method has no answers, same as most MCDM methods; therefore, it is not unique in this drawback.

Which, according to you are those important questions? Don’t you think that a reader needs to know to what you are referring to?

I can pose some fundamental questions, for instance:

In what percentage each objective has been accomplished,

· How does it operate with a mix of cardinal variables and binary?

· Can it manage problems with changing criteria values periodically, as a function of time?

· How does it determine which is the most important criterion, without using of course, arbitrary weights?

6- “Moreover, depending on subjective assessments to assign weights and scores might lead to biases, potentially distorting results if not verified by thorough sensitivity analysis”

Agreed, but in my opinion, sensitivity analysis has no role in detecting errors. It only indicates the strength of a solution, independently of the data used

7- Page 5 “The ratings of alternatives have a small relative impact, meaning that altering the number of alternatives would not inherently modify the decision scores of the initial possibilities”

I am afraid I disagree since a change in the rating of alternatives, most probably will originate rank reversal. This is simply because in lineal algebra in a decision matrix, a change of an alternative coefficient involves a change in the slope of the objective function, and this may produce a change of its tangency with a vertex of the polygon of feasible solutions, that determines the ranking.

8- Yes, SMART is a compensatory method and this is not precisely an advantage.

9- “The qualitative attributes should be converted into the quantitative attributes”

Another disadvantage

10- “The SMART technique is effective in addressing MCDM issues, as demonstrated by this methodical approach that ensures the decision is made through a transparent, logical, and clear review process.

Transparent, using invented weights?

How do you calculate utilities?

11- “The study by Ishizaka and Siraj [10] uses respondents from the university’s staff and student body to compare the SMART methodology with alternative MCDM tools.”

This is a frequent procedure followed by practitioners, although its utility is null. There is no guaranty that comparing the results of two methods applied to a same problem, even with a high correlation coefficient, assures that the solution found is correct. It could also be a mere coincidence.

12- “The current results of various applications of SMART provided extensive information on the effectiveness of the method and highlighted both its advantages in supporting decision[1]making and its disadvantages in managing complex dynamic”

This is another typical false assertion for any MCDM method. How can you assert that a result of a method, any method, is effective, if you do not have any yardstick to compare its results to?

These are my comments; I hope they can be of help

Nolberto Munier