About problem:

Which job offer to accept due to the number of more or less standard criteria is dilemma that is often found with freelancers (and with other employees, of course, but in this paper focuses primarily on the specifics of freelancers).

Often, the same people can meet on various projects and have the opportunity to exchange experiences related to a variety of situations, but still has access to each individual situation that is significantly different for each participant: this kind of work is quite subjectively determined. It often is difficult to hear two similar position on the same issue, and especially agreed opinion on a long and complex project.

However, such an exchange of information still provides some insight into the otherwise unknown state of a project. No matter how certain information should be taken with caution, a collection of the same information from different sources can give a picture of the project at the moment of decision-making, and it knows very often again be of significant help. The fact is that, really, the decision in such situations is a compilation of anticipated consequences of thus obtained information

Looking subsequent to such a decision, it turns out that they are largely dependent on the share of each input in fully created  image of the project that we have been  thinking of.. The question is what would happen if the particular information had given greater or lesser importance, or that their interactions had differently valued.


A set of alternative solutions in this case consists of a variety of business opportunities. I'll call them Solution 1 (Sol1) Solution 2 (Sol2) ...

Each solution has its own characteristics which will be discussed later. These characteristics are more or less attractive, but none of them have a distinct advantage in all of them.

Solution 1:
Job in Copenhagen, obligatory presence at the employer place,code  in a relatively good shape but too small volume (estimated a month).

Solution 2:
Job in Graz, obligatory presence at the employer place, code in good condition, estimate the job volume of approximately 3 months. Labour costs very little.

Solution 3:
Business in Zagreb, compulsory presence at the employer's assessment , the job duration about one month, information about the job are good, the price of labor is very good.

Solution 4:
Business in Rome, compulsory presence at the employer's assessment, code in a very good condition but too small volume (estimated a month). Also known employer, previous cooperation was excellent.

Solution 5:
Job in London, it is not required to be present at the employer after a certain period, code in poor condition and too small (estimated a month). Information about the job and  bad as well as the infgormation of the employer.

Solution 6:
Job in Zurich, compulsory presence at the employer place, code in  the relatively good condition  and of good volume (estimated at 3 to 4 months). Known associates, bad experiences with them.

Determination of the  criteria set:

 It is not a problem to identify the criteria that are important for evaluating the solution: they are generally noticeable and clear. However, their interrelationships  are not expected to show themselves, especially they are not easily measured.

Compromises in defining criteria can influence the decision, but if we start from the assumption that in fact we consider only the problem defined with those criteria, it is easier to change the criteria to define different problems than try them all reduce to the same "common denominator". The set of similar problems still have common roots, so that family problems can be reduced to different impacts of changing the criteria.

Even Swaps that impacts has addressed in different ways.  It is not irrelevant which attribute is to be replaced, and with which one will be replaced.


     Zagreb, Graz, Rome, Copenhagen, London...
Stacked to the desirability of the most desirable destinations to the least interesting. What is a city farther the costs are higher. There are still important  accommodation costs, as well as the possible complications of a formalization of one kind or anozher... Scale 1-9.

An important criterion for taking a business. Here is the situation illustrated with the scale of 1-9.

Complicated: sometimes less is more preferable, sometimes not  with the same majority of these criteria. In order not to have introduced new criteria, duration is limited to a preset conclusion: 1 or is 0.

Scale 1-9

Scale 1-9

Yes-No, that is 1 or is 0.

No-Yes. 1-0.
Answers the question of whether the engagement is organized through the defined timeframe for the completion of certain phases, or the entire project. Dead-line is in principle undesirable.

Scale 1-9.
Refers to information about the project. Sometimes it is not important, but once again could help ...

Scale 1-9.

Yes-No, 1-0.
Refers to the ability to work from a remote location. The most desirable characteristics of a possible engagement whose importance is reflected in the compensation value.



Clicking on the name of the problem goes to the already defined problems.

We would be back on that situation later. Now click on New problem in order to create new situation. Here will be presented creation of exposed JOBSEARCH problem.

New problem:
First we define the name of problem, then criteria, the unit of measure to which it relates, and the method of measurement: the more is better, or less is better.

For JOBSEARCH it looks this way, Criteria definition:
It is possible, of course, measure Location  in hundreds of kilometers, or Compensation in thousands of dollars, or whatever decision maker believes that it is easier.
In this example it has been chosen the simplest approach: in any case the interrelationships compensation table must be defined, so it was easier to think how much the total range of the locations (1-9) holds a particular fee which is also a range of 1-9.

After criteria generate solutions:
The program will sort at the top row all the attributes that we defined, and make possible to generate an arbitrary number of solutions that use them.

Secon part of generate solutions:
By generating solutions  has been used scale or 1-9, or "binary" 0-1. For this and similar case it is sufficient range, and the solutions are similar to the situation that could be set when using the AHP for example, so it make comparable situation. The real problem is the relationship with the replacement of which is defined compensation table:

Compensation table:
compensation table
Everything that is entered from the top diagonal will automatically appear in their reciprocal form and in the appropriate place on the underside of the diagonal.

Interesting is the "binary" REMOTE. This is a very important criterion since it is a job that lets you work remotely. Hence these relations in compensation: DURATION / REMOTE = 20. The nature of this criterion and is "binary" (yes / no), but only after the compensation criteria it is visible to what extent is important.

Compensation criteria may be negative. Thus the ratio of improvising over / under.

Now back to usage of defined JOBSEARCH:
usage of defined problem

We'll explain in detail all of above mentioned.

Select the DURATION for irrelevant attributes and REMOTE for compensation. The program will detect MAINTENANCE as irrelevant, so that at the end of this happens:

Step1, click on DURATION:
Now click on Irrelevant attributes, confirm that click and program will ask for compensatory attribute:

Choose REMOTE and rhis will happen:

Step 3:
Program will show 4 tables, one by another. Lets see what we have in first two.
At the first table appearing twice  two columns. It is a double printing irrelevant and compensating attributes.

In the same place where there was a DURATION appears another such line, provided that it contains the mean of  DURATION. Now it's easy to compare and see what the difference in a particular solution to the mean.

On the same place where he was REMOTE  there is also by compensation reduced REMOTE either . Now it's easy to compare and see that the SOL1, for example, DURATION  increase by 1 resulting in a reduction of the REMOTE for 20, as defined in the compensation table.

Second table shows situation without DURATION and with reduced REMOTE ready for new actions.

Now make closer look at above table. MAINTENANCE is irrelevant by itself (same for all solutions, so do not have any influence). Program also recognize that and by itself performs elimination of irrelevant attribute:

Step 3a:
Program  marks what is irrelevant and also provide table without it.

Program also suggests that SOL3 dominate over SOL6 i SOL5. That mean every criteria of SOL1 is better or same compared with appropriate in SOL6 and SOL5.  Practically it means that those two solutions does not need to exists any more (and this is goal of method) so we can remove them in our  searching for the best solution.

So, click on SOL5. It'll become orange:

Step 4:
Button Dominance becomes usable. Click on it:

Step 5:
Program will show situation with SOL5 and without it. Do the same with SOL6. What will remain is here:

Step 6:
We have made 3 general actions, and it is possible to change our mind at this stage. So, if we want to go back through performed actions we could click on steps number at the bottom of the screen. Click on 1 will make situation like this:

Step  7:
Now we have SOL5 and SOL6 back on screen. If we want completely to back situation on first point, click Reset:

Step 8:
Now we are at the very beginning of our best solution search...

Consider this search path at JOBSEARCH problem:
This is going to happen:
When REMOTE reduced to 6 (ceil (20/3)), and by compensation table compensate ASSOCIATES, will turn out that every solution value for ASSOCIATES is 3.6. This means that because of compensatom and ASSOCIATES have become irrelevant too, and is dominated by SOL1 and SOL3.

Moving Sol1 will make a chain reaction with your CODE and WAGE so program will, one by one, show eight tables that represent that process.
Last one:

 After all of that we need just one itteration to figure out that SOL4 is the best ...