Problem $2$

As an experiment, a charity decides to use SMART to determine a shortlist from the seven applicants who

have applied for the post of Regional Officer for the Western Region. The main criteria which will be used

to compare candidates are: the salary they would expect $($SALARY$)($they have stated this on the application

form$),$ their experience of charity work $($CHARITY EXP$),$ their managerial experience $($MANAGEMENT

EXP$),$ their educational qualifications $($EDUCATION$),$ their apparent commitment to the charity's work

$($COMMITMENT$)$ and the quality of the ideas they put forward on the form $($IDEAS$).$ The personnel

manager ranked all the criteria, except salary, in order of importance and then assigned weights as follows:

$\backslash$table$[[$COMMITMENT$,100],[$MANAGEMENT EXP,$70],[$IDEAS$,65],[$CHARITY EXP,$55],[$EDUCATION$,10]]$

Problem $2\mathrm{.}1(10$ points$)$

Please calculate the normalized weights in the table below.

$\backslash$table$[[,$Original Weights,Normal weights$],[$COMMITMENT$,100,],[$MANAGEMENT EXP,$70,],[$IDEAS$,65,],[$CHARITY EXP,$55,],[$EDUCATION$,10,],[$Total$,300,100$

Problem $2\mathrm{.}2(10$ points$)$

Candidate A$\text{'}$s scores for the non$-$monetary attributes are given below;

Using the weights given in the $(2\mathrm{.}1)$ above, show how the personnel manager obtained a score of $50($subject

to rounding$)$ for this candidate. Basically, you just need to complete the table below.

$\backslash$table$[[,$Score,$\backslash$table$[[$Norm$.$ Weight$],[($from Problem $2\mathrm{.}1)]],$Weighted Score$],[$COMMITMENT$,100\mathrm{.}0,,],[$MANAGEMENT EXP,$10\mathrm{.}0,,],[$IDEAS$,65\mathrm{.}0,,],[$CHARITY EXP,$0\mathrm{.}0,,],[$EDUCATION$,10\mathrm{.}0,,],[,,$Sum,$],[,,$Sum$/100,]]$