This chapter illustrates the sequential use of hierarchies in the selection, design and marketing of a mouse trap. The project described in this chapter is not so much about building a better mousetrap as it is about a person’s hope to reach a higher state by engulfing oneself in the project. Not a higher state in the classical sense that is indicative of a great mind expanding, but a state that helps a person to grow through doing, always reminding one that there are numerous ways to see a problem. By reminding the student to be open and sensitive to new ideas and new creative processes, the professor can foster positive growth. Emphasizing that you never reach a state where you are all that there is, and your ways are the best, can lead to a healthy respect for continued growth buttressed by a positive attitude, and a striving for a more fulfilling life.


Appeal Appeal Lure Criterion Wire Grid Shock Delivery Priority Alternative 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Dobias, A.P., “Designing a Mousetrap Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process and Expert Choice”, European Journal of Operational Research 48, 1 (1990) 57–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Saaty, Thomas L., Decision Making for Leaders. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas L. Saaty
    • 1
  • Luis G. Vargas
    • 1
  1. 1.University of PittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations