Weighting Under Ambiguous Preferences and Imprecise Differences in a Cardinal Rank Ordering Process
Tóm tắt
The limited amount of good tools for supporting elicitation of preference information in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) causes practical problem. In our experiences, this can be remedied by allowing more relaxed input statements from decision-makers, causing the elicitation process to be less cognitively demanding. Furthermore, it should not be too time consuming and must be able to actually use of the information the decision-maker is able to supply. In this paper, we propose a useful weight elicitation method for MAVT/MAUT decision making, which builds on the ideas of rank-order methods, but increases the precision by adding numerically imprecise cardinal information as well.
Tài liệu tham khảo
R. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs (John Wiley, NY, 1976).
R. Keeney, Making better decision makers, in Decision Analysis 1(4) (2004) 193–204.
D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research (Cambridge University Press, NY, 1986).
V. Belton and T. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach (Kluwer Academic Publishers, UK, 2002).
T. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, in Interfaces 24(6) (1994) 19–43.
B. Roy, The outranking approach and the foundation of Electre methods, in Theory and Decision 31(1) (1991) 49–73.
J.P. Brans, Ph. Vincke and B. Mareschal, How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method, in European Journal of Operational Research 24(2) (1986) 228–238.
R.V. Brown, Making decision research useful - not just rewarding, in Judgment and Decision Making 1(2) (2006) 162–173.
J. Wallenius, J.S. Dyer, P.C. Fishburn, R.E. Steuer, S. Zionts and K. Deb, Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead, in Management Science 54(7) (2008) 1336–1349.
S. French and D.-L. Xu, Comparison study of multiattribute decision analytic software, in Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 13(2–3) (2005) 65–80.
R.T. Clemen and T. Reilly, Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools Suite (Duxburry Press, 1999).
F. Barron and B. Barrett, Decision quality using ranked attribute weights, in Management Science 42(11) (1996) 1515–1523.
Z. Shapira, Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective (Russel Sage Foundation, NY, 1995).
J. Corner and P Corner, Characteristics of decisions in decision analysis practice, in Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(3) (1995) 304–314.
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Rational choice and the framing of decisions, in Journal of Business 59(4) (1986) 251–278.
S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic (eds.), The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, NY, 2006).
J. Pictet and D. Bollinger, Extended use of the cards procedure as a simple elicitation technique for MAVT. Application to public procurement in Switzerland, in European Journal of Operational Research 185(3) (2008) 1300–1307.
P. Bottomley and J. Doyle, A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best, in Omega 29(6) (2001) 553–560.
K. Katsikopoulos and B. Fasolo, New tools for decision analysts, in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans 36(5), (2006) 960–967.
E.U. Choo, B. Schoner and W.C. Wedley, Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making, in Computers & Industrial Engineering 37(3) (1999) 527–541.
C.R. Fox and K.E. See, Belief and preference in decision under uncertainty, in Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgement and Decision Making, eds. D. Hardman and L. Macchi (John Wiley & Sons, 2003).
D. Ellsberg, Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms, in Quarterly Journal of Economics 75(4) (1961) 643–669.
A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, in Science 211(4481) (1981) 453–458.
L.A. Lenert and J.R. Treadwell, Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance, in Medical Decision Making 19(4) (1999) 473–481.
M. Pöyhönen and R.P. Hämäläinen, On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods, in European Journal of Operational Research 129(3) (2001) 569–585.
A. Larsson, J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg and M. Danielson, Decision Analysis with Multiple Objectives in a Framework for Evaluating Imprecision, in International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness, and Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(5) (2005) 495–509.
K.S. Park, Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete, in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics- Part A: Systems and Humans 34(5) (2004) 601–614.
A. Larsson, J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg and M. Danielson, Decision analysis with multiple objectives in a framework for evaluating imprecision”, in International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 13(5) (2005) 495–509.
J. Jia, G.W. Fischer and J. Dyer, Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: a simulation study, in Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11(2) (1998) 85–105.
M. Danielson and L. Ekenberg, Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees, in European Journal of Operational Research 181(2) (2007) 808–816.
A. Jiménez, S. Rios-Insua and A. Mateos, A generic multi-attribute analysis system”, in Computers & Operational Research 33(4) (2006) 1081–1101.
J. Mustajoki, R.P. Hämäläinen and A. Salo, Decision support by interval SMART/SWING - incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods, in Decision Sciences 36(2) (2005) 317–339.
W.G. Stillwell, D.A. Seaver and W. Edwards, A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute decision making, in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28(1) (1981) 62–77.
W. Edwards and F.H. Barron, SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement, in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60(3) (1994) 306–325.
M. Riabacke, M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg and A. Larsson, A Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an MCDA Process, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory (2009) 168–179.
M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, J. Idefeldt and A. Larsson, Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis – the Case of Nacka Municipality, in Decision Analysis 4(2) (2007) 76–90.
M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, A. Ekengren, T. Hökby, and J. Lidén, Decision Process Support for Participatory Democracy, in Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 15(1–2) (2008) 15–30.
M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, A. Larsson and M. Riabacke, Transparent public decision making: Discussion and case study in Sweden, in E-Democracy: A Group Decision and Negotiation Perspective, (Rios Insua, D. and French, S., eds., Springer, 2010).
E. Ekener-Petersen, G. Finnveden, A. Larsson, P. Sandin and K. Alverbro, A framework tool for integrated decision making involving ethical issues - case study on destruction of ammunition, forthcoming.