Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an MCDA Process

  • Conference paper
Algorithmic Decision Theory (ADT 2009)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 5783))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In this article, we discuss decision making involving multiple objectives (MCDA) and especially the lack of more prescriptively useful elicitation methods for weights within MCDA. We highlight the discrepancy between how elicitation is handled in current decision analysis applications and the abilities of real decision-makers to provide what is required from them. Based on theory and highlighted problems with current methods, we propose a novel approach for weight elicitation which relaxes the need for numeric preciseness from decision-makers and reduces some of the practical issues related to such processes. The method is tested in a comparative study, as well as employed in a real-life case study.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wallenius, J., Dyer, J.S., Fishburn, P.C., Steuer, R.E., Zionts, S.: Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead. Management Science 54(7), 1336–1349 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Fox, J.: Probability, Logic and the Cognitive Foundations of Rational Belief. J. Appl. Logic. 1, 197–224 (2003)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  3. Belton, V., Stewart, T.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, UK (2002)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Pöyhönen, M., Hämäläinen, R.: On the Convergence of Multiattribute Weighting Methods. European Journal of Operational Research 129, 106–122 (2001)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Doyle, J.R., Green, R.H., Bottomley, P.A.: Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation are Not Equivalent. Org. Behav. & Human Dec. Proc. 70, 65–72 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borcherding, K., Eppel, T., von Winterfeldt, D.: Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Management Science 37(12), 1603–1619 (1991)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 185(4157), 1124–1131 (1974)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Tversky, A., Kahneman, D.: The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211, 453–458 (1981)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  9. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. Wiley, NY (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shapira, Z.: Risk taking: A Managerial Perspective. Russel Sage Foundation, NY (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kirkwood, C.W.: Strategic Decision Making: Multiobjective Decision Making with Spreadsheets. Wadsworth Publishing Company, US (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Riabacke, A., Påhlman, M., Larsson, A.: How Different Choice Strategies Can Affect the Risk Elicitation Process. IAENG Intern. J. of Comp. Science 32(4), 460–465 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Barron, F.H., Barrett, B.E.: Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights. Management Science 42(11), 1515–1523 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. von Winterfeldt, D., Edwards, W.: Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Riabacke, A., Påhlman, M., Baidya, T.: Risk Elicitation in Precise and Imprecise Domains – A Comparative Study, Sweden and Brazil. In: Proc. of the Int. Conf. on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control and Automation (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Påhlman, M., Riabacke, A.: A Study on Framing Effects in Risk Elicitation. In: Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on Computational Intelligence for Modelling, Control & Autom. (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J.R., Green, R.H.: Testing the Reliability of Weight Elicitation Methods: Direct Rating versus Point Allocation. J. Marketing Res. 37, 508–513 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Edwards, W.: How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man & Cybernetics 7(5), 326–340 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bottomley, P.A., Doyle, J.R.: A Comparison of Three Weight Elicitation Methods: Good, Better, and Best. Omega 29, 553–560 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fischer, G.W.: Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models. Org. Behav. & Human Dec. Proc. 62(3), 252–266 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Saaty, T.L.: The Analytic Hieararchy Process. McGraw-Hill, NY (1980)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Katsikopoulos, K.V., Fasolo, B.: New Tools for Decision Analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans 36(5), 960–967 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Barron, F.H., Barrett, B.E.: The Efficacy of SMARTER: Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Extended to Ranking. Acta Psychologica 93, 23–36 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Stillwell, W.G., Seaver, D.A., Edwards, W.: A Comparison of Weight Approximation Techniques in Multiattribute Utility Decision Making. Org. Behav. & Human Performance 28(1), 62–77 (1981)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Barron, F.H.: Selecting a Best Multiattribute Alternative with Partial Information about Attribute Weights. Acta Psychologica 80(1-3), 91–103 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Walley, P.: Reasoning with Imprecise Probabilities. Chapman and Hall, London (1991)

    Book  Google Scholar 

  27. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Ekengren, A., Hökby, T., Lidén, J.: A Process for Participatory Democracy in Electronic Government. J. Multi-Criteria Dec. Anal. 15, 15–30 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Jiménez, A., Rios-Insua, S., Mateos, A.: A Generic Multi-Attribute Analysis System. Computers & Operations Research 33(4), 1081–1101 (2006)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R., Salo, A.: Decision Support by Interval SMART/SWING - Incorporating Imprecision in the SMART and SWING Methods. Dec. Sciences 36 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  30. March, J.G.: A Primer on Decision Making, How Decisions Happen. The Free Press, NY (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Edwards, W., Barron, F.H.: SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement. Org. Behav. & Human Dec. Proc. 60, 306–325 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Stewart, T.J.: A Critical Survey on the Status of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Theory and Practice. Omega 20(5-6), 569–586 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. von Nitzsch, R., Weber, M.: The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements. Management Science 39(8), 937–943 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. French, S., Rios Insua, D.: Statistical Decision Theory. Oxford University Press Inc., NY (2000)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  35. Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Idefeldt, J., Larsson, A.: Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka Municipality. Dec. Analysis 4(2), 76–90 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Brown, R., Vari, A.: Towards a Research Agenda for Prescriptive Decision Science: The Normative Tempered by the Descriptive. Acta Psych. 80, 33–47 (1992)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Matsatsinis, N.F., Samaras, A.P.: MCDA and Preference Disaggregation in Group Decision Support Systems. Euro. J. Oper. Research 130(2), 414–429 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University and, Royal Institute of Technology, Forum 100, SE-164 40, Kista, Sweden

    Mona Riabacke, Mats Danielson, Love Ekenberg & Aron Larsson

  2. Dept. of Information Technology and Media, Mid Sweden University, SE-851 70, Sundsvall, Sweden

    Aron Larsson

Authors
  1. Mona Riabacke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mats Danielson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Love Ekenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aron Larsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pure and Applied Mathematics, University of Padova, Via Trieste 63, 35121, Padova, Italy

    Francesca Rossi

  2. LAMSADE-CNRS, University of Paris Dauphine, Place du Maréchal De Lattre de Tassigny, 75775, Paris Cedex 16, France

    Alexis Tsoukias

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Riabacke, M., Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A. (2009). A Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an MCDA Process. In: Rossi, F., Tsoukias, A. (eds) Algorithmic Decision Theory. ADT 2009. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 5783. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04428-1_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04428-1_15

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04427-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04428-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics