IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v238y2014i2p540-551.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models

Author

Listed:
  • Hurson, Christian
  • Siskos, Yannis

Abstract

The assessment of additive value functions in Multicriteria Decision Aid (MCDA) has to face issues of legitimacy and technical difficulties when real decision makers are involved. This paper presents a synergy of three complementary techniques to assess additive models on the whole criteria space. The synergy includes a revised MACBETH technique, the standard MAUT trade-off analysis and UTA-based methods for the assessment of both the marginal value functions and the weighting factors. The paper uses a set of original robustness measures and rules associated with revised MACBETH and UTA in order to manage multiple linear programming solutions and to extract robust conclusions from them. Finally, to illustrate the methods’ synergy, an application example is presented, dealing with the planning of metro extension lines.

Suggested Citation

  • Hurson, Christian & Siskos, Yannis, 2014. "A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(2), pages 540-551.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:238:y:2014:i:2:p:540-551
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.047
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221714002860
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.047?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard Roy & Roman Slowinski, 2013. "Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method," Post-Print hal-00874292, HAL.
    2. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 2008. "A critical analysis of the eigenvalue method used to derive priorities in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(3), pages 1422-1428, June.
    3. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    4. Jacquet-Lagreze, E. & Siskos, J., 1982. "Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 151-164, June.
    5. Christian Hurson & Kostas Mastorakis & Yannis Siskos, 2012. "Application of a synergy of MACBETH and MAUT multicriteria methods to portfolio selection in Athens stock exchange," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 2(2), pages 113-127.
    6. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2013. "RUTA: A framework for assessing and selecting additive value functions on the basis of rank related requirements," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 735-751.
    7. Peter C. Fishburn, 1967. "Methods of Estimating Additive Utilities," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 13(7), pages 435-453, March.
    8. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, April.
    9. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2013. "Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 169-180.
    10. Siskos, J., 1982. "A way to deal with fuzzy preferences in multi-criteria decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 314-324, July.
    11. Denis Bouyssou & Marc Pirlot, 2016. "Conjoint Measurement Tools for MCDM," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 97-151, Springer.
    12. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    13. Greco, Salvatore & Mousseau, Vincent & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 191(2), pages 416-436, December.
    14. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2012. "Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(3), pages 541-553.
    15. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    16. Jacquet-Lagreze, Eric & Siskos, Yannis, 2001. "Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 233-245, April.
    17. Roy, Bernard, 2010. "Robustness in operational research and decision aiding: A multi-faceted issue," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(3), pages 629-638, February.
    18. Siskos, Y. & Spyridakos, A. & Yannacopoulos, D., 1999. "Using artificial intelligence and visual techniques into preference disaggregation analysis: The MIIDAS system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 281-299, March.
    19. Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Slowinski, Roman, 2009. "Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(2), pages 460-486, June.
    20. repec:hal:wpaper:hal-00874292 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    2. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    3. N. Tsotsolas & A. Spyridakos & E. Siskos & I. Salmon, 2019. "Criteria weights assessment through prioritizations (WAP) using linear programming techniques and visualizations," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 135-150, March.
    4. Psarras, John, 2016. "Multicriteria decision support to evaluate potential long-term natural gas supply alternatives: The case of GreeceAuthor-Name: Androulaki, Stella," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 791-810.
    5. Nikos Tsotsolas & Spiros Alexopoulos, 2019. "Towards a holistic strategic framework for applying robust facilitated approaches in political decision making," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 501-541, June.
    6. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    7. Mastorakis, Kostis & Siskos, Eleftherios, 2016. "Value focused pharmaceutical strategy determination with multicriteria decision analysis techniques," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 59(PA), pages 84-96.
    8. A. Spyridakos & N. Tsotsolas & Y. Siskos & D. Yannakopoulos & I. Vryzidis, 2020. "A visualization approach for robustness analysis in multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 20(3), pages 1841-1861, September.
    9. Siskos, Eleftherios & Tsotsolas, Nikos, 2015. "Elicitation of criteria importance weights through the Simos method: A robustness concern," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 543-553.
    10. Marinakis, Vangelis & Doukas, Haris & Xidonas, Panos & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2017. "Multicriteria decision support in local energy planning: An evaluation of alternative scenarios for the Sustainable Energy Action Plan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-16.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Marinakis, Vangelis & Doukas, Haris & Xidonas, Panos & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2017. "Multicriteria decision support in local energy planning: An evaluation of alternative scenarios for the Sustainable Energy Action Plan," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 1-16.
    2. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Sobrie, Olivier & Gillis, Nicolas & Mousseau, Vincent & Pirlot, Marc, 2018. "UTA-poly and UTA-splines: Additive value functions with polynomial marginals," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 405-418.
    4. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    5. Ghaderi, Mohammad & Ruiz, Francisco & Agell, Núria, 2017. "A linear programming approach for learning non-monotonic additive value functions in multiple criteria decision aiding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1073-1084.
    6. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    7. Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2011. "Preference disaggregation and statistical learning for multicriteria decision support: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(3), pages 203-214, March.
    8. Bouchery, Yann & Ghaffari, Asma & Jemai, Zied & Dallery, Yves, 2012. "Including sustainability criteria into inventory models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 229-240.
    9. Bous, Géraldine & Fortemps, Philippe & Glineur, François & Pirlot, Marc, 2010. "ACUTA: A novel method for eliciting additive value functions on the basis of holistic preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(2), pages 435-444, October.
    10. Doumpos, Michael & Zopounidis, Constantin & Galariotis, Emilios, 2014. "Inferring robust decision models in multicriteria classification problems: An experimental analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(2), pages 601-611.
    11. Vetschera, Rudolf, 2017. "Deriving rankings from incomplete preference information: A comparison of different approaches," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 258(1), pages 244-253.
    12. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Ferretti, Valentina & Kadzinski, Milosz, 2018. "Predictive analytics and disused railways requalification: insights from a Post Factum Analysis perspective," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85922, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Greco, Salvatore & Mousseau, Vincent & Słowiński, Roman, 2014. "Robust ordinal regression for value functions handling interacting criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 711-730.
    14. Zheng, Jun & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Stakeholder interviews with two MAVT preference elicitation philosophies in a Swiss water infrastructure decision: Aggregation using SWING-weighting and disaggregation using UTAGMS," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(1), pages 273-287.
    15. Wachowicz, Tomasz & Roszkowska, Ewa, 2022. "Can holistic declaration of preferences improve a negotiation offer scoring system?," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 299(3), pages 1018-1032.
    16. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    17. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2012. "Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(3), pages 541-553.
    18. Spliet, Remy & Tervonen, Tommi, 2014. "Preference inference with general additive value models and holistic pair-wise statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 607-612.
    19. Beccacece, Francesca & Borgonovo, Emanuele & Buzzard, Greg & Cillo, Alessandra & Zionts, Stanley, 2015. "Elicitation of multiattribute value functions through high dimensional model representations: Monotonicity and interactions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 517-527.
    20. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2013. "Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 169-180.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:238:y:2014:i:2:p:540-551. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.