IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v265y2018i2d10.1007_s10479-016-2391-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Including cognitive aspects in multiple criteria decision analysis

Author

Listed:
  • João Carneiro

    (Polytechnic of Porto
    University of Minho)

  • Luís Conceição

    (Polytechnic of Porto)

  • Diogo Martinho

    (Polytechnic of Porto)

  • Goreti Marreiros

    (Polytechnic of Porto)

  • Paulo Novais

    (University of Minho)

Abstract

Many multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods have been proposed over the last decades. Some of the most known methods share some similarities in the way they are used and configured. However, we live in a time of change and nowadays the decision-making process (especially when done in group) is even more demanding and dynamic. In this work, we propose a MCDA method that includes cognitive aspects (cognitive analytic process, CAP). By taking advantage of aspects such as expertise level, credibility and behaviour style of the decision-makers, we propose a method that relates these aspects with problem configurations (alternatives and criteria preferences) done by each decision-maker. In this work, we evaluated the CAP in terms of configuration costs and the capability to enhance the quality of the decision. We have used the satisfaction level as a metric to compare our method with other known MCDA methods in literature (utility function, AHP and TOPSIS). Our method proved to be capable to achieve higher satisfaction levels compared to other MCDA methods, especially when the decision suggested by CAP is different from the one proposed by those methods.

Suggested Citation

  • João Carneiro & Luís Conceição & Diogo Martinho & Goreti Marreiros & Paulo Novais, 2018. "Including cognitive aspects in multiple criteria decision analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 265(2), pages 269-291, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:265:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-016-2391-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-016-2391-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-016-2391-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-016-2391-1?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. Sándor Bozóki & Linda Dezső & Attila Poesz & József Temesi, 2013. "Analysis of pairwise comparison matrices: an empirical research," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 211(1), pages 511-528, December.
    2. Charles R. Schwenk, 1988. "The Cognitive Perspective On Strategic Decision Making," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(1), pages 41-55, January.
    3. B. Ahn & S. Choi, 2012. "Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 1-16, December.
    4. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    5. C Ram & G Montibeller & A Morton, 2011. "Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 817-829, May.
    6. Gilat Levy, 2007. "Decision Making in Committees: Transparency, Reputation, and Voting Rules," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(1), pages 150-168, March.
    7. 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, March.
    8. Ram, Camelia & Montibeller, Gilberto & Morton, Alec, 2011. "Extending the use of scenario planning and MCDA for the evaluation of strategic options," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 32215, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    9. Gang Kou & Wenshuai Wu, 2014. "Multi-criteria decision analysis for emergency medical service assessment," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 223(1), pages 239-254, December.
    10. Jiamin Wang, 2012. "Robust optimization analysis for multiple attribute decision making problems with imprecise information," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 109-122, August.
    11. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    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. João Carneiro & Diogo Martinho & Goreti Marreiros & Paulo Novais, 2019. "Arguing with Behavior Influence: A Model for Web-Based Group Decision Support Systems," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 517-553, March.

    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. Vilkkumaa, Eeva & Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti & Ilmola-Sheppard, Leena, 2018. "Scenario-based portfolio model for building robust and proactive strategies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 266(1), pages 205-220.
    2. Trutnevyte, Evelina & Stauffacher, Michael & Scholz, Roland W., 2012. "Linking stakeholder visions with resource allocation scenarios and multi-criteria assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 762-772.
    3. Machani, Mahdi & Nourelfath, Mustapha & D’Amours, Sophie, 2015. "A scenario-based modelling approach to identify robust transformation strategies for pulp and paper companies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 41-63.
    4. Zeinab Asadpourian & Mehdi Rahimian & Saeed Gholamrezai, 2020. "SWOT-AHP-TOWS Analysis for Sustainable Ecotourism Development in the Best Area in Lorestan Province, Iran," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 152(1), pages 289-315, November.
    5. Derya Celik Turkoglu & Mujde Erol Genevois, 2017. "An Analytical Approach for Evaluation of ATM Deployment Problem Criteria," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(05), pages 1247-1278, September.
    6. Lami, Isabella M. & Todella, Elena, 2023. "A multi-methodological combination of the strategic choice approach and the analytic network process: From facts to values and vice versa," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 802-812.
    7. Tiberius, Victor & Siglow, Caroline & Sendra-García, Javier, 2020. "Scenarios in business and management: The current stock and research opportunities," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 235-242.
    8. Maggie Rong Hu & Xiaoyang Li & Yang Shi, 2019. "Adverse Selection and Credit Certificates: Evidence from a P2P Platform," Working Papers id:13038, eSocialSciences.
    9. Seeve, Teemu & Vilkkumaa, Eeva, 2022. "Identifying and visualizing a diverse set of plausible scenarios for strategic planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 596-610.
    10. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    11. Carayannis, Elias G. & Goletsis, Yorgos & Grigoroudis, Evangelos, 2018. "Composite innovation metrics: MCDA and the Quadruple Innovation Helix framework," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 4-17.
    12. Hu, Maggie Rong & Li, Xiaoyang & Shi, Yang, 2019. "Adverse Selection and Credit Certificates: Evidence from a P2P Platform," ADBI Working Papers 942, Asian Development Bank Institute.
    13. Philip Mayer & Christopher Stephen Ball & Stefan Vögele & Wilhelm Kuckshinrichs & Dirk Rübbelke, 2019. "Analyzing Brexit: Implications for the Electricity System of Great Britain," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(17), pages 1-27, August.
    14. Thomas P. Bostick & Thomas H. Holzer & Shahryar Sarkani, 2017. "Enabling Stakeholder Involvement in Coastal Disaster Resilience Planning," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1181-1200, June.
    15. Kabak, Özgür & Ülengin, Füsun & Önsel Ekici, Şule, 2018. "Connecting logistics performance to export: A scenario-based approach," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 69-82.
    16. Hamilton, Michelle C. & Lambert, James H. & Connelly, Elizabeth B. & Barker, Kash, 2016. "Resilience analytics with disruption of preferences and lifecycle cost analysis for energy microgrids," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 11-21.
    17. Tatyana Semenova & Ali Al-Dirawi, 2022. "Economic Development of the Iraqi Gas Sector in Conjunction with the Oil Industry," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(7), pages 1-31, March.
    18. Kangaspunta, Jussi & Liesiö, Juuso & Salo, Ahti, 2012. "Cost-efficiency analysis of weapon system portfolios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 264-275.
    19. Chao Fu & Dong-Ling Xu, 2016. "Determining attribute weights to improve solution reliability and its application to selecting leading industries," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 401-426, October.
    20. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore, 2014. "The SMAA-PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(2), pages 514-522.

    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:spr:annopr:v:265:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-016-2391-1. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.