IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v342y2024i3d10.1007_s10479-022-04990-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Robust weighted aggregation of expert opinions in futures studies

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Marozzi

    (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice)

  • Mario Bolzan

    (University of Padua)

  • Simone Di Zio

    (University “G. d’Annunzio” of Chieti-Pescara)

Abstract

Expert judgments are widespread in many fields, and the way in which they are collected and the procedure by which they are aggregated are considered crucial steps. From a statistical perspective, expert judgments are subjective data and must be gathered and treated as carefully and scientifically as possible. In the elicitation phase, a multitude of experts is preferable to a single expert, and techniques based on anonymity and iterations, such as Delphi, offer many advantages in terms of reducing distortions, which are mainly related to cognitive biases. There are two approaches to the aggregation of the judgments given by a panel of experts, referred to as behavioural (implying an interaction between the experts) and mathematical (involving non-interacting participants and the aggregation of the judgments using a mathematical formula). Both have advantages and disadvantages, and with the mathematical approach, the main problem concerns the subjective choice of an appropriate formula for both normalization and aggregation. We propose a new method for aggregating and processing subjective data collected using the Delphi method, with the aim of obtaining robust rankings of the outputs. This method makes it possible to normalize and aggregate the opinions of a panel of experts, while modelling different sources of uncertainty. We use an uncertainty analysis approach that allows the contemporaneous use of different aggregation and normalization functions, so that the result does not depend on the choice of a specific mathematical formula, thereby solving the problem of choice. Furthermore, we can also model the uncertainty related to the weighting system, which reflects the different expertise of the participants as well as expert opinion accuracy. By combining the Delphi method with the robust ranking procedure, we offer a new protocol covering the elicitation, the aggregation and the processing of subjective data used in the construction of Delphi-based future scenarios. The method is very flexible and can be applied to the aggregation and processing of any subjective judgments, i.e. also those outside the context of futures studies. Finally, we show the validity, reproducibility and potential of the method through its application with regard to the future of Italian families.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Marozzi & Mario Bolzan & Simone Di Zio, 2024. "Robust weighted aggregation of expert opinions in futures studies," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 342(3), pages 1471-1493, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:342:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04990-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-04990-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-022-04990-z
    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/s10479-022-04990-z?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.

    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:342:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04990-z. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.