IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/snopef/v5y2024i4d10.1007_s43069-024-00371-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Incomplete Objectives in Decision Making: How Omitting Objectives Affects Identifying the Most Promising Alternative

Author

Listed:
  • Sara J. M. Abdeen

    (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Florian Methling

    (RWTH Aachen University)

  • Rüdiger Nitzsch

    (RWTH Aachen University)

Abstract

Research has shown that decision-makers omit a significant number of their objectives when making a decision. This study examines the consequences of incomplete objectives on decision making, i.e., how does omitting objectives affect identifying the most promising alternative? We investigate this question using a dataset of 945 observed decisions. These decisions were developed by students using the decision-skills and training tool entscheidungsnavi.com. The tool guides students in a step-by-step process based on value-focused thinking, multi-attribute utility theory, and debiasing methods. Results show that omitting objectives significantly reduces the chances of identifying the most promising alternative. Hence, neglecting only 20% of the objectives is sufficient to mislead more than one in four decisions. We have found three factors that influence this risk of misidentifying the most promising alternative: (1) the weight of the omitted objectives; (2) the consensus on the best alternative across all objectives; and (3) the consensus on the ranking of all alternatives across all objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • Sara J. M. Abdeen & Florian Methling & Rüdiger Nitzsch, 2024. "Incomplete Objectives in Decision Making: How Omitting Objectives Affects Identifying the Most Promising Alternative," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 1-13, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:snopef:v:5:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s43069-024-00371-3
    DOI: 10.1007/s43069-024-00371-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s43069-024-00371-3
    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/s43069-024-00371-3?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. Eden, Colin, 2004. "Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 673-686, December.
    2. Johannes Siebert & Ralph L. Keeney, 2015. "Creating More and Better Alternatives for Decisions Using Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 63(5), pages 1144-1158, October.
    3. Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
    4. Fry, Phillip C. & Rinks, Dan B. & Ringuest, Jeffrey L., 1996. "Comparing the predictive validity of alternatively assessed multi-attribute preference models when relevant decision attributes are missing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 599-609, November.
    5. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2010. "Improving the Generation of Decision Objectives," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 238-255, September.
    6. Dennis M. Buede, 1986. "Structuring Value Attributes," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 16(2), pages 52-62, April.
    7. Keeney, Ralph L., 1996. "Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pages 537-549, August.
    8. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    9. Samuel D. Bond & Kurt A. Carlson & Ralph L. Keeney, 2008. "Generating Objectives: Can Decision Makers Articulate What They Want?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(1), pages 56-70, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    2. Siebert, Johannes Ulrich & Kunz, Reinhard E. & Rolf, Philipp, 2021. "Effects of decision training on individuals’ decision-making proactivity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 294(1), pages 264-282.
    3. Haag, Fridolin & Zürcher, Sara & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Enhancing the elicitation of diverse decision objectives for public planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(3), pages 912-928.
    4. Marttunen, Mika & Haag, Fridolin & Belton, Valerie & Mustajoki, Jyri & Lienert, Judit, 2019. "Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(2), pages 604-620.
    5. Florian Methling & Steffen A. Borden & Deepak Veeraraghavan & Insa Sommer & Johannes Ulrich Siebert & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Mark Seidler, 2022. "Supporting Innovation in Early-Stage Pharmaceutical Development Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 337-353, December.
    6. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    7. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    8. Montibeller, Gilberto & Franco, L. Alberto & Lord, Ewan & Iglesias, Aline, 2009. "Structuring resource allocation decisions: A framework for building multi-criteria portfolio models with area-grouped options," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 846-856, December.
    9. Tavana, Madjid & Di Caprio, Debora, 2016. "Modeling synergies in multi-criteria supplier selection and order allocation: An application to commodity tradingAuthor-Name: Sodenkamp, Mariya A," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(3), pages 859-874.
    10. Franco, L. Alberto & Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Rouwette, Etiënne A.J.A. & Leppänen, Ilkka, 2021. "Taking stock of behavioural OR: A review of behavioural studies with an intervention focus," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 293(2), pages 401-418.
    11. Montibeller, Gilberto & Franco, Alberto & Lord, Ewan & Iglesias, Aline, 2008. "Structuring multi-criteria portfolio analysis models," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 22693, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    12. Ulrike Reisach, 2016. "The creation of meaning and critical ethical reflection in operational research," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 4(1), pages 5-32, June.
    13. Eric Johnson & Suzanne Shu & Benedict Dellaert & Craig Fox & Daniel Goldstein & Gerald Häubl & Richard Larrick & John Payne & Ellen Peters & David Schkade & Brian Wansink & Elke Weber, 2012. "Beyond nudges: Tools of a choice architecture," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 487-504, June.
    14. Ferretti, V., 2021. "Framing territorial regeneration decisions: Purpose, perspective and scope," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    15. Ana Rita S. C. Azevedo & Fernando A. F. Ferreira, 2019. "Analyzing the dynamics behind ethical banking practices using fuzzy cognitive mapping," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 679-700, September.
    16. Aubert, Alice H. & Esculier, Fabien & Lienert, Judit, 2020. "Recommendations for online elicitation of swing weights from citizens in environmental decision-making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 7(C).
    17. Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Ieva Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė & Edmundas K. Zavadskas & Marjan S. Jalali & Sandra M. J. Catarino, 2019. "A Judgment-Based Risk Assessment Framework for Consumer Loans," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 7-33, January.
    18. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    19. Annielli Cunha & Danielle Morais, 2019. "Problem structuring methods in group decision making: a comparative study of their application," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 1081-1100, December.
    20. Mika Marttunen & Jyri Mustajoki, 2018. "Use of Analyst-Generated Stakeholder Preference Profiles in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis — Experiences from an Urban Planning Case," Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management (JEAPM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 20(03), pages 1-29, September.

    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:snopef:v:5:y:2024:i:4:d:10.1007_s43069-024-00371-3. 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.