IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitdm/v14y2015i06ns021962201450059x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cardinal and Rank Ordering of Criteria — Addressing Prescription within Weight Elicitation

Author

Listed:
  • Aron Larsson

    (Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Forum 100, SE-164 40 Kista, Sweden†Department of Information Technology and Media, Mid Sweden University, SE-851 70 Sundsvall, Sweden)

  • Mona Riabacke

    (Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Forum 100, SE-164 40 Kista, Sweden)

  • Mats Danielson

    (Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Forum 100, SE-164 40 Kista, Sweden)

  • Love Ekenberg

    (Department of Computer and Systems Sciences, Stockholm University, Forum 100, SE-164 40 Kista, Sweden)

Abstract

Weight elicitation methods in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are often cognitively demanding, require too much precision, time and effort. Some of the issues may be remedied by connecting elicitation methods to an inference engine facilitating a quick and easy method for decision-makers to use weaker input statements, yet being able to utilize these statements in a method for decision evaluation. In this paper, we propose a fast and practically useful weight elicitation method, answering to many of the requirements. The method builds on the ideas of rank-order methods, but can also take imprecise cardinal information into account. The method is subsequently employed in two real-life case studies and compared to a case where a simple ratio weight procedure using exact input statements was employed.

Suggested Citation

  • Aron Larsson & Mona Riabacke & Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2015. "Cardinal and Rank Ordering of Criteria — Addressing Prescription within Weight Elicitation," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1299-1330, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:14:y:2015:i:06:n:s021962201450059x
    DOI: 10.1142/S021962201450059X
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S021962201450059X
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S021962201450059X?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. Ting-Yu Chen, 2012. "Nonlinear Assignment-Based Methods For Interval-Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis With Incomplete Preference Information," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(04), pages 821-855.
    2. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    3. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    4. A Morton & B Fasolo, 2009. "Behavioural decision theory for multi-criteria decision analysis: a guided tour," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(2), pages 268-275, February.
    5. Pictet, Jacques & Bollinger, Dominique, 2008. "Extended use of the cards procedure as a simple elicitation technique for MAVT. Application to public procurement in Switzerland," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 185(3), pages 1300-1307, March.
    6. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2008. "Determining Aggregate Criteria Weights From Criteria Rankings By A Group Of Decision Makers," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(04), pages 769-781.
    7. Lev V. Utkin & Natalia V. Simanova, 2012. "The Ds/Ahp Method Under Partial Information About Criteria And Alternatives By Several Levels Of Criteria," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 11(02), pages 307-326.
    8. Ola Caster & Love Ekenberg, 2012. "Combining Second-Order Belief Distributions with Qualitative Statements in Decision Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Yuri Ermoliev & Marek Makowski & Kurt Marti (ed.), Managing Safety of Heterogeneous Systems, edition 127, pages 67-87, Springer.
    9. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    10. Fischer, Gregory W., 1995. "Range Sensitivity of Attribute Weights in Multiattribute Value Models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 252-266, June.
    11. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    12. E. M. Furems & O. I. Larichev & G. V. Roizenson & A. V. Lotov & K. Miettinen, 2003. "Human Behavior In A Multi-Criteria Choice Problem With Individual Tasks Of Different Difficulties," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 2(01), pages 29-40.
    13. Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
    14. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    15. 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.
    16. Mats Danielson, 2004. "Handling Imperfect User Statements In Real-Life Decision Analysis," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 3(03), pages 513-534.
    17. Sajjad Zahir, 2006. "Eliciting Ratio Preferences For The Analytic Hierarchy Process With Visual Interfaces: A New Mode Of Preference Measurement," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 5(02), pages 245-261.
    18. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1986. "Rational Choice and the Framing of Decisions," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(4), pages 251-278, October.
    19. A Jessop, 2011. "Using imprecise estimates for weights," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(6), pages 1048-1055, June.
    20. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    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. Scholz, Michael & Dorner, Verena & Schryen, Guido & Benlian, Alexander, 2017. "A configuration-based recommender system for supporting e-commerce decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(1), pages 205-215.
    2. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    3. Hesham K. Alfares & Salih O. Duffuaa, 2016. "Simulation-Based Evaluation of Criteria Rank-Weighting Methods in Multi-Criteria Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(01), pages 43-61, January.
    4. Poyhonen, Mari & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(3), pages 569-585, March.
    5. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    6. Poyhonen, Mari & Vrolijk, Hans & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 2001. "Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 216-227, October.
    7. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    8. Richard M. Anderson & Robert Clemen, 2013. "Toward an Improved Methodology to Construct and Reconcile Decision Analytic Preference Judgments," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 121-134, June.
    9. Richard M. Anderson & Benjamin F. Hobbs, 2002. "Using a Bayesian Approach to Quantify Scale Compatibility Bias," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 48(12), pages 1555-1568, December.
    10. 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.
    11. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.
    12. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    13. Adiel T. Almeida-Filho & Adiel T. Almeida & Ana Paula C. S. Costa, 2017. "A flexible elicitation procedure for additive model scale constants," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 259(1), pages 65-83, December.
    14. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    15. Wulf, David & Bertsch, Valentin, 2016. "A natural language generation approach to support understanding and traceability of multi-dimensional preferential sensitivity analysis in multi-criteria decision making," MPRA Paper 75025, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Ralph L. Keeney, 2002. "Common Mistakes in Making Value Trade-Offs," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 50(6), pages 935-945, December.
    17. Lienert, Judit & Duygan, Mert & Zheng, Jun, 2016. "Preference stability over time with multiple elicitation methods to support wastewater infrastructure decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 253(3), pages 746-760.
    18. Suk, Kwanho & Yoon, Song-Oh, 2012. "The moderating role of decision task goals in attribute weight convergence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 37-45.
    19. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Sabio, Pilar, 2013. "Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 397-405.
    20. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.

    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:wsi:ijitdm:v:14:y:2015:i:06:n:s021962201450059x. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijitdm/ijitdm.shtml .

    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.