A modular system of software tools for multicriteria model analysis

Granat, J.; Kreglewski, Tomasz; Paczyńiski, J.; Stachurski, Andrzej; Wierzbicki, Andrzej P.

doi:10.1007/978-0-387-34897-1_43

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous research on the weighted criteria algorithm has raised this issue and has proposed alternative mathematical techniques to obtain a more balanced decision (Granat et al 2006;Pomerol and Barba-Romero 2000;Wierzbicki et al 2000). However, these studies are theoretical in nature, and they do not address the limitations of the weighted criteria algorithm in practical approaches such as best-value procurement.…”

Section: 𝑛𝑛 𝑗𝑗=1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of Noncost Criteria Weighing in Best-Value Design–Build US Highway Projects

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

United States highway agencies use best-value procurement with a fixed price to select design-builders. This method enables public agencies to choose the best proposer by assessing several factors in addition to price. Theoretically, considering cost and non-cost factors in the selection enhances the probability of selecting the proposer that provides the best value for each dollar spent. However, bidding results from the last 15 years show that 80% of best-value procurements are awarded the proposer with the lowest bid. The selection seems thus to be biased towards price. This research explores the balance between cost and non-cost components in best-value procurement by identifying how weights and scores influence the selection. The goal of this analysis is to determine the ranges of weights that better balance cost and non-cost factors in the weighted criteria best-value procurement. This study characterized a first-ofa-kind dataset of 882 non-cost scores and 1,158 cost scores from 347 best-value highway projects. The study applied simulation to the weighted criteria award algorithm to explore the balance between cost and non-cost factors and derive recommendations about how to make non-cost factors more influential. The results show that weight of cost

show abstract

Section: 𝑛𝑛 𝑗𝑗=1mentioning

confidence: 99%

Importance of Noncost Criteria Weighing in Best-Value Design–Build US Highway Projects

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…concerning different domains, and then coordinating the solutions of subproblems to obtain global optimality); however, known methods of hierarchical optimization are mostly developed for a single‐criteria case and thus might be applied mostly to aggregate functions expressing, e.g., the satisfaction of users (QoE). For a discussion of hierarchical optimization in multiple‐criteria case, see also Granat et al (2006).…”

Section: Hierarchies In Routing and Multiple Routing Tablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Since an achievement function models a proxy decision maker, it is sufficient to define – as objectively as possible – the corresponding aspiration and reservation levels. Several ways of such definition were listed in Granat et al (2006): neutral, statistical, voting; we shall concentrate here on statistical determination. A statistical determination of reference levels concerns values q i av that would be used as basic reference levels, a modification of these values to obtain aspiration levels a i , and another modification of these values to obtain reservation levels r i ; these might be defined (for the case of maximization of criteria) as follows: where m=|J| is just the number of alternative decision options, hence q i av is just an average criterion value between all alternatives, and aspiration and reservation levels – just averages of these averages and the upper and lower bounds, respectively.…”

Section: The Concept Of Objective Rankingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the classical approach, the importance of criteria is expressed by weighting coefficients, but this leads to diverse paradoxes (even more than those quoted in ). In the reference point approach, it was proposed (Granat et al, 2006) to separate several classes of importance of criteria (such as very important, strongly important, important, less important and least important ) and to assign to these classes different values of the parameters α and β in equation (), e.g., as in Table 1.…”

Section: The Concept Of Objective Rankingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A conceptual framework for multiple-criteria routing in QoS IP networks

Wierzbicki

Burakowski

2010

International Transactions in Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The provision of quality of service (QoS) in IP‐based networks, namely QoS IP networks, has led to new demands for routing methods, protocols and algorithms. It is widely recognized that such QoS routing should take into account multiple criteria. In this case, contemporary approaches in multiple‐criteria analysis should be taken into account, and they differ essentially from classical routing approaches. An alternative to classical routing algorithms that are not quite able to respond to all the challenges of QoS IP networks, especially from the perspective of Future Internet, is to change routing approaches and algorithms to provide for consistent multiple‐criteria routing approaches. This is also related to the understanding of the concept of hierarchy in routing, discussed in the paper. The paper recalls the concept of objective ranking, shows its appropriateness for consistent multiple‐criteria routing and presents a conceptual framework for routing based on objective ranking, including hierarchy of routing optimization and multiple routing tables. The paper has a conceptual nature, with the purpose of analyzing possible approaches to multiple‐criteria routing that might be useful if not today, then in the engineering of future networks. However, a network engineering interpretation of the concepts proposed here is also presented.

show abstract

“…Now, the question is: how to define aspiration levels a a a and reservation levels r r r in order to obtain rational objective ranking? Several ways were listed in [5]: neutral, statistical, voting; we shall concentrate here on statistical determination. A statistical determination of reference levels concerns values m j that would be used as basic reference levels, an upward modification of these values to obtain aspiration levels a j , and a downward modification of these values to obtain reservation levels r j ; these might be defined as follows:…”

Section: The Issue Of Objective Rankingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The problem of objective ranking: foundations, approaches and applications

P. Wierzbicki

2008

JTIT

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper starts with the discussion of the issue of objectivity versus subjectivity, stressing that while an absolute objectivity is not attainable, nevertheless trying to be as objective as possible constitutes a higher value, necessary for hard science and technology. Dangers and errors of the subjectivist reduction of objectivity to power and money attempted by the postmodern sociology of science are discussed. Then we turn to the problem of subjective versus objective decision analysis and ranking. It is shown that while all classical decision theory aims at a rational analysis and support of subjective decisions, there are important application cases, particularly in managerial problems, when the decision maker prefers to avoid specifying her/his preferences and needs decision analysis – e.g., ranking of decision options – that is as objective as possible. An approach to decision support that might be easily adapted for such objective ranking is the reference point methodology; its application is shown on examples. One of these examples is actually not an application of the methodology, but a real life problem that motivated the development of objective ranking. The examples illustrate that objective ranking might be important for management, including also management of telecommunication networks.

show abstract

A modular system of software tools for multicriteria model analysis

Cited by 4 publications

References 2 publications

Importance of Noncost Criteria Weighing in Best-Value Design–Build US Highway Projects

Importance of Noncost Criteria Weighing in Best-Value Design–Build US Highway Projects

A conceptual framework for multiple-criteria routing in QoS IP networks

The problem of objective ranking: foundations, approaches and applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About