A Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an MCDA Process

Riabacke, Mona; Danielson, Mats; Ekenberg, Love; Larsson, Aron

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-04428-1_15

Cited by 13 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In many situations, people can with confidence state that some differences in importance are greater than others 29 , which is ignored in pure ordinal approaches. Further, studies have revealed that even the ranking may be subject to ambiguity 35 . Ordinal ranking of the criteria is effort-saving, but the assumption of knowing the ranking with certainty is indeed strong.…”

Section: Numerically Imprecise Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weighting Under Ambiguous Preferences and Imprecise Differences in a Cardinal Rank Ordering Process

Danielson¹,

Ekenberg²,

Larsson³

et al. 2014

IJCIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The limited amount of good tools for supporting elicitation of preference information in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) causes practical problem. In our experiences, this can be remedied by allowing more relaxed input statements from decision-makers, causing the elicitation process to be less cognitively demanding. Furthermore, it should not be too time consuming and must be able to actually use of the information the decision-maker is able to supply. In this paper, we propose a useful weight elicitation method for MAVT/MAUT decision making, which builds on the ideas of rank-order methods, but increases the precision by adding numerically imprecise cardinal information as well.

show abstract

Section: Numerically Imprecise Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Weighting Under Ambiguous Preferences and Imprecise Differences in a Cardinal Rank Ordering Process

Danielson¹,

Ekenberg²,

Larsson³

et al. 2014

IJCIS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, although mere ranking alleviates some of the cognitive demands on users, the conversion from ordinal to cardinal weights produces differences in weights that do not closely reflect what the decision-maker actually means by the ordinal ranking. Ordinal and cardinal information can also be mixed, as in Riabacke et al 85 where the supplied ranking is complemented with preference relation information without demanding any precision from the decision-maker. In the CROC method ibid.…”

Section: Imprecise Weight Elicitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-of-the-Art Prescriptive Criteria Weight Elicitation

Riabacke

Danielson

Ekenberg

2012

Advances in Decision Sciences

Self Cite

133

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparatively few of the vast amounts of decision analytical methods suggested have been widely spread in actual practice. Some approaches have nevertheless been more successful in this respect than others. Quantitative decision making has moved from the study of decision theory founded on a single criterion towards decision support for more realistic decision-making situations with multiple, often conflicting, criteria. Furthermore, the identified gap between normative and descriptive theories seems to suggest a shift to more prescriptive approaches. However, when decision analysis applications are used to aid prescriptive decision-making processes, additional demands are put on these applications to adapt to the users and the context. In particular, the issue of weight elicitation is crucial. There are several techniques for deriving criteria weights from preference statements. This is a cognitively demanding task, subject to different biases, and the elicited values can be heavily dependent on the method of assessment. There have been a number of methods suggested for assessing criteria weights, but these methods have properties which impact their applicability in practice. This paper provides a survey of state-of-the-art weight elicitation methods in a prescriptive setting.

show abstract

“…For the criteria weight elicitation a new graphical assessment method was developed and tested [91]. This case did not involve any explicit weighting of the stakeholders due to political considerations (the decision makers were all local politicians in the urban planning board).…”

Section: The Svartån Case Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping with Complex Environmental and Societal Flood Risk Management Decisions: An Integrated Multi-criteria Framework

et al. 2011

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During recent years, a great deal of attention has been focused on the financial risk management of natural disasters. One reason behind is that the economic losses from floods, windstorms, earthquakes and other disasters in both the developing and developed countries are escalating dramatically. It has become apparent that an integrated water resource management approach would be beneficial in order to take both the best interests of society and of the environment into consideration. One improvement consists of models capable of handling multiple criteria (conflicting objectives) as well as multiple stakeholders (conflicting interests). A systems approach is applied for coping with complex environmental and societal risk management decisions with respect to flood catastrophe policy formation, wherein the emphasis is on computer-based modeling and simulation techniques combined with methods for evaluating strategies where numerous stakeholders are incorporated in the process. The resulting framework consists of a simulation model, a decision analytical tool, and a set of suggested policy strategies for policy formulation. The framework will aid decision makers with high risk complex environmental decisions subject to significant uncertainties. OPEN ACCESSSustainability 2011, 3 1358

show abstract

A Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an MCDA Process

Cited by 13 publications

References 27 publications

Weighting Under Ambiguous Preferences and Imprecise Differences in a Cardinal Rank Ordering Process

Weighting Under Ambiguous Preferences and Imprecise Differences in a Cardinal Rank Ordering Process

State-of-the-Art Prescriptive Criteria Weight Elicitation

Coping with Complex Environmental and Societal Flood Risk Management Decisions: An Integrated Multi-criteria Framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About