Modelling multicriteria value interactions with Reasoning Maps

Abstract

Idiographic causal maps are extensively employed in Operational Research to support problem structuring and complex decision making processes. They model means-end or causal discourses as a network of concepts connected by links denoting influence, thus enabling the representation of chains of arguments made by decision-makers. There have been proposals to employ such structures to support the structuring of multicriteria evaluation models, within an additive value measurement framework. However, a drawback of this multi-methodological modelling is the loss of richness of interactions along the means-end chains when evaluating options. This has led to the development of methods that make use of the structure of the map itself to evaluate options, such as the Reasoning Maps method, which employs ordinal scales and ordinal operators for such evaluation. However, despite their potential, Reasoning Maps cannot model explicitly value interactions nor perform a quantitative ranking of options, limiting their applicability and usefulness. In this article we propose extending the Reasoning Maps approach through a multilinear evaluation model structure, built with the MACBETH multicriteria method. The model explicitly captures the value interactions between concepts along the map and employs the MACBETH protocol of questioning to assess the strength of influence for each means-end link. The feasibility of the proposed approach to evaluate options and to deal with multicriteria interactions is tested in a real-world application to support the construction of a population health index.

A Constructivist Model of Bank Branch Front-Office Employee Evaluation: An FCM-Sd-Based Approach

“…Decision problem structuring phase is of great importance as the structure produced serves as a basis for the remaining phases of the decision-making process (Bana e Costa et al, 1997;Rodrigues et al, 2017). Guarnieri et al (2016Guarnieri et al ( , p. 1109) report that, "by structuring the problems, actors feel more comfortable stating their values and preferences and as a result, create a more democratic environment for decision-making".…”

Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process

“…This allowed us to determine potentially fundamental objectives and policy values for CEPI, as well as to link these through means-ends argument chains. For a review of means-ends mapping methods, see Belton and Stewart (2002), Montibeller and Belton (2006), Montibeller et al (2008), and Franco and Montibeller (2011); for further examples of means-ends mapping theory and applications in problem structuring and decision making, see Howard (1988), Belton et al (1997), Eden andAckermann (1998, 2013), Bana e Costa et al (1999), Ensslin et al (2000), Rosenhead and Mingers (2004), Bryson et al (2004), Eden (2004), Ackermann et al (2007), and Rodriguez et al (2017). We depicted these objectives as a network of concepts connected by links denoting chains of arguments within and between seven reasoning clusters:…”

Performance Assessment Model for Bank Clients Services and Business Development Process: A Constructivist Proposal

“…To facilitate the process, a Roberts matrix can be used in order to establish an order of preference between them. Later, the differences in attractiveness between the alternatives is judged using M-MACBETH how Figure 10 is showing (Bana e Costa et al, 1999;Bana e Costa et al, 2012a, Bana e Costa et al, 2012bBana e Costa and Oliveira, 2012;Rodrigues et al, 2017). Based on the order of the alternatives and new judgment of the attractiveness levels, the compensation rates of the model are obtained.…”