Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system

被引:87
作者
Cinelli, Marco [1 ]
Kadzinski, Milosz [1 ]
Miebs, Grzegorz [1 ]
Gonzalez, Michael [2 ]
Slowinski, Roman [1 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Poznan Univ Tech, Inst Comp Sci, Piotrowo 2, PL-60965 Poznan, Poland
[2] US EPA, Environm Decis Analyt Branch, Land Remediat & Technol Div,Off Res & Dev, Ctr Environm Solut & Emergency Response, 26 West Martin Luther King Dr, Cincinnati, OH 45268 USA
[3] Polish Acad Sci, Syst Res Inst, Newelska 6, PL-01447 Warsaw, Poland
关键词
Decision analysis; Multiple criteria; Taxonomy; Decision support system; Method recommendation; ADDITIVE VALUE-FUNCTIONS; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; ROBUST ORDINAL REGRESSION; PREFERENCE DISAGGREGATION; SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT; HANDLING IMPRECISE; SORTING METHOD; SET; OUTRANKING; RANKING;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejor.2022.01.011
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
We present a new methodology to lead the selection of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods. It is implemented in the Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Methods Selection Software (MCDA-MSS), a decision support system that helps analysts answer a recurring question in decision science: "Which is the most suitable Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis method (or a subset of MCDA methods) that should be used for a given Decision-Making Problem (DMP)?". The MCDA MSS provides guidance to lead decision making processes and choose among an extensive collection (>200) of MCDA methods. These are assessed according to an original comprehensive set of problem characteristics. The accounted features concern problem formulation, preference elicitation and types of preference information, desired features of a preference model, and construction of the decision recommendation. The applicability of the MCDA-MSS has been tested on several case studies. The MCDA-MSS includes the capabilities of (i) covering from very simple to very complex DMPs, (ii) offering recommendations for DMPs that do not match any method from the collection, (iii) helping analysts prioritize efforts for reducing gaps in the description of the DMPs, and (iv) unveiling methodological mistakes that occur in the selection of the methods. A community-wide initiative involving experts in MCDA methodology, analysts using these methods, and decision-makers receiving decision recommendations will contribute to the expansion of the MCDA-MSS. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:633 / 651
页数:19
相关论文
共 158 条
[91]  
Kostkowski M., 1996, DAUPHINE TECHNICAL R
[92]   SMAA - Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis [J].
Lahdelma, R ;
Hokkanen, J ;
Salminen, P .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 1998, 106 (01) :137-143
[93]   SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making [J].
Lahdelma, R ;
Salminen, P .
OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2001, 49 (03) :444-454
[94]  
Lahdelma R, 2010, INT SER OPER RES MAN, V142, P285, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-5904-1_10
[95]   The method matters: A guide for indicator aggregation in ecological assessments [J].
Langhans, Simone D. ;
Reichert, Peter ;
Schuwirth, Nele .
ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS, 2014, 45 :494-507
[96]   Deciding on the Decision Situation to Analyze: The Critical First Step of a Decision Analysis [J].
Ley-Borras, Roberto .
DECISION ANALYSIS, 2015, 12 (01) :46-58
[97]  
Li Y, 2008, 26 INT C AER SCI
[98]   Variable Consistency Dominance-based Rough Set Approach to formulate airline service strategies [J].
Liou, James J. H. .
APPLIED SOFT COMPUTING, 2011, 11 (05) :4011-4020
[99]   A preference learning framework for multiple criteria sorting with diverse additive value models and valued assignment examples [J].
Liu, Jiapeng ;
Kadzinski, Milosz ;
Liao, Xiuwu ;
Mao, Xiaoxin ;
Wang, Yao .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2020, 286 (03) :963-985
[100]   Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis [J].
Marttunen, Mika ;
Belton, Valerie ;
Lienert, Judit .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH, 2018, 265 (01) :178-194