A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoff

被引:148
作者
de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira [1 ]
de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo [1 ]
Cabral Seixas Costa, Ana Paula [1 ]
de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Fed Pernambuco, Cx Postal 7462, BR-50630970 Recife, PE, Brazil
关键词
Multiple criteria analysis; MAVT additive model; Flexible elicitation; Interactive elicitation; Tradeoff elicitation; MULTICRITERIA DECISION-MAKING; PARTIAL INFORMATION; MULTIPLE CRITERIA; POTENTIAL OPTIMALITY; SUPPLIER SELECTION; UTILITY-FUNCTIONS; DOMINANCE; CONTRACTS; RANKING; JUDGMENTS;
D O I
10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.058
中图分类号
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要
This paper proposes the Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff (FITradeoff) method, for eliciting scaling constants or weights of criteria. The FITradeoff uses partial information about decision maker (DM) preferences to determine the most preferred in a specified set of alternatives, according to an additive model in MAVT (Multi Attribute Value Theory) scope. This method uses the concept of flexible elicitation for improving the applicability of the traditional tradeoff elicitation procedure. FITradeoff offers two main benefits: the information required from the DM is reduced and the DM does not have to make adjustments for the indifference between two consequences (trade-off), which is a critical issue on the traditional tradeoff procedure. It is easier for the DM to make comparisons of consequences (or outcomes) based on strict preference rather than on indifference. The method is built into a decision support system and applied to two cases on supplier selection, already published in the literature. (C) 2015 Elsevier B.V. and Association of European Operational Research Societies (EURO) within the International Federation of Operational Research Societies (IFORS). All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:179 / 191
页数:13
相关论文
共 54 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 2015, INT SERIES OPERATION
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1976, DECISION MAKING MULT
  • [3] Bana E Costa CA, 2005, INT SER OPER RES MAN, V78, P409, DOI 10.1007/0-387-23081-5_10
  • [4] Barla S. B., 2003, Logistics Information Management, V16, P451, DOI 10.1108/09576050310503420
  • [5] Decision quality using ranked attribute weights
    Barron, FH
    Barrett, BE
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1996, 42 (11) : 1515 - 1523
  • [6] The efficacy of SMARTER - Simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking
    Barron, FH
    Barrett, BE
    [J]. ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 1996, 93 (1-3) : 23 - 36
  • [7] BARRON FH, 1992, ACTA PSYCHOL, V80, P91
  • [8] COMPARISON OF WEIGHTING JUDGMENTS IN MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY MEASUREMENT
    BORCHERDING, K
    EPPEL, T
    VONWINTERFELDT, D
    [J]. MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 1991, 37 (12) : 1603 - 1619
  • [9] Application of decision-making techniques in supplier selection: A systematic review of literature
    Chai, Junyi
    Liu, James N. K.
    Ngai, Eric W. T.
    [J]. EXPERT SYSTEMS WITH APPLICATIONS, 2013, 40 (10) : 3872 - 3885
  • [10] Danielson M, 2007, DECIS ANAL, V4, P76, DOI DOI 10.1287/DECA.1070.0088