Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models

The use of surrogate weights based on rankings has been proposed as a method for avoiding difficulties associated with the elicitation of weights in multi-attribute decision analysis. When the simple multiattribute rating technique using swings (SMARTS) method is being employed it has been suggested that rank order centroid (ROC) weights are the best surrogate weights to use. This study shows that ROC weights are appropriate to use as a substitute for original weights that are constrained to sum to a fixed total (usually 1 or 100) as used in the point allocation method. If, however, the original weights are determined without any initial restrictions, as in the direct rating method, and are then normalized, which is the common procedure in SMARTS analysis, then the ROC weights do not provide the best approximations to the original weights. This paper shows how to obtain rank order distribution (ROD) weights that provide a better approximation than the ROC approach to unrestricted original weights. The paper also shows that, as the number of attributes in a decision problem increases, the ROD weights approximate to the more easily calculated rank sum weights. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[1]  Introduction to Decision Theory.@@@Statistical Decision Theory With Business and Economic Applications: A Bayesian Approach. , 1980 .

[2]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[3]  M. Sobel,et al.  Incomplete Dirichlet integrals with applications to ordered uniform spacings , 1980 .

[4]  L. Holst On the lengths of the pieces of a stick broken at random , 1980 .

[5]  D. A. Seaver,et al.  A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making , 1981 .

[6]  C. C. Waid,et al.  An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models , 1982 .

[7]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[8]  D. Brinberg,et al.  Assessing attribute importance: a comparison of six methods , 1986 .

[9]  J. Rice Mathematical Statistics and Data Analysis , 1988 .

[10]  D. Winterfeldt,et al.  The effect of varying value trees on multiattribute evaluations , 1988 .

[11]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Conjoint Analysis in Marketing: New Developments with Implications for Research and Practice , 1990 .

[12]  F. H. Barron,et al.  SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement , 1994 .

[13]  Bruce E. Barrett,et al.  Decision quality using ranked attribute weights , 1996 .

[14]  Bruce E. Barrett,et al.  The efficacy of SMARTER — Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Extended to Ranking , 1996 .

[15]  R. Green,et al.  Judging Relative Importance: Direct Rating and Point Allocation Are Not Equivalent , 1997, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[16]  James S. Dyer,et al.  Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study , 1998 .

[17]  C Leake,et al.  Decision Analysis for Management Judgement (2nd Edn) , 1998, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[18]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis - an integrated approach , 2001 .

[19]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis , 2001 .