The unknown in decision making: What to do about it

Abstract The unknown or “other” that affects our lives is what we usually very much want to know about to cope with uncertainty. We often suspect that it affects us with partial and indefinite evidence that it exists but we only have uncertain feelings about it. Even when we do not know what it is we would like to allow for its influence in our explaining the outcome of a decision. One way to deal with the many factors of a decision is to include the unknown as one of them and then determine its priority of influence on the outcome by comparing it with other factors. We are able to do that to the extent that we are sure of what we know and of the residual that remains outside our understanding that may also have some effect on what we do. Confidence from good understanding and past success are what we need in order to judge the potential significance of what we do not know on the outcome. We can then perform sensitivity analysis to see how much effect unknown factors can have on the stability of the choice we make. Pairwise comparisons make it possible to tackle this idea explicitly and rather simply. This note illustrates how to prioritize and test the effect of the unknown alongside the known.

[1]  Hepu Deng Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison , 1999, FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315).

[2]  Philippe Smets,et al.  Varieties of ignorance and the need for well-founded theories , 1991, Inf. Sci..

[3]  Chian-Son Yu,et al.  A GP-AHP method for solving group decision-making fuzzy AHP problems , 2002, Comput. Oper. Res..

[4]  M. Zahir Incorporating the uncertainty of decision judgements in the analytic hierarchy process , 1991 .

[5]  T. Saaty Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory With the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2000 .

[6]  Hepu Deng,et al.  Multicriteria analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparison , 1999, FUZZ-IEEE'99. 1999 IEEE International Fuzzy Systems. Conference Proceedings (Cat. No.99CH36315).

[7]  Dan Paulson,et al.  Consequences of uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process: A simulation approach , 1995 .

[8]  John M. Hassell,et al.  The sensitivity of the analytic hierarchy process to alternative scale and cue presentations , 1997 .

[9]  Jyrki Wallenius,et al.  Preference‐Order Recursion for Finding Relevant Pure, Admissible and Optimal Statistical Decision Functions , 1990 .

[10]  Hideo Tanaka,et al.  Interval Evaluations in the Analytic Hierarchy Process By Possibility Analysis , 2001, Comput. Intell..

[11]  Kneale T. Marshall,et al.  Decision making and forecasting : with emphasis on model building and policy analysis , 1995 .

[12]  Malcolm J. Beynon,et al.  An analysis of distributions of priority values from alternative comparison scales within AHP , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[13]  Malcolm J. Beynon,et al.  DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  Eiji Takeda,et al.  A method for multiple pseudo-criteria decision problems , 2001, Comput. Oper. Res..