Preference Consistency in Multiattribute Decision Making

A number of approaches for multiattribute selection decisions exist, each with certain advantages and disadvantages. One method that has recently been developed, called the Hypothetical Equivalents and Inequivalents Method (HEIM) supports a decision maker (DM) by implicitly determining the importances a DM places on attributes using a series of simple preference statements. In this and other multiattribute selection methods, establishing consistent preferences is critical in order for a DM to be confident in their decision and its validity. In this paper a general consistency check denoted as the Preference Consistency Check (PCC) is presented that ensures a consistent preference structure for a given DM. The PCC is demonstrated as part of the HEIM method, but is generalizable to any cardinal or ordinal preference structures. These structures are important in making selection decisions in engineering design including selecting design concepts, materials, manufacturing processes, and configurations, among others. The effectiveness of the method is demonstrated and the need for consistent preferences is illustrated using a product selection case study where the decision maker expresses inconsistent preferences.

[1]  E. Antonsson,et al.  Compensation and Weights for Trade-offs in Engineering Design: Beyond the Weighted Sum , 2005 .

[2]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  A Decision Support Formulation for Design Teams: A Study in Preference Aggregation and Handling Unequal Group Members , 2005, DAC 2005.

[3]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[4]  Michael J. Scott,et al.  On rank reversals in the Borda count , 2003 .

[5]  Ashwin P. Gurnani,et al.  An Approach to Robust Multiattribute Concept Selection , 2003, DAC 2003.

[6]  Shapour Azarm,et al.  Interactive Product Design Selection With an Implicit Value Function , 2005 .

[7]  Clive L. Dym,et al.  Rank ordering engineering designs , 2002 .

[8]  C. Dym,et al.  Rank ordering engineering designs: pairwise comparison charts and Borda counts , 2002 .

[9]  Michael J. Scott,et al.  Quantifying Certainty in Design Decisions: Examining AHP , 2002 .

[10]  Kemper Lewis,et al.  Multiattribute decision making using hypothetical equivalents , 2002, DAC 2002.

[11]  Deborah L Thurston,et al.  Real and Misconceived Limitations to Decision Based Design With Utility Analysis , 2001 .

[12]  Wei Chen,et al.  Local approximation of the efficient frontier in robust design , 2000 .

[13]  Glynn J. Sundararaj,et al.  Ability of Objective Functions to Generate Points on Nonconvex Pareto Frontiers , 2000 .

[14]  Donald G. Saari,et al.  Mathematical Structure of Voting Paradoxes: II. Positional Voting , 1999 .

[15]  Wei Chen,et al.  Quality utility : a Compromise Programming approach to robust design , 1999 .

[16]  George A. Hazelrigg,et al.  A Framework for Decision-Based Engineering Design , 1998 .

[17]  John D. Hey.  Do Rational People Make Mistakes , 1998 .

[18]  J. Barzilai.  Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices , 1997 .

[19]  J. Dennis,et al.  A closer look at drawbacks of minimizing weighted sums of objectives for Pareto set generation in multicriteria optimization problems , 1997 .

[20]  Bowon Kim,et al.  Exercises on Tradeoffs and Conflicting Objectives , 1996 .

[21]  Enrica Carbone,et al.  A Comparison of the Estimates of EU and non-EU Preference Functionals Using Data from Pairwise Choice and Complete Ranking Experiments , 1995 .

[22]  R. Ramanathan,et al.  Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages , 1994 .

[23]  Lesley Davis,et al.  Evaluating and Selecting Simulation Software Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1994 .

[24]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process , 1993 .

[25]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: THE STRUCTURING OF OBJECTIVES , 1993 .

[26]  Shuichi Fukuda,et al.  Prioritizing the customer's requirements by AHP for concurrent design , 1993 .

[27]  T. Stewart.  A CRITICAL SURVEY ON THE STATUS OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING THEORY AND PRACTICE , 1992 .

[28]  Boaz Golany,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Structure of the Problem and Its Solutions , 1992 .

[29]  Hans Peters,et al.  Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives and Revealed Group Preferences , 1991 .

[30]  Boaz Golany,et al.  Deriving weights from pairwise comparison matrices: The additive case , 1990 .

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

[32]  Edward H. Shortliffe,et al.  The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence , 1990 .

[33]  Madhan Shridhar Phadke,et al.  Quality Engineering Using Robust Design , 1989 .

[34]  K. Arrow,et al.  Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making , 1986 .