A Decision Analytical Perspective on Public Procurement Processes

If procurement processes are to be taken seriously, purchase managers need decision support tools beyond those that only ascertain that the formal requirements are met. This chapter demonstrates some fundamental flaws with common models used in procurement situations, flaws that are so serious that the evaluations of tenders often become meaningless and may lead to large and costly miscalculations. We demonstrate how the equitability of the tender evaluations can be significantly improved through the use of multi-criteria decision analysis with numerically imprecise input information. Due to this, the computational part of the evaluation step becomes more complex, and algorithms targeted for decision evaluation with imprecise data are used. We therefore present a procurement decision tool, DecideIT, implementing such algorithms that can be used as an instrument for a more meaningful procurement process. Of importance is to allow for a more realistic degree of precision in the valuation and ranking of tenders under each evaluation criterion, as well as the associated weighting of the criteria, since the criteria are often of a more qualitative nature. Through this, both quantitative and qualitative statements could be easily managed within the same framework and without the need to introduce ad-hoc and often arbitrary conversion formulas supposed to capture the trade-off between criteria.

[1]  Sofia Lundberg,et al.  Tender evaluation and supplier selection methods in public procurement , 2013 .

[2]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Decision Analysis with Multiple Objectives in a Framework for Evaluating Imprecision , 2005, Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based Syst..

[3]  C. McCrudden Using public procurement to achieve social outcomes , 2004 .

[4]  José Rui Figueira,et al.  Building a set of additive value functions representing a reference preorder and intensities of preference: GRIP method , 2009, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  The DecideIT Decision Tool , 2003, ISIPTA.

[6]  Martin Weber A Method of Multiattribute Decision Making with Incomplete Information , 1985 .

[7]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka Municipality , 2007, Decis. Anal..

[8]  A. Mateos,et al.  Dominance intensity measure within fuzzy weight oriented MAUT: An application , 2013 .

[9]  W. C. Benton,et al.  Vendor selection criteria and methods , 1991 .

[10]  Przemyslaw S. Stilger,et al.  A Comparative Study of Formulas for Choosing the Economically Most Advantageous Tender , 2017 .

[11]  María Teresa Lamata,et al.  Solving a decision problem with linguistic information , 2007, Pattern Recognit. Lett..

[12]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  Dominance, potential optimality, imprecise information, and hierarchical structure in multi-criteria analysis , 2002, Comput. Oper. Res..

[13]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Non-linear Programming Solvers for Decision Analysis Support Systems , 2004 .

[14]  L. D. Boer,et al.  A review of methods supporting supplier selection , 2001 .

[15]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Transparent Public Decision Making: Discussion and Case Study in Sweden , 2010 .

[16]  J. Telgen,et al.  International research study of public procurement , 2012 .

[17]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Warp effects on calculating interval probabilities , 2009, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[18]  Xiaowei Xu,et al.  Multi-criteria decision making approaches for supplier evaluation and selection: A literature review , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[19]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)-elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information , 2001, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[20]  He Ya,et al.  Rough analysis method of multi-attribute decision making with incomplete information , 2004 .

[21]  Salvatore Greco,et al.  Ordinal regression revisited: Multiple criteria ranking using a set of additive value functions , 2008, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[22]  Mats Danielson,et al.  Handling Imperfect User Statements In Real-Life Decision Analysis , 2004, Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak..

[23]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Combining Second-Order Belief Distributions with Qualitative Statements in Decision Analysis , 2012 .

[24]  Mats Danielson,et al.  Decision process support for participatory democracy , 2008 .

[25]  Mats Danielson Sensitivity Analyses in Interval Decision Modelling , 2009, Eng. Lett..