SOLVING MCDM PROBLEMS: PROCESS CONCEPTS

In this paper we try to answer the question: what is a good decision-making process? Specifically, we endeavour to answer two questions: (1) what are the features of a good process for making decisions when confronted by multiple criteria and (2) what should one expect from applying an MCDM solution method? Our description of the process rests on a structure comprising two mappings: alternatives to attributes and attributes to criteria. Solving an MCDM problem amounts to an objective investigation into the impact of alternatives on attributes and to a subjective evaluation of the decision maker's preference system. It is actually an art to model the problem, to distinguish between the objective and the subjective and treat them appropriately. In our view such a process will force the decision maker to understand his or her preferences and allow the set of alternatives to be expanded. We believe that the alternative chosen by such a process will indeed be the best (based on the decision maker's preferences) given the limited resources available to be invested in the process. In recent years many solution methods have been proposed to solve MCDM problems, most of them with little emphasis on decision-making methodology. We think that often this technical approach is the least important part of the decision-making process. MCDM solution methods should become less accommodating and more ‘confrontational’ by forcing decision makers to explicitly consider their preferences. We discuss upgrading solution methods in this context.

[1]  S. Zionts,et al.  An Interactive Programming Method for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem , 1976 .

[2]  J. March Bounded rationality, ambiguity, and the engineering of choice , 1978 .

[3]  Ralph E. Steuer Sausage Blending Using Multiple Objective Linear Programming , 1984 .

[4]  John Buchanan,et al.  An Experimental Evaluation of Interactive MCDM Methods and the Decision Making Process , 1994 .

[5]  B. Roy Decision-aid and decision-making , 1990 .

[6]  D. J. White The Foundations of Multi-Objective Interactive Programming — Some Questions , 1983 .

[7]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Inferring Preferences in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Using a Logistic Regression Model , 1984 .

[8]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[9]  L. Phillips A theory of requisite decision models , 1984 .

[10]  T. R. Stewart,et al.  10 – SOCIAL JUDGMENT THEORY , 1975 .

[11]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect theory: analysis of decision under risk , 1979 .

[12]  Simon French,et al.  Interactive Multi-Objective Programming: Its Aims, Applications and Demands , 1984 .

[13]  Ronald A. Howard,et al.  Heathens, Heretics, and Cults: The Religious Spectrum of Decision Aiding , 1992 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Rational choice and the framing of decisions , 1990 .

[15]  Steven O. Kimbrough,et al.  An empirical comparison of utility assessment programs , 1994 .

[16]  R L Keeney,et al.  A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. , 1987, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  Tony Hindle,et al.  Rational Analysis for a Problematic World , 1990 .

[18]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[19]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The new science of management decision , 1960 .

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

[21]  Daniel Vanderpooten Three Basic Conceptions Underlying Multiple Criteria Interactive Procedures , 1992 .

[22]  Po-Lung Yu,et al.  Forming Winning Strategies: An Integrated Theory of Habitual Domains , 1990 .

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

[24]  R. Gregory,et al.  Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values , 1994 .

[25]  D. J. White,et al.  Fundamentals of decision theory , 1969 .

[26]  John Buchanan,et al.  Experimental consideration of preference in decision making under certainty , 1995 .

[27]  R. Nozick THE NATURE OF RATIONALITY , 1995 .

[28]  E JAQUES Disturbances in the capacity to work. , 1960, The International journal of psycho-analysis.

[29]  A. Tversky,et al.  Prospect Theory : An Analysis of Decision under Risk Author ( s ) : , 2007 .

[30]  Lori S. Franz,et al.  A simplified interactive multiple objective linear programming procedure , 1985, Comput. Oper. Res..

[31]  Pekka Korhonen,et al.  A pareto race , 1988 .

[32]  S. Zionts,et al.  An Interactive Multiple Objective Linear Programming Method for a Class of Underlying Nonlinear Utility Functions , 1983 .

[33]  S. R. Watson,et al.  The presumptions of prescription , 1992 .

[34]  John Buchanan,et al.  A two-phase interactive solution method for multiple-objective programming problems , 1991, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[35]  Timothy D. Fry,et al.  A Multiobjective Linear Programming Methodology for Public Sector Tax Planning , 1989 .