Solving Multicriteria Group Decision-Making (MCGDM) Problems Based on Ranking with Partial Information

This paper presents an interactive Decision Support System for solving multicriteria group decision-making (MCGDM) problems, based on partial information obtained from the decision makers (DMs). The decision support tool was built based on the concept of flexible elicitation of the FITradeoff method, with graphical visualization features and a user-friendly interface. The decision model is based on searching for dominance relations between alternatives, according to the preferential information obtained from the decision-makers from tradeoff questions. A partial (or complete) ranking of the alternatives is built based on these dominance relations, which are obtained from linear programming models. The system shows, at each interaction, an overview of the process, with the partial results for all decision-makers. The visualization of the individual rankings by all DMs can help them to achieve an agreement during the process, since they will be able to see how their preferred alternatives are in the ranking of the other DMs. The applicability of the system is illustrated here with a problem for selecting a package to improve safety of oil tankers.

[1]  Luis C. Dias,et al.  Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software , 2000, J. Oper. Res. Soc..

[2]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Decision Support by Interval SMART/SWING - Incorporating Imprecision in the SMART and SWING Methods , 2005, Decis. Sci..

[3]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application , 1985, Oper. Res..

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

[5]  C. Kirkwood,et al.  The Effectiveness of Partial Information about Attribute Weights for Ranking Alternatives in Multiattribute Decision Making , 1993 .

[6]  Luis C. Dias,et al.  Multiattribute Choice With Ordinal Information: A Comparison of Different Decision Rules , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[7]  Luis C. Dias,et al.  Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives' values , 2010, Comput. Oper. Res..

[8]  Adiel Teixeira de Almeida,et al.  Decision neuroscience for improving data visualization of decision support in the FITradeoff method , 2019, Operational Research.

[9]  Raimo P. Hämäläinen,et al.  Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements , 1992, Oper. Res..

[10]  Ahti Salo,et al.  Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[11]  Byeong Seok Ahn,et al.  Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights , 2008, Comput. Oper. Res..

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

[13]  Luis C. Dias,et al.  Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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

[15]  Adiel Teixeira de Almeida,et al.  Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis , 2015 .

[16]  K. S. Park,et al.  Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete , 2004, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans.

[17]  Adiel Teixeira de Almeida,et al.  Neuroscience Experiment for Graphical Visualization in the FITradeoff Decision Support System , 2018, GDN.

[18]  Behnam Malakooti,et al.  Ranking and screening multiple criteria alternatives with partial information and use of ordinal and cardinal strength of preferences , 2000, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[19]  Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa,et al.  Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation , 2019, Oper. Res..

[20]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  A Robustness Study of State-of-the-Art Surrogate Weights for MCDM , 2017 .

[21]  Kyung S. Park,et al.  Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with incompletely identified information , 1997 .

[22]  Martin Weber.  Decision Making with Incomplete Information , 1987 .

[23]  Tomasz Wachowicz,et al.  Preference Analysis and Decision Support in Negotiations and Group Decisions , 2017 .

[24]  Antreas D. Athanassopoulos,et al.  Dominance and potential optimality in multiple criteria decision analysis with imprecise information , 1997 .

[25]  Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa,et al.  A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoff , 2016, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[26]  Love Ekenberg,et al.  Weighting Under Ambiguous Preferences and Imprecise Differences in a Cardinal Rank Ordering Process , 2014, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst..

[27]  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.

[28]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Decision Analysis with Multiple Conflicting Objectives, Preferences and Value Tradeoffs , 1975 .

[29]  Jacob W. Ulvila,et al.  Negotiation of International Oil Tanker Standards: An Application of Multiattribute Value Theory , 1980, Oper. Res..

[30]  J. Eric Bickel,et al.  A Generalized Sampling Approach for Multilinear Utility Functions Given Partial Preference Information , 2014, Decis. Anal..

[31]  Justo Puerto,et al.  Sequential incorporation of imprecise information in multiple criteria decision processes , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

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