IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/tefoso/v158y2020ics0040162520309574.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new 2-additive Choquet integral based approach to qualitative cross-impact analysis considering interaction effects

Author

Listed:
  • Kadaifci, Cigdem
  • Asan, Umut
  • Bozdag, Erhan

Abstract

Cross-Impact Analysis, as one of the most applied futures research techniques, arose from the question of whether interrelationships of future events may provide a basis for forecasting. Over the years this technique has evolved to a major tool for determining variables with highest importance in scenario development in a more effective way. Researchers have discussed certain drawbacks of the technique, especially the need for dealing with interactions (i.e. joint effects of variables). However, no satisfactory solution integrating joint effects into the model has yet been suggested. Interaction is an important determinant generally for all systems and particularly for futures research since two supposedly unimportant criteria may have a strong effect in the system when they are considered jointly. In this study, to address this issue, a Qualitative Cross-Impact Analysis based on 2-additive Choquet Integral is developed. An example is provided to illustrate the applicability and the effectiveness of this approach. In the example, four different settings are presented for validation purposes and the results are compared to the classical approach. The findings indicate that increasing the weight of the interaction effects along the four settings yields increasingly different results than the classical approach. The proposed approach provides a more realistic representation of the system.

Suggested Citation

  • Kadaifci, Cigdem & Asan, Umut & Bozdag, Erhan, 2020. "A new 2-additive Choquet integral based approach to qualitative cross-impact analysis considering interaction effects," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:158:y:2020:i:c:s0040162520309574
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120131
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040162520309574
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120131?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2009. "A characterization of the 2-additive Choquet integral through cardinal information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445132, HAL.
    2. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2011. "A representation of preferences by the Choquet integral with respect to a 2-additive capacity," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 71(3), pages 297-324, September.
    3. JosÉ Figueira & Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrogott, 2005. "Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys," International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, number 978-0-387-23081-8, December.
    4. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2016. "Fuzzy Measures and Integrals in MCDA," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Salvatore Greco & Matthias Ehrgott & José Rui Figueira (ed.), Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 553-603, Springer.
    5. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2010. "A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 247-286, March.
    6. Cho, Keun-Tae & Kwon, Cheol-Shin, 2004. "Hierarchies with dependence of technological alternatives: A cross-impact hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(2), pages 420-432, July.
    7. Asan, Umut & Erhan Bozdag, Cafer & Polat, Seçkin, 2004. "A fuzzy approach to qualitative cross impact analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 443-458, December.
    8. Michel Grabisch, 2016. "Set Functions, Games and Capacities in Decision Making," Theory and Decision Library C, Springer, number 978-3-319-30690-2, July.
    9. Tietje, Olaf, 2005. "Identification of a small reliable and efficient set of consistent scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 418-432, April.
    10. D. Thorleuchter & D. Van Den Poel & A. Prinzie & -, 2010. "A compared R&D-based and patent-based cross impact analysis for identifying relationships between technologies," Working Papers of Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, Ghent University, Belgium 10/632, Ghent University, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jodlbauer, Herbert & Tripathi, Shailesh & Brunner, Manuel & Bachmann, Nadine, 2022. "Stability of cross impact matrices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    2. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    3. Paul Alain Kaldjob Kaldjob & Brice Mayag & Denis Bouyssou, 2023. "On the interpretation of the interaction index between criteria in a Choquet integral model," Post-Print hal-03766372, HAL.
    4. Alessio Bonetti & Silvia Bortot & Mario Fedrizzi & Silvio Giove & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Andrea Molinari, 2011. "Modelling group processes and effort estimation in Project Management using the Choquet integral: an MCDM approach," DISA Working Papers 2011/12, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised Sep 2011.
    5. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira, 2011. "Inconsistency and non-additive Choquet integration in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," DISA Working Papers 2011/06, Department of Computer and Management Sciences, University of Trento, Italy, revised 29 Jul 2011.
    6. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Thuy H. Nguyen, 2015. "Welfare functions and inequality indices in the binomial decomposition of OWA functions," DEM Discussion Papers 2015/08, Department of Economics and Management.
    7. Brice Mayag & Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2009. "A characterization of the 2-additive Choquet integral through cardinal information," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00445132, HAL.
    8. Bonifacio Llamazares, 2019. "An Analysis of Winsorized Weighted Means," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(5), pages 907-933, October.
    9. Siskos, Eleftherios & Burgherr, Peter, 2022. "Multicriteria decision support for the evaluation of electricity supply resilience: Exploration of interacting criteria," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 298(2), pages 611-626.
    10. Fernando A. F. Ferreira & Sérgio P. Santos, 2021. "Two decades on the MACBETH approach: a bibliometric analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 901-925, January.
    11. Paul Alain Kaldjob Kaldjob & Brice Mayag & Denis Bouyssou, 2022. "On the robustness of the sign of nonadditivity index in a Choquet integral model," Post-Print hal-03904424, HAL.
    12. Jian-Zhang Wu & Feng-Feng Chen & Yan-Qing Li & Li Huang, 2020. "Capacity Random Forest for Correlative Multiple Criteria Decision Pattern Learning," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-15, August.
    13. Beliakov, Gleb, 2022. "Knapsack problems with dependencies through non-additive measures and Choquet integral," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 301(1), pages 277-286.
    14. Li Huang & Jian-Zhang Wu & Rui-Jie Xi, 2020. "Nonadditivity Index Based Quasi-Random Generation of Capacities and Its Application in Comprehensive Decision Aiding," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(2), pages 1-14, February.
    15. Silvia Bortot & Ricardo Alberto Marques Pereira & Anastasia Stamatopoulou, 2020. "Shapley and superShapley aggregation emerging from consensus dynamics in the multicriteria Choquet framework," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 583-611, December.
    16. Angilella, Silvia & Corrente, Salvatore & Greco, Salvatore, 2015. "Stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis for the Choquet integral preference model and the scale construction problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(1), pages 172-182.
    17. Luca Anzilli & Silvio Giove, 2020. "Multi-criteria and medical diagnosis for application to health insurance systems: a general approach through non-additive measures," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 559-582, December.
    18. Grabisch, Michel & Kojadinovic, Ivan & Meyer, Patrick, 2008. "A review of methods for capacity identification in Choquet integral based multi-attribute utility theory: Applications of the Kappalab R package," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(2), pages 766-785, April.
    19. Ulrich Faigle & Michel Grabisch, 2019. "Least Square Approximations and Linear Values of Cooperative Game," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-02381231, HAL.
    20. Altuntas, Serkan & Dereli, Turkay & Kusiak, Andrew, 2015. "Analysis of patent documents with weighted association rules," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 249-262.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:tefoso:v:158:y:2020:i:c:s0040162520309574. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/00401625 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.