IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v259y2017i1d10.1007_s10479-017-2519-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A flexible elicitation procedure for additive model scale constants

Author

Listed:
  • Adiel T. Almeida-Filho

    (CDSID - Center for Decision Systems and Information Development, Av. Acadêmico Hélio Ramos, s/n – Cidade Universitária)

  • Adiel T. Almeida

    (CDSID - Center for Decision Systems and Information Development, Av. Acadêmico Hélio Ramos, s/n – Cidade Universitária)

  • Ana Paula C. S. Costa

    (CDSID - Center for Decision Systems and Information Development, Av. Acadêmico Hélio Ramos, s/n – Cidade Universitária)

Abstract

This paper contributes to the process of eliciting additive model scale constants in order to support choice problems, thereby reducing the effort a decision maker (DM) needs to make since partial information with regard to DM preferences can be used. Procedures related to eliciting weights without a tradeoff interpretation of weights are justified based on assumptions that DM is not able to specify fixed weight values or if DM is able to do so, this would not be reliable information. As long as partial information is provided, the flexible elicitation procedure performs dominance tests based on a linear programming problem to explore the DM’s preferences as a vector space which is built using the DM’s partial information. To provide evidence of the satisfactory performance of the flexible elicitation procedure, an empirical test is presented with results that indicate that this procedure requires less effort from DMs.

Suggested Citation

  • Adiel T. Almeida-Filho & Adiel T. Almeida & Ana Paula C. S. Costa, 2017. "A flexible elicitation procedure for additive model scale constants," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 259(1), pages 65-83, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:259:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-017-2519-y
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-017-2519-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-017-2519-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-017-2519-y?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. Danielson, Mats & Ekenberg, Love, 2007. "Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(2), pages 808-816, September.
    2. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    3. Ralph E. Steuer, 1976. "Multiple Objective Linear Programming with Interval Criterion Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(3), pages 305-316, November.
    4. Punkka, Antti & Salo, Ahti, 2013. "Preference Programming with incomplete ordinal information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 141-150.
    5. Craig W. Kirkwood & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1985. "Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 33(1), pages 38-48, February.
    6. Katrin Borcherding & Thomas Eppel & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 1991. "Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(12), pages 1603-1619, December.
    7. Weber, Martin & Borcherding, Katrin, 1993. "Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 1-12, May.
    8. Gordon B. Hazen, 1986. "Partial Information, Dominance, and Potential Optimality in Multiattribute Utility Theory," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(2), pages 296-310, April.
    9. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    10. Bottomley, Paul A. & Doyle, John R., 2001. "A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 553-560, December.
    11. Mustajoki, Jyri, 2012. "Effects of imprecise weighting in hierarchical preference programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 218(1), pages 193-201.
    12. Salo, Ahti & Punkka, Antti, 2005. "Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 338-356, June.
    13. Marmol, Amparo M. & Puerto, Justo & Fernandez, Francisco R., 2002. "Sequential incorporation of imprecise information in multiple criteria decision processes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 123-133, February.
    14. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    15. Ahti A. Salo & Raimo P. Hämäläinen, 1992. "Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1053-1061, December.
    16. F. Hutton Barron & Bruce E. Barrett, 1996. "Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(11), pages 1515-1523, November.
    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. Pavel Anselmo Alvarez Carrillo & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Adiel Teixeira Almeida, 2022. "Selecting an agricultural technology package based on the flexible and interactive tradeoff method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 314(2), pages 377-392, July.
    2. Abreu Kang, Takanni Hannaka & da Costa Soares Júnior, Antônio Marques & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Evaluating electric power generation technologies: A multicriteria analysis based on the FITradeoff method," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 165(PB), pages 10-20.
    3. Madson Bruno da Silva Monte & Danielle Costa Morais, 2019. "A Decision Model for Identifying and Solving Problems in an Urban Water Supply System," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 33(14), pages 4835-4848, November.
    4. de Almeida Filho, Adiel T. & Clemente, Thárcylla R.N. & Morais, Danielle Costa & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2018. "Preference modeling experiments with surrogate weighting procedures for the PROMETHEE method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 453-461.

    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. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    2. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa, 2019. "Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 909-931, December.
    3. Eduarda Asfora Frej & Danielle Costa Morais & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, 2022. "Negotiation Support Through Interactive Dominance Relationship Specification," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 591-620, June.
    4. Ewa Roszkowska, 2020. "The extention rank ordering criteria weighting methods in fuzzy enviroment," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 30(2), pages 91-114.
    5. Ahn, Byeong Seok, 2017. "Approximate weighting method for multiattribute decision problems with imprecise parameters," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 87-95.
    6. Pavel Anselmo Alvarez Carrillo & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Adiel Teixeira Almeida, 2022. "Selecting an agricultural technology package based on the flexible and interactive tradeoff method," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 314(2), pages 377-392, July.
    7. Roger Chapman Burk & Richard M. Nehring, 2023. "An Empirical Comparison of Rank-Based Surrogate Weights in Additive Multiattribute Decision Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 55-72, March.
    8. Liesio, Juuso & Mild, Pekka & Salo, Ahti, 2007. "Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1488-1505, September.
    9. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.
    10. Tom Pape, 2020. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: Concept, measures and application," Papers 2012.13816, arXiv.org.
    11. Antti Punkka & Ahti Salo, 2014. "Scale Dependence and Ranking Intervals in Additive Value Models Under Incomplete Preference Information," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 83-104, June.
    12. Hämäläinen, Raimo P. & Alaja, Susanna, 2008. "The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 556-569, December.
    13. Pape, Tom, 2017. "Value of agreement in decision analysis: concept, measures and application," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 68682, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    14. Punkka, Antti & Salo, Ahti, 2013. "Preference Programming with incomplete ordinal information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 141-150.
    15. Adiel Teixeira Almeida & Eduarda Asfora Frej & Lucia Reis Peixoto Roselli, 2021. "Combining holistic and decomposition paradigms in preference modeling with the flexibility of FITradeoff," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 29(1), pages 7-47, March.
    16. Hayashi, Kiyotada, 1998. "Multicriteria aid for agricultural decisions using preference relations: methodology and application," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 58(4), pages 483-503, December.
    17. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    18. G Özerol & E Karasakal, 2008. "Interactive outranking approaches for multicriteria decision-making problems with imprecise information," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(9), pages 1253-1268, September.
    19. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Miebs, Grzegorz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2022. "Recommending multiple criteria decision analysis methods with a new taxonomy-based decision support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(2), pages 633-651.
    20. Harju, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Virtanen, Kai, 2019. "Spatial multi-attribute decision analysis: Axiomatic foundations and incomplete preference information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 167-181.

    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:spr:annopr:v:259:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_s10479-017-2519-y. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.