IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v41y2013i4p679-688.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension

Author

Listed:
  • Stewart, Theodor J.
  • French, Simon
  • Rios, Jesus

Abstract

Scenario planning and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are two key management science tools used in strategic planning. In this paper, we explore the integration of these two approaches in a coherent manner, recognizing that each adds value to the implementation of the other. Various approaches that have been adopted for such integration are reviewed, with a primary focus on the process of constructing preferences both within and between scenarios. Biases that may be introduced by inappropriate assumptions during such processes are identified, and used to motivate a framework for integrating MCDA and scenario thinking, based on applying MCDA concepts across a range of “metacriteria” (combinations of scenarios and primary criteria). Within this framework, preferences according to each primary criterion can be expressed in the context of different scenarios. The paper concludes with a hypothetical but non-trivial example of agricultural policy planning in a developing country.

Suggested Citation

  • Stewart, Theodor J. & French, Simon & Rios, Jesus, 2013. "Integrating multicriteria decision analysis and scenario planning—Review and extension," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 41(4), pages 679-688.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:41:y:2013:i:4:p:679-688
    DOI: 10.1016/j.omega.2012.09.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030504831200179X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Graves, Samuel B. & Ringuest, Jeffrey L., 2009. "Probabilistic dominance criteria for comparing uncertain alternatives: A tutorial," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 346-357, April.
    2. Jiménez, Antonio & Mateos, Alfonso & Ríos-Insua, Sixto, 2009. "Missing consequences in multiattribute utility theory," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 395-410, April.
    3. Robert F. Bordley & Gordon Hazen, 1992. "Nonlinear Utility Models Arising from Unmodelled Small World Intercorrelations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(7), pages 1010-1017, July.
    4. Gerking, Harald, 1987. "Modeling of multi-stage decision-making processes in multi-period energy-models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 191-204, November.
    5. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2012. "A comparison of simplified value function approaches for treating uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 456-464.
    6. Simon French, 2003. "Modelling, making inferences and making decisions: The roles of sensitivity analysis," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 11(2), pages 229-251, December.
    7. Durbach, Ian N. & Stewart, Theodor J., 2009. "Using expected values to simplify decision making under uncertainty," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 312-330, April.
    8. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    9. Papadopoulos, Agis & Karagiannidis, Avraam, 2008. "Application of the multi-criteria analysis method Electre III for the optimisation of decentralised energy systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 766-776, October.
    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. repec:gam:jsusta:v:10:y:2018:i:4:p:1083-:d:139642 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Ahn, Byeong Seok & Park, Haechurl, 2014. "Establishing dominance between strategies with interval judgments of state probabilities," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 53-59.
    3. Cairns, George & Goodwin, Paul & Wright, George, 2016. "A decision-analysis-based framework for analysing stakeholder behaviour in scenario planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 1050-1062.
    4. Scholten, Lisa & Schuwirth, Nele & Reichert, Peter & Lienert, Judit, 2015. "Tackling uncertainty in multi-criteria decision analysis – An application to water supply infrastructure planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(1), pages 243-260.
    5. repec:gam:jeners:v:11:y:2018:i:4:p:757-:d:138302 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:eee:jomega:v:76:y:2018:i:c:p:100-111 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. repec:eee:tefoso:v:124:y:2017:i:c:p:214-224 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. repec:eee:reensy:v:150:y:2016:i:c:p:11-21 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Fasolo, Barbara & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2014. "Tailoring value elicitation to decision makers' numeracy and fluency: Expressing value judgments in numbers or words," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 83-90.
    10. Ward, E. John & Dimitriou, Harry T. & Dean, Marco, 2016. "Theory and background of multi-criteria analysis: Toward a policy-led approach to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 21-45.
    11. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    12. Durbach, Ian N., 2014. "Outranking under uncertainty using scenarios," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(1), pages 98-108.
    13. Al-Ebbini, Lina & Oztekin, Asil & Chen, Yao, 2016. "FLAS: Fuzzy lung allocation system for US-based transplantations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 248(3), pages 1051-1065.
    14. repec:eee:ejores:v:266:y:2018:i:1:p:205-220 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:jomega:v:41:y:2013:i:4:p:679-688. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.