IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Double Helix Value Functions, Ordinal/Cardinal Approach, Additive Utility Functions, Multiple Criteria, Decision Paradigm, Process, and Types (Z Theory I)


  • Behnam Malakooti

    () (Systems Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio 44106, USA)


Z Utility Theory refers to a class of nonlinear utility functions for solving Risk and Multiple Criteria Decision-Making problems. Z utility functions are hybrids of additive and nonadditive (nonlinear) functions. This paper addresses the concepts and assessment methods for the additive part of Z-utility functions for multiple criteria problems that satisfy the efficiency (nondominancy) principle. We provide a decision paradigm and guidelines on how to approach, formulate, and solve decision-making problems. We, also, overview the modeling of decision process based on four types of decision-making styles. For multi-criteria problems, a new definition of convex efficiency is introduced. Also polyhedral efficiency is developed for presenting multi-criteria efficiency (nondominancy) graphically. New double helix quasi-linear value functions for multi-criteria are developed. Two types of double helix value functions for solving bi-criteria (Advantages versus Disadvantages) and also risk problems are introduced: Food–Fun curves for expected values and Fight-Flight curves for expected risk values. Ordinal/Cardinal Approach (OCA) for assessment of additive utility functions is developed. Simple consistency tests to determine whether the assessed utility function satisfies ordinal and/or cardinal properties are provided. We show that OCA can also be used to solve outranking problems. We provide a critique of Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) for assessing additive value functions and show that the developed Ordinal/Cardinal Approach overcomes the shortcomings of AHP. We also develop a unified/integrated approach for simultaneous assessment of nonlinear value and additive (multi-criteria) utility functions. These results in an additive utility function that can be concave, convex, or hybrid concave/convex based on the nonlinear value function. Finally, we show an interactive paired comparisons approach for solving nonadditive and nonlinear utility functions for bi-criteria decision-making problems. Several illustrative examples are provided. The paper provides reliable and robust approaches for modeling the utility preferences of heterogeneous economic agents in macro and micro-economics.

Suggested Citation

  • Behnam Malakooti, 2015. "Double Helix Value Functions, Ordinal/Cardinal Approach, Additive Utility Functions, Multiple Criteria, Decision Paradigm, Process, and Types (Z Theory I)," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1353-1400, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:14:y:2015:i:06:n:s0219622014500412
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219622014500412

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel, 1992. "Advances in Prospect Theory: Cumulative Representation of Uncertainty," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 297-323, October.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1990. "An Exposition of the AHP in Reply to the Paper "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 259-268, March.
    3. Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1984. "Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem using Convex Cones," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1336-1345, November.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney, 1974. "Multiplicative Utility Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 22(1), pages 22-34, February.
    5. Maria Angelica Velazquez & David Claudio & A. Ravi Ravindran, 2010. "Experiments in multiple criteria selection problems with multiple decision makers," International Journal of Operational Research, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 7(4), pages 413-428.
    6. Corner, J. L. & Buchanan, J. T., 1997. "Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 85-97, April.
    7. Jyrki Wallenius & James S. Dyer & Peter C. Fishburn & Ralph E. Steuer & Stanley Zionts & Kalyanmoy Deb, 2008. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Multiattribute Utility Theory: Recent Accomplishments and What Lies Ahead," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(7), pages 1336-1349, July.
    8. Tangian, Andranik, 2004. "A model for ordinally constructing additive objective functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(2), pages 476-512, December.
    9. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    10. A. M. Geoffrion & J. S. Dyer & A. Feinberg, 1972. "An Interactive Approach for Multi-Criterion Optimization, with an Application to the Operation of an Academic Department," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4-Part-1), pages 357-368, December.
    11. Stewart, Theodor J., 1999. "Evaluation and refinement of aspiration-based methods in MCDM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(3), pages 643-652, March.
    12. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    13. Ballestero, Enrique, 2007. "Compromise programming: A utility-based linear-quadratic composite metric from the trade-off between achievement and balanced (non-corner) solutions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(3), pages 1369-1382, November.
    14. Stanley Zionts & Jyrki Wallenius, 1976. "An Interactive Programming Method for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(6), pages 652-663, February.
    15. Jonathan Ingersoll, 2008. "Non-Monotonicity of the Tversky-Kahneman Probability-Weighting Function: A Cautionary Note," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 14(3), pages 385-390.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    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:wsi:ijitdm:v:14:y:2015:i:06:n:s0219622014500412. 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: (Tai Tone Lim). General contact details of provider: .

    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.