全部 标题 作者
关键词 摘要

OALib Journal期刊
ISSN: 2333-9721
费用:99美元

查看量下载量

相关文章

更多...

Verbal Decision Analysis: Foundations and Trends

DOI: 10.1155/2013/697072

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib

Abstract:

The primary goal of research in multiple criteria decision analysis is to develop tools to help people make more reasonable decisions. In many cases, the development of such tools requires the combination of knowledge derived from such areas as applied mathematics, cognitive psychology, and organizational behavior. Verbal Decision Analysis (VDA) is an example of such a combination. It is based on valid mathematical principles, takes into account peculiarities of human information processing system, and fits the decision process into existing organizational environments. The basic underpinnings of Verbal Decision Analysis are demonstrated by early VDA methods, such as ZAPROS and ORCLASS. New trends in their later modifications are discussed. Published applications of VDA methods are presented to support the findings. 1. Introduction A large number of decision making situations require taking into consideration multiple, often conflicting, influencing factors or criteria. A number of different multiple criteria decision aids (MCDA) have been developed to support this class of decision problems. In the majority of multiple criteria tasks, the “objectively” best alternative may often not be defined. As a result, in spite of crucial differences in approaches, many methods dealing with multiple criteria environments are based on subjective information about relative importance of objectives and criteria to the decision maker. The subjective nature of information in the majority of multiple criteria models makes it a challenge to obtain consistent and accurate results in such tasks. As a result, elicitation of the decision makers’ preferences should take into account peculiarities of human behavior in the decision processes. This is the central goal of Verbal Decision Analysis or VDA [1, 2]. The Verbal Decision Analysis is a framework for designing methods of MCDA by using preferential information from the decision makers in the ordinal form, a type of judgment known to be much more stable and consistent. VDA is based on the same principles as multiattribute utility theory (MAUT) [3] but is oriented on using the verbal form of preference elicitation and on evaluation of alternative decisions without resort to numbers. Traditional methods of VDA were oriented on problems with a rather large number of alternatives but a relatively small number of criteria. They were designed to elicit a sound preference relationship that could be applied to future sets of real alternatives, while many other methods, for example, outranking methods [4] or AHP [5], tended to

References

[1]  O. I. Larichev and H. M. Moshkovich, Verbal Decision Analysis for Unstructured Problems, Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, Mass, USA, 1997.
[2]  H. M. Moshkovich, A. I. Mechitov, and D. L. Olson, “Verbal Decision Analysis,” in State of the Art of Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, J. Figueira, S. Greco, and M. Ehrgott, Eds., International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, pp. 609–637, Springer, New York, NY, USA, 2005.
[3]  R. L. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, USA, 1976.
[4]  B. Roy, Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordchert, The Netherlands, 1996.
[5]  T. L. Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 1980.
[6]  O. I. Larichev and H. M. Moshkovich, “An approach to ordinal classification problems,” International Transactions in Operational Research, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 375–385, 1994.
[7]  O. I. Larichev and H. M. Moshkovich, “ZAPROS-LM—a method and system for ordering multiattribute alternatives,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 82, no. 3, pp. 503–521, 1995.
[8]  O. I. Larichev, “Cognitive validity in design of decision-aiding techniques,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 127–138, 1992.
[9]  E. M. Furems, O. I. Larichev, G. V. Roizenson, A. V. Lotov, and K. Miettinen, “Human Behavior in a Multi-Criteria Choice Problem with Individual Tasks of Different Difficulties,” International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 29–40, 2003.
[10]  O. I. Larichev, D. L. Olson, H. M. Moshkovich, and A. J. Mechitov, “Numerical vs cardinal measurements in multiattribute decision making: how exact is enough?” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 9–21, 1995.
[11]  J. Wallenius, J. S. Dyer, P. C. Fishburn, R. E. Steuer, S. Zionts, and K. Deb, “Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead,” Management Science, vol. 54, no. 7, pp. 1336–1349, 2008.
[12]  D. Berkeley, P. Humphreys, O. I. Larichev, and H. M. Moshkovich, “Modeling and supporting the process of choice between alternatives: the focus of ASTRIDA,” in Environments for Supporting Decision Processes, H. G. Sol J Vecsenyi, Ed., pp. 59–62, North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1990.
[13]  O. I. Larichev, “Ranking multicriteria alternatives: the method ZAPROS III,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 131, no. 3, pp. 550–558, 2001.
[14]  H. M. Moshkovich, A. I. Mechitov, and D. L. Olson, “Ordinal judgments in multiattribute decision analysis,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 137, no. 3, pp. 625–641, 2002.
[15]  I. Ashikmin and E. Furems, “UniCombos: intelligent decision support system for multi-criteria comparison and choice,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 13, no. 2-3, pp. 147–157, 2005.
[16]  O. Larichev, A. Asanov, and Y. Naryzhny, “Effectiveness evaluation of expert classification methods,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 138, no. 2, pp. 260–273, 2002.
[17]  O. Larichev and A. Bolotov, “The DIFKLASS system: construction of complete and noncontradictory expert knowledge bases in problems of differential classification,” Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 12–17, 1996.
[18]  O. I. Larichev, A. V. Kortnev, and D. Y. Kochin, “Decision support system for classification of a finite set of multicriteria alternatives,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 13–21, 2002.
[19]  L. Ustinovichius, V. Kutut, D. Kochin, and G. Shevchenko, “Verbal analysis of renovation investment strategy of old town,” in Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Automation and Robotics in Construction (ISARC '08), E. K. Zavadskas, A. Kaklauskas, and M. J. Skibniewski, Eds., pp. 397–411, 2008.
[20]  l. Ustnovichius and D. Kochin, “Verbal decision analysis methods for determining the efficiency of investment in construction,” Foundations of Civil and Environmental Engineering, vol. 5, pp. 35–46, 2004.
[21]  H. M. Moshkovich, A. I. Mechitov, and D. L. Olson, “Rule induction in data mining: effect of ordinal scales,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 303–311, 2002.
[22]  N. E. Flanders, R. V. Brown, Y. Andre'eva, and O. Larichev, “Justifying public decisions in arctic oil and gas development: American and Russian approaches,” Arctic, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 262–279, 1998.
[23]  O. Larichev and R. Brown, “Numerical and verbal decision analysis: comparison on practical cases,” Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 9, pp. 263–273, 2000.
[24]  O. I. Larichev, R. Brown, E. Andre'eva, and N. Flanders, “Categorical decision analysis for environmental management: a Siberian gas distributing case,” in Contribution To Decision Making, J. P. Caverni, M. Bar-Hillel, F. H. Barron, and H. Jungermann, Eds., pp. 255–286, North Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
[25]  I. Tamanini, A. K. de Castro, P. R. Pinheiro, and M. C. D. Pinheiro, “Applied neuroimaging to the diagnosis of alzheimer's disease: a multicriteria model,” Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol. 49, pp. 532–541, 2009.
[26]  L. Ustinovichius, A. Barvidas, A. Vishnevskaja, and I. V. Ashikhmin, “Multicriteria verbal analysis for the decision of construction problems,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 326–340, 2009.
[27]  G. Rodrigues and E. Cohen, “Optimizing marketing segmentation through an information system using verbal decision analysis in the Chamber of Commerce in Rio de Janeiro (CDLRIO),” in Proceedings of the Marketing & Management Development Conference, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 432–436, Academy of World Business, 2008.
[28]  M. S. Mendes, A. L. Carvalho, E. Furtado, and P. R. Pinheiro, “Towards analyzing alternatives of interaction design based on verbal decision analysis of user experience,” International Journal of Interactive Mobile Technologies, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 17–231, 2010.
[29]  A. I. Mechitov, H. M. Moshkovich, and D. L. Olson, “Problems of decision rule elicitation in a classification task,” Decision Support Systems, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 115–126, 1994.
[30]  I. Yevseyeva, K. Miettinen, and P. R?s?nen, “Verbal ordinal classification with multicriteria decision aiding,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 185, no. 3, pp. 964–983, 2008.
[31]  G. Shevchenko, L. Ustinovichius, and A. Andru?kevi?ius, “Multi-attribute analysis of investments risk alternatives in construction,” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 428–443, 2008.
[32]  L. F. A. M. Gomes, H. Moshkovich, and A. Torres, “Marketing decisions in small businesses: how verbal decision analysis can help,” International Journal of Management and Decision Making, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 19–36, 2010.

Full-Text

comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us

service@oalib.com

QQ:3279437679

WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413