Decision Aiding Process Research Articles

Some comments on the paperMindsets, rationality and emotion in Multi-criteria Decision Analysis

I was very happy to read this paper. It is rare that somebody takes the care to investigate the philosophical foundations of MCDA and despite the fact I have several divergent points of view with the author I was pleased in exercising some abstract considerations about our research and practice. Let me start explaining why I consider the issues addressed by the paper under a different perspective. What is the scope(s) of our research in MCDA? Are we trying to convince decision makers how to do best or are we trying to help people assisting decision makers to do best? Who is our audience? ‘Decision makers’ or ‘assistants’ to the decision makers? Perhaps both, but my personal impression is that who really uses decision analysis tools are what I call ‘analysts’ and these deserve particular attention. Decision theory and F. Wenst p’s analysis remains within a frame where the audience is instead decision makers. This is legitimate, but I feel that decision makers rarely are users of decision aiding tools. Instead analysts are great users of what I call the ‘decision aiding methodology’ (Tsoukias, 2003). I will therefore try to read the paper’s contribution under such a perspective. The result is that part of the author’s analysis loses interest. The fact that decision makers use values, norms, ethics, rules or whatsoever makes little difference. For the ‘analyst’ these are all ‘reasons’ supporting or opposing a certain recommendation. The use of multiple criteria becomes a natural way to represent the fact that the reasons to be considered (and modelled) are several, conflicting, and not necessarily readily available and clear. Further on, if we focus on the interactions between the decision maker and the analyst (what I call a ‘decision aiding process’ (Tsoukias, 2003b)) then I would rather talk about ‘constructing’ reasons instead of ‘eliciting’ them. As already shown in other fields where decision aiding is practiced (such as in psychotherapy, Capurso and Tsoukias, 2003) the reality within which we look in order to ‘solve’ a problem is constructed by the interaction between the client and the analyst (see also Watzlawick, 1984; Watzlawick et al., 1967, 1974). Under the above perspective, the issue is not to know whether we have to use norms, values or duties, but how to introduce such reasons within a formal model. It is not a matter of choice nor is it a question of advice. A decision maker has his/her own reasons and these naturally have different origins. We can discuss with the client whether in a precise problem situation it is appropriate to use a certain reason, but not whether we should use a precise type of reasons. The analyst’s problem is how to put together such different reasons taking into account that these may correspond to different concerns of the client. A decision aiding methodology cannot limit itself in considering a certain type of reasoning (deontic, value based, heuristic or normative). It has to be able to consider any reason. This does not seem to be the concern of the paper which is limited in claiming a wider range of reasons. There are also some further specific points to be discussed in this thought-provoking paper.

Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts

The combination of deliberative and analytical methods is supposed to have a high potential for the resolution of environmental conflicts. But selecting methods and tools for a specific case often remains nebulous. In this article, we evaluate different deliberative and analytical methods according to characteristics defined by Wittmer et al. (2004). We put a special focus on multi-criteria methods as these analytical methods are especially suited for participation. This evaluation identifies strengths and weaknesses of methods, and can ground the selection of one specific method (or the combination of several) on a systematic basis. A brief definition of the methods reported in this issue is given and these are evaluated. The next step consists of identifying which characteristics are most important in a specific case. Applying these two steps can guide the selection of methods for resolving environmental conflicts. We conclude that the combination of participatory and multi-criteria methods generally provides a good starting point for conflict facilitators looking for methods supporting the decision-aid process.

Communicating exposure and health effects results to study subjects, the community and the public: strategies and challenges.

The Mickey Leland National Urban Air Toxics Research Center sponsored a Symposium in August 2002 that focused on the communication of health effects results from community studies involving exposure to hazardous substances in the environment. Some of the audiences identified for presentation of study results were the study subjects, the community, and the general public. Principles and approaches to communicating findings were discussed, as were the challenges that may confront researchers in developing and implementing a communication plan. The Symposium included four sessions. The first was an overview session where Timothy McDaniels (University of British Columbia) described risk communication as a decision-aiding process. In the second session, case studies were presented by Timothy Buckley (Johns Hopkins University), Jane Hoppin (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences), and Anne-Marie Nicol (University of British Columbia). Approaches and strategies used by different stakeholders to communicate study results was the topic for a panel discussion at the third session. Panelists included: James Collins (The Dow Chemical Company), Mary White (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry), Richard Clapp (Boston University), Valerie Zartarian (Environmental Protection Agency), Pamela Williams (Chemrisk), and Tina Bahadori (American Chemistry Council). The final session was a summary presentation on lessons learned given by Rebecca Parkin of George Washington University, in which she synthesized the preceding presentations and formulated guidelines for effective risk communication in community research studies.

An interactive procedure dedicated to a bicriteria plant location model

In this paper a new algorithm is described which aims at solving efficiently a simple plant location problem with two additional constraints. Such a problem arises in the calculation phase of an interactive decision aid process that helps the decision-maker finding the non-dominated solutions for a bicriteria simple plant location problem. The two additional constraints impose upper limits on the values of each objective function. If they are relaxed, the problem turns into a simple plant location problem, which can be solved using Dualoc by Erlenkotter (oper. Res. 26(6) (1978) 992). The algorithm developed uses a slightly modified version of Dualoc (Erlenkotter, 1978) integrated into a branch and bound procedure. The results of several computational experiments are shown, showing that the new algorithm is superior both in the computational time and memory needed, when compared with a general solver. Statement of scope and purpose: The final purpose of this paper is the development of an effective interactive tool in order to aid in the aggregation of the decision maker preferences in a bicriteria location model. In the calculation phase of such tool one must solve repeatedly a simple plant location problem with two additional general constraints. The major technical improvement proposed in this paper regards the computational efficiency of the solution procedure. We were able to take advantage of the special structure of simple plant location problem even in the presence of two additional constraints.

A multi-profile sorting procedure in the public administration

Procedures of project investigation and evaluation are very frequent in the public administration. These decision situations imply a clear definition of the projects, which can be admitted to the selection, and a transparent action of evaluation, selection and communication of the results. In relation to a specific procedure, which is set up every year in the Piedmont Region, in Italy, a multicriteria (MC) sorting procedure was adopted in the context of decision aiding. Interesting results induced a stable relationship between client and analyst and stimulated a generalization of the procedure, the implementation of a software package and the development of a decision support system, which is now in progress. The main characteristics of a MC sorting procedure are analyzed in the paper, in general terms and more specifically in relation to this decision context. The problem situation and its evolution in a decision-aid process are described, in relation to the MC model development and evolution. The method which is the core of this MC procedure and a proposal of development and generalization of the method assignment rules are then presented with the application results and some validation procedures, which were adopted in the different phases of the work.

Development and evaluation of the Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) process

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the development and implementation of an airline industry process for determining the factors that contribute to maintenance errors and making corrective actions to eliminate or reduce the probability of future, similar errors. A process like this is useful because maintenance errors have safety and economic consequences to the airline industry. The Maintenance Error Decision Aid (MEDA) process was developed based on the philosophy that maintenance technicians do not make errors on purpose, that errors result from a series of related contributing factors, and that these factors are largely under management control and, therefore, can be changed. The process was field tested by employees of eight airlines and one repair station. Five surveys, two meetings, and completed MEDA Results Forms were used to evaluate the process. Survey results indicated that: the MEDA process was easy to use, maintenance technicians did not feel intimidated by the process, and management and staff felt MEDA was useful and should be continued after the field test. Feedback from the meetings was that MEDA had been successfully used to correct contributing factors to error, and airline management commitment was the most important factor for successful MEDA implementation. Suggestions for improving the implementation process were also provided. The completed Results Forms were generally correctly filled out and indicated an average of 3.4 contributing factors per investigation. Seven of the nine organizations continued to use an error investigation process after the field test. Since the end of the field test, the authors have provided MEDA implementation consultation to over 60 airplane maintenance organizations around the world. Feedback suggests that approximately two-thirds of the organizations are using MEDA. Relevance to industry The safety consequences and economic losses to the airline industry due to maintenance errors are very costly. A process for determining the factors that contribute to errors so that they can be corrected should help eliminate future, similar errors. The philosophy that situational factors contribute to error could also be applied in factory settings to investigate fabrication, assembly, and operational errors.

A real-world MCDA application: evaluating software

A real-world multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) application on software evaluation is presented in this paper. The decision process concerned a big Italian company faced with the management of a call for tenders for a very important software acquisition. The decision aiding process is extensively presented and discussed, mainly as far as its products are concerned, i.e. -the problem situation; -the problem formulation; -the evaluation model; -the final recommendation. The results of the experience are discussed using the comments of the client of the study

Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process

We describe a real application of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in which several Decision Support Systems (DSSs) were harmoniously integrated in the interactive learning process of tackling the complex strategic problematic situation faced by the Santa Catarina textile industry, in the south of Brazil. We feel that two significant conclusions can be drawn from our conjoint use of Graphics COPE, MACBETH, V.I.S.A, and EQUITY in building a model of values: (1) Providing decision-support is much more than merely applying a technical tool to “solve” a well-defined decision problem; it is, at least it was in our case, a complex (but exciting) activity of someone (the facilitator) who, with the support of adequate methodological and technical tools, progressively tried to shed light on an initially ill-structured decision-making process. (2) Under a constructive attitude in decision-aid, DSSs became effective tools for helping the facilitators to help the decision-actors, both in the structuring and evaluation phases of the process, and in creating new decision opportunities. In particular, visual man–machine interaction greatly contributed to the actors' learning about their problem and values. Moreover, visually appealing sensitivity analyses increased the problem-owners' trust in the recommendations elaborated from the model.

Integration and decision support systems for energy policy management and comparative assessment studies

The paper investigates the problematique of decision support systems within the framework of energy policy management and comparative risk assessment studies. A number of models and associated software tools are presented and discussed with a view to using them for the energy dialogue process. Special aspects on energy indicators, and their role in sustainable development of energy systems are investigated. Recommendations include the use of such analytical tools as DSS etc. in the overall decision aiding process for energy mix selection.

A methodology for sensitivity analysis in three-criteria problems: A case study in municipal management

This paper describes part of an on-going research project studying the issues of the application of Multicriteria Decision Aid Methodologies in real case-studies at the local level of the Portuguese Public Administration. In a first part, it address the complexity of decision situations in municipal management in general and the significance of decision analysis, namely multicriteria evaluation procedures, in conducting decision aid processes in that environment (Section 1). In a second part, a case study is described (Section 2), followed by its discussion in the ‘space of the weights’ in the context of different particular types of possible problem formulations (Section 3). For this purpose, an extension of Triangular Decision Technique is first proposed, followed by the presentation of a new Outranking approach, designated by ‘ Outweigh’ analysis, which will permit the enrichment of the discussion.

Computer Assisted Static and Dynamical Plannings for Production Activities

Methodology for treating systematically computer assisted planning. Three main aspects are discussed. Firstly, the problem understanding covers the production management process, the decisional process and the decision-aid man-machine interactive process. Secondly, the decision-aid process is specified as convivial controls by using automata-type language. Thirdly, application examples are given for illustrating the problem-solving aspect.