Use Of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Research Articles

Does technique matter; a pilot study exploring weighting techniques for a multi-criteria decision support framework.

BackgroundThere is an increased interest in the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to support regulatory and reimbursement decision making. The EVIDEM framework was developed to provide pragmatic multi-criteria decision support in health care, to estimate the value of healthcare interventions, and to aid in priority-setting. The objectives of this study were to test 1) the influence of different weighting techniques on the overall outcome of an MCDA exercise, 2) the discriminative power in weighting different criteria of such techniques, and 3) whether different techniques result in similar weights in weighting the criteria set proposed by the EVIDEM framework.MethodsA sample of 60 Dutch and Canadian students participated in the study. Each student used an online survey to provide weights for 14 criteria with two different techniques: a five-point rating scale and one of the following techniques selected randomly: ranking, point allocation, pairwise comparison and best worst scaling.ResultsThe results of this study indicate that there is no effect of differences in weights on value estimates at the group level. On an individual level, considerable differences in criteria weights and rank order occur as a result of the weight elicitation method used, and the ability of different techniques to discriminate in criteria importance. Of the five techniques tested, the pair-wise comparison of criteria has the highest ability to discriminate in weights when fourteen criteria are compared.ConclusionsWhen weights are intended to support group decisions, the choice of elicitation technique has negligible impact on criteria weights and the overall value of an innovation. However, when weights are used to support individual decisions, the choice of elicitation technique influences outcome and studies that use dissimilar techniques cannot be easily compared. Weight elicitation through pairwise comparison of criteria is preferred when taking into account its superior ability to discriminate between criteria and respondents’ preferences.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1478-7547-12-22) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis to Define and Evaluate Socially Responsible Investments

Originally being a niche strategy followed by few investors, socially responsible investing (SRI) now represents a significant part of the assets under management. After summarizing empirical evidence on the performance of SRI funds, we present four challenges that are facing the further development of SRI and point to multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) as the methodological framework that could help overcome these challenges. A first group of challenges calls for the development of a social performance indicator, which can score and classify mutual funds with respect to social responsibility. Another challenge requires a transparent tool for retail investors interested in SRI to learn about their SRI preferences. Reviewing the three schools of available MCDA methods, we present a concrete approach for future research in building such a social performance indicator and a retail investor tool for SRI.

Decision making in maintenance using analytical hierarchy process and time-driven activity based costing

Decision-making in maintenance is typically a complex and confusing exercise, characterised by trade-offs between strategic objectives, quality of products, and economic impacts. This paper proposes a cost-benefit study, which simplifies distinctness between competing alternatives of maintenance performance improvement and associated gains. The methodology followed in this paper is based on using two major parts. The first part deals with the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method especially the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). The second part concerns the cost-benefit chapter which is approached by time-driven activity based costing (TDABC). The selection of appropriate actions for maintenance improvement involves multiple criteria decision making such as cost, benefit, reliability and safety. Some of those criteria cannot easily be condensed into a financial value, which complicates making comparisons and trade-offs. The proposed model can be used to support managers to control different sub-processes of maintenance, also to improve decisions using ranking of proposed actions. This model gives also an idea on actions possible of each action using time-driven activity based costing. This paper is one of few papers in maintenance proposing a set of improvement actions accompanied with their weight and their estimated gain. The research findings are experimented in a heavy industry company based in Morocco. Further researches could experiment this model in a maintenance department of a different industry type.

A Pilot Study of Multicriteria Decision Analysis for Valuing Orphan Medicines

ObjectiveTo pilot the use of multicriteria decision analysis to establish and apply a framework of weighted attributes to value orphan medicinal products. MethodsLiterature searches on the natural history and burden of 40 rare diseases and of how payers assess treatment value and three workshops with, respectively, GlaxoSmithKline managers working on orphan medicinal products, European Union clinical and health economics experts, and representatives of rare diseases patient groups in the European Union. ResultsEight nonmonetary attributes were identified and weights agreed: four concern the disease being treated and four the treatment itself. About half of the weight went to attributes of the disease treated and half to attributes of the treatment. Patient group representatives gave greater weight than did the experts to patients’ and carers’ quality of daily life. ConclusionsThe multicriteria decision analysis approach piloted works and could be developed for use by payers and health technology assessment bodies.

PHP134 - Parameter Uncertainty in Value Based Multi Criteria Decision Analysis: A Systematic Review of Methods

Objectives: Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) aims to support decision-making where decisions are based on multiple criteria. In disciplines like engineering and environmental policy, MCDA is widely accepted and routinely used. The use of MCDA in HTA priority setting and reimbursement decisions is growing, but mostly limited to research projects. A factor that might influence acceptance is a perceived difficulty to value an MCDA’s outcome when its inputs and outputs contain uncertainties. When this is the case, decision makers might not feel confident in accepting or rejecting its outcome. The objective of this study is to systematically review how parameter uncertainty is taken into account in value-based MCDA methods in general, and to discuss which of the approaches is appropriate for the setting of reimbursement decision making in health care. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted using the Scopus database. Found abstracts were categorized by MCDA method used. Then, themes and families of methods were identified by two independent reviewers. Selected full text articles were read to identify methodological details. Results: The search strategy identified 635 abstracts, mostly from engineering and environmental journals and only 1.6% in health journals. Identified themes were fuzzy set theory (n= 223), probabilistic framework (n= 68), deterministic sensitivity analysis (n= 140), Dempster-Shafer theory (n= 14), Bayesian framework (n= 7) and Grey theory (n= 8). A large number of papers considered the Analytic Hierarchy Process in combination with fuzzy set theory (n= 155). Conclusions: In the health literature there is little attention for parameter uncertainty. Methods to deal with parameter uncertainty in MCDA must strike a balance between comprehensibility and understandability. Several complex methods are developed for parameter uncertainty, but there seems to be a gap between the theory and the implementation of those methods. For simple applications, methods like deterministic sensitivity analysis are likely to be sufficient.

Use of multi-criteria decision analysis in regulatory alternatives analysis: A case study of lead free solder

Regulators are implementing new programs that require manufacturers of products containing certain chemicals of concern to identify, evaluate, and adopt viable, safer alternatives. Such programs raise the difficult question for policymakers and regulated businesses of which alternatives are "viable" and "safer." To address that question, these programs use "alternatives analysis," an emerging methodology that integrates issues of human health and environmental effects with technical feasibility and economic impact. Despite the central role that alternatives analysis plays in these programs, the methodology itself is neither well-developed nor tailored to application in regulatory settings. This study uses the case of Pb-based bar solder and its non-Pb-based alternatives to examine the application of 2 multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods to alternatives analysis: multi-attribute utility analysis and outranking. The article develops and evaluates an alternatives analysis methodology and supporting decision-analysis software for use in a regulatory context, using weighting of the relevant decision criteria generated from a stakeholder elicitation process. The analysis produced complete rankings of the alternatives, including identification of the relative contribution to the ranking of each of the highest level decision criteria such as human health impacts, technical feasibility, and economic feasibility. It also examined the effect of variation in data conventions, weighting, and decision frameworks on the outcome. The results indicate that MCDA can play a critical role in emerging prevention-based regulatory programs. Multi-criteria decision analysis methods offer a means for transparent, objective, and rigorous analysis of products and processes, providing regulators and stakeholders with a common baseline understanding of the relative performance of alternatives and the trade-offs they present.

Maladie thromboembolique veineuse

The selection of metrics for ecosystem restoration programs is critical for improving the quality and utility of design and monitoring programs, informing adaptive management actions, and characterizing project success. The metrics selection process, that in practice is left to the subjective judgment of stakeholders, is often complex and should simultaneously take into account monitoring data, environmental models, socio-economic considerations, and stakeholder interests. With limited funding, it is often very difficult to balance the importance of multiple metrics, often competing, intended to measure different environmental, social, and economic aspects of the system. To help restoration planners and practitioners develop the most useful and informative design and monitoring programs, we propose the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, broadly defined, to select optimal ecosystem restoration metric sets. In this paper, we apply and compare two MCDA methods, multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), and probabilistic multi-criteria acceptability analysis (ProMAA), for a hypothetical river restoration case study involving multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Overall, the MCDA results in a systematic, quantitative, and transparent evaluation and comparison of potential metrics that provides planners and practitioners with a clear basis for selecting the optimal set of metrics to evaluate restoration alternatives and to inform restoration design and monitoring. In our case study, the two MCDA methods provide comparable results in terms of selected metrics. However, because ProMAA can consider probability distributions for weights and utility values of metrics for each criterion, it is most likely the best option for projects with highly uncertain data and significant stakeholder involvement. Despite the increase in complexity in the metrics selection process, MCDA improves upon the current, commonly-used ad-hoc decision practice based on consultations with stakeholders by applying and presenting quantitative aggregation of data and judgment, thereby increasing the effectiveness of environmental design and monitoring and the transparency of decision making in restoration projects.

The use of multi-criteria decision analysis to tackle waste management problems: a literature review

Problems in waste management have become more and more complex during recent decades. The increasing volumes of waste produced and social environmental consciousness present prominent drivers for environmental managers towards the achievement of a sustainable waste management scheme. However, in practice, there are many factors and influences - often mutually conflicting - criteria for finding solutions in real-life applications. This paper presents a review of the literature on multi-criteria decision aiding in waste management problems for all reported waste streams. Despite limitations, which are clearly stated, most of the work published in this field is reviewed. The present review aims to provide environmental managers and decision-makers with a thorough list of practical applications of the multi-criteria decision analysis techniques that are used to solve real-life waste management problems, as well as the criteria that are mostly employed in such applications according to the nature of the problem under study. Moreover, the paper explores the advantages and disadvantages of using multi-criteria decision analysis techniques in waste management problems in comparison to other available alternatives.

The challenge of obtaining information necessary for multi-criteria decision analysis implementation: the case of physiotherapy services in Canada.

BackgroundAs fiscal constraints dominate health policy discussions across Canada and globally, priority-setting exercises are becoming more common to guide the difficult choices that must be made. In this context, it becomes highly desirable to have accurate estimates of the value of specific health care interventions.Economic evaluation is a well-accepted method to estimate the value of health care interventions. However, economic evaluation has significant limitations, which have lead to an increase in the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA). One key concern with MCDA is the availability of the information necessary for implementation. In the Fall 2011, the Canadian Physiotherapy Association embarked on a project aimed at providing a valuation of physiotherapy services that is both evidence-based and relevant to resource allocation decisions. The framework selected for this project was MCDA. We report on how we addressed the challenge of obtaining some of the information necessary for MCDA implementation.MethodsMCDA criteria were selected and areas of physiotherapy practices were identified. The building up of the necessary information base was a three step process. First, there was a literature review for each practice area, on each criterion. The next step was to conduct interviews with experts in each of the practice areas to critique the results of the literature review and to fill in gaps where there was no or insufficient literature. Finally, the results of the individual interviews were validated by a national committee to ensure consistency across all practice areas and that a national level perspective is applied.ResultsDespite a lack of research evidence on many of the considerations relevant to the estimation of the value of physiotherapy services (the criteria), sufficient information was obtained to facilitate MCDA implementation at the local level.ConclusionsThe results of this research project serve two purposes: 1) a method to obtain information necessary to implement MCDA is described, and 2) the results in terms of information on the benefits provided by each of the twelve areas of physiotherapy practice can be used by decision-makers as a starting point in the implementation of MCDA at the local level.

Multi-criteria decision analysis to select metrics for design and monitoring of sustainable ecosystem restorations

The selection of metrics for ecosystem restoration programs is critical for improving the quality and utility of design and monitoring programs, informing adaptive management actions, and characterizing project success. The metrics selection process, that in practice is left to the subjective judgment of stakeholders, is often complex and should simultaneously take into account monitoring data, environmental models, socio-economic considerations, and stakeholder interests. With limited funding, it is often very difficult to balance the importance of multiple metrics, often competing, intended to measure different environmental, social, and economic aspects of the system. To help restoration planners and practitioners develop the most useful and informative design and monitoring programs, we propose the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, broadly defined, to select optimal ecosystem restoration metric sets. In this paper, we apply and compare two MCDA methods, multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), and probabilistic multi-criteria acceptability analysis (ProMAA), for a hypothetical river restoration case study involving multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Overall, the MCDA results in a systematic, quantitative, and transparent evaluation and comparison of potential metrics that provides planners and practitioners with a clear basis for selecting the optimal set of metrics to evaluate restoration alternatives and to inform restoration design and monitoring. In our case study, the two MCDA methods provide comparable results in terms of selected metrics. However, because ProMAA can consider probability distributions for weights and utility values of metrics for each criterion, it is most likely the best option for projects with highly uncertain data and significant stakeholder involvement. Despite the increase in complexity in the metrics selection process, MCDA improves upon the current, commonly-used ad-hoc decision practice based on consultations with stakeholders by applying and presenting quantitative aggregation of data and judgment, thereby increasing the effectiveness of environmental design and monitoring and the transparency of decision making in restoration projects.

Exploring the impact of evaluating strategic options in a scenario-based multi-criteria framework

One of the least explored aspects of scenario planning is how to assess systematically the value and robustness of strategic options after scenario development. In this context, there is growing research interest on the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to evaluate such options, but with very limited evidence about its performance in practice. This paper examines effects of applying in practice one of those recently proposed scenario-based MCDA methods for identifying robust options. Three public sector decision-making instances in Trinidad and Tobago are examined within an action research framework to provide insights on differences in decision-making behaviour and areas for improvement of the method. Findings from these in-depth case studies indicate that the method's main benefit was that it stimulated curiosity on how options might be improved in order to mitigate negative consequences and capitalise on opportunities across scenarios. We conclude the paper by discussing these findings and their implications to the development of the method and the evaluation of strategic options under deep uncertainty.

Using Information-Gap Decision Theory for Water Resources Planning Under Severe Uncertainty

Abstract Water resource managers are required to develop comprehensive water resources plans based on severely uncertain information of the effects of climate change on local hydrology and future socio-economic changes on localised demand. In England and Wales, current water resources planning methodologies include a headroom estimation process separate from water resource simulation modelling. This process quantifies uncertainty based on only one point of an assumed range of deviations from the expected climate and projected demand 25 years into the future. This paper utilises an integrated method based on Information-Gap decision theory to quantitatively assess the robustness of various supply side and demand side management options over a broad range of plausible futures. Findings show that beyond the uncertainty range explored with the headroom method, a preference reversal can occur, i.e. some management options that underperform at lower uncertainties, outperform at higher levels of uncertainty. This study also shows that when 50 % or more of the population adopts demand side management, efficiency related measures and innovative options such as rainwater collection can perform equally well or better than some supply side options The additional use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis shifts the focus away from reservoir expansion options, that perform best in regards to water availability, to combined strategies that include innovative demand side management actions of rainwater collection and greywater reuse as well efficiency measures and additional regional transfers. This paper illustrates how an Information-Gap based approach can offer a comprehensive picture of potential supply/demand futures and a rich variety of information to support adaptive management of water systems under severe uncertainty.

An integrated process and management tools for ranking multiple emerging threats to animal health

The UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs supports the use of systematic tools for the prioritisation of known and well defined animal diseases to facilitate long and medium term planning of surveillance and disease control activities. The recognition that emerging events were not covered by the existing disease-specific approaches led to the establishment of the Veterinary Risk Group (VRG), constituted of government officials, and supporting structures such as the Risk Management Cycle and the Emerging Threat Highlight Report (ETHiR), to facilitate the identification, reporting and assessment of emerging threats to UK's animal health. Since its inception in November 2009 to the end of February 2011, the VRG reviewed 111 threats and vulnerabilities (T&V) reported through ETHiR. In July 2010 a decision support system (DSS) based on multi-criteria-decision-analysis (MCDA) improved ETHiR to allow the systematic prioritisation of emerging T&V. The DSS allows the regular ranking of emerging T&V by calculating a set of measurement indices related to the actual impact, possible impact on public perception and level of available capabilities associated with every T&V. The systematic characterisation of the processes leading to the assessment of T&V by the VRG has led to a consistent, auditable and transparent approach to the identification and assessment of emerging risks. The regular use of MCDA to manage a portfolio of emerging risks represents a different and novel application of MCDA in a health related context.

A multi-criteria decision analysis assessment of waste paper management options

The use of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) was investigated in an exercise using a panel of local residents and stakeholders to assess the options for managing waste paper on the Isle of Wight. Seven recycling, recovery and disposal options were considered by the panel who evaluated each option against seven environmental, financial and social criteria. The panel preferred options where the waste was managed on the island with gasification and recycling achieving the highest scores. Exporting the waste to the English mainland for incineration or landfill proved to be the least preferred options. This research has demonstrated that MCDA is an effective way of involving community groups in waste management decision making.

Multi-criteria decision analysis for setting priorities on HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand

BackgroundA wide range of preventive, treatment, and care programs for HIV/AIDS are currently available and some of them have been implemented in Thailand. Policy makers are now facing challenges on how the scarce resources for HIV/AIDS control can be spent more wisely. Although effectiveness and cost-effectiveness information is useful for guiding policy decisions, empirical evidence indicates the importance of other criteria, such as equity and the characteristics of the target population, also play important roles in priority setting. This study aims to experiment with the use of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to prioritise interventions in HIV/AIDS control in Thailand.MethodsWe used MCDA to rank 40 HIV/AIDS interventions on the basis of the priority setting criteria put forward by three groups of stakeholders including policy makers, people living with HIV/AIDs (PLWHA), and village health volunteers (VHVs). MCDA incorporated an explicit component of deliberation to let stakeholders reflect on the rank ordering, and adapt where necessary.ResultsUpon deliberation, policy makers expressed a preference for programs that target high risk groups such as men who have sex with men, injecting drug users, and female sex workers. The VHVs preferred interventions that target the youth or the general population, and gave lower priority to programs that target high risk groups. PLWHA gave all interventions the same priority. The rank order correlation between the priorities as expressed before and after deliberation was 37% among the policy makers and 46% among the VHVs.ConclusionThis study documented the feasibility of MCDA to prioritize HIV/AIDS interventions in Thailand, and has shown the usefulness of a deliberative process as an integrated component of MCDA. MCDA holds potential to contribute to a more transparent and accountable priority setting process, and further application of this approach in the prioritisation of health interventions is warranted.

Use of Multicriteria Decision Analysis to Support Weight of Evidence Evaluation

Weight of evidence (WOE) methods are key components of ecological and human health risk assessments. Most WOE applications rely on the qualitative integration of diverse lines of evidence (LOE) representing impact on ecological receptors and humans. Recent calls for transparency in assessments and justifiability of management decisions are pushing the community to consider quantitative methods for integrated risk assessment and management. This article compares and contrasts the type of information required for application of individual WOE techniques and the outcomes that they provide in ecological risk assessment and proposes a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework for integrating individual LOE in support of management decisions. The use of quantitative WOE techniques is illustrated for a hypothetical but realistic case study of selecting remedial alternatives at a contaminated aquatic site. Use of formal MCDA does not necessarily eliminate biases and judgment calls necessary for selecting remedial alternatives, but allows for transparent evaluation and fusion of individual LOE. It also provides justifiable methods for selecting remedial alternatives consistent with stakeholder and decision-maker values.

A Multifactorial Risk Prioritization Framework for Foodborne Pathogens

We develop a prioritization framework for foodborne risks that considers public health impact as well as three other factors (market impact, consumer risk acceptance and perception, and social sensitivity). Canadian case studies are presented for six pathogen-food combinations: Campylobacter spp. in chicken; Salmonella spp. in chicken and spinach; Escherichia coli O157 in spinach and beef; and Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat meats. Public health impact is measured by disability-adjusted life years and the cost of illness. Market impact is quantified by the economic importance of the domestic market. Likert-type scales are used to capture consumer perception and acceptance of risk and social sensitivity to impacts on vulnerable consumer groups and industries. Risk ranking is facilitated through the development of a knowledge database presented in the format of info cards and the use of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to aggregate the four factors. Three scenarios representing different stakeholders illustrate the use of MCDA to arrive at rankings of pathogen-food combinations that reflect different criteria weights. The framework provides a flexible instrument to support policymakers in complex risk prioritization decision making when different stakeholder groups are involved and when multiple pathogen-food combinations are compared.

Multi-criteria decision analysis to prioritize health interventions: Capitalizing on first experiences

This paper capitalizes on a first set of experiences on the application of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in seven low- and middle-income settings. It thereby reacts to a recent paper by Peacock et al., highlighting the potential of MCDA to guide policy makers in highly specific decision-making contexts. We argue that MCDA also has a broader application in setting priorities in health, i.e. to indicate general perceptions on priorities without defining the allocation of resources in a precise fashion. This use of MCDA can have far-reaching and constructive influences on policy formulation.

Multicriteria decision analysis applied to the design of light-frame wood wall assemblies

Designers of light-frame wood wall assemblies should consider several performance criteria simultaneously in addition to minimum requirements set by building codes. Evaluation of various performance characteristics can help select the most suitable configuration for a given project in a given context. In a previous article, we identified appropriate criteria and explored their means of evaluation. Following up, this article integrates the context and the preference of the decision-maker and seeks to obtain a ranking of the various alternatives using quantitative and qualitative information. Four multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) techniques are explored: weighted sum, MACBETH, ELECTRE II, and PROMETHEE. The approach is applied to a case study where five wall assemblies are compared within six different decision contexts. It shows how the choice of the appropriate aggregation method depends on the nature of the performance evaluation scales and demonstrates the usefulness of MCDA to consider simultaneously different aspects of wall performance.

Use of multi-criteria decision analysis to explore alternative domestic energy and electricity policy scenarios in an Irish city-region☆

Abstract In this paper, multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was used to assess 6 policy measures or scenarios relating to residential heating energy and domestic electricity consumption, using an Irish city-region as case study. The analysis was undertaken using a modified version of MCDA based on the NAIADE (Novel Approach to Imprecise Assessment and Decision Environments) software and involved a decision output based on a mix of qualitative and quantitative assessment, which offered a ranking of options. It was concluded that Scenario 2, which proposes reducing energy and electricity consumption, was the most preferable option and Scenario 3, which proposes increasing the contribution of wood waste, was the least preferable option. This suggests that absolute reduction and demand management should be prioritised over fuel substitution or renewable energy technologies. MCDA was also compared with ecological footprint (EF) analysis for the same set of scenarios and it was found that both metrics show that Scenario 2 is preferable. However, MCDA shows that Scenario 3 is the least preferable scenario, whereas EF analysis suggests that Scenario 4 is, i.e. increased contribution of short rotation coppice (SRC). This suggests that a mix of assessment tools/indicators should be used when attempting to identify the most justifiable policy options as different indicators reflect different policy aspects.