Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple Criteria Group Decisions with Partial Information About Preference

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

  • 52 Accesses

Abstract

Multiple criteria decision-making/aid (MCDM/A) methods have been applied in many different contexts to deal with problems of a single decision maker (DM) or a group of them. Critical issues when applying these methods are the evaluation of DMs’ preferences and the values of the parameters of the methods. This chapter aims to present an overview of preference modeling approaches for aiding multicriteria group decision-making (MCGDM) problems, when only partial (or imprecise/incomplete) information about DMs’ preferences is available. Generally, the primary objective is to reduce the amount of information required from the DMs in order to recommend a final compromise solution. Although this chapter is not an exhaustive review of the literature on methods using partial information, it does offer a framework for summarizing different types of approaches for preference modeling with partial information, with a special focus on the methods related to multi-attribute value theory (MAVT). In addition, a flexible elicitation procedure to aid MCGDM problems under partial information through an interactive decision support system is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackerman M, Choi SY, Coughlin P, Gottlieb E, Wood J (2013) Elections with partially ordered preferences. Public Choice 157:145–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-012-9930-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adla A, Zarate P, Soubie JL (2011) A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators. Group Decis Negot 20:57–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9204-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguayo EA, Mateos A, Jiménez A (2014) A new dominance intensity method to deal with ordinal information about a DM’s preferences within MAVT. Knowl-Based Syst 69:159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahn BS, Park KS (2008) Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights. Comput Oper Res 35(5):1660–1670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Athanassopoulos AD, Podinovski VV (1997) Dominance and potential optimality in multiple criteria decision analysis with imprecise information. J Oper Res Soc 48(2):142–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baucells M, Sarin RK (2003) Group decisions with multiple criteria. Manag Sci 49(8):1105–1118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borcherding K, Eppel T, Von Winterfeldt D (1991) Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement. Manag Sci 37(12):1603–1619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Kilgour DM, Hipel KW (2012) A decision rule aggregation approach to multiple criteria-multiple participant sorting. Group Decis Negot 21(5):727–745

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Contreras I, Mármol AM (2007) A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria group decision problems with imprecise information. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1530–1539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2017) A robustness study of state-of-the-art surrogate weights for MCDM. Group Decis Negot 26(4):677–691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Larsson A, Riabacke M (2014) Weighting under ambiguous preferences and imprecise differences in a cardinal rank ordering process. Int J Comput Intell Syst 7(sup1):105–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Almeida AT, Nurmi H (2015) A framework for aiding the choice of a voting procedure in a business decision context. In: International conference on group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham, pp 211–225

    Google Scholar 

  • de Almeida AT, Cavalcante CAV, Alencar MH, Ferreira RJP, de Almeida-Filho AT, Garcez TV (2015) Multicriteria and multi-objective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis. International series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 231. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • de Almeida AT, Almeida JA, Costa APCS, Almeida-Filho AT (2016) A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: flexible and interactive tradeoff. Eur J Oper Res 250(1):179–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2000) Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 51(9):1070–1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dias LC, Clı́maco JN (2005) Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture. Eur J Oper Res 160(2):291–307

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W, Barron FH (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60(3):306–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eum YS, Park KS, Kim SH (2001) Establishing dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise weight and value. Comput Oper Res 28(5):397–409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frej EA, de Almeida AT, Costa APCS (2019) Using data visualization for ranking alternatives with partial information and interactive tradeoff elicitation. Oper Res 19:909–931

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Pöyhönen M (1996) On-line group decision support by preference programming in traffic planning. In: Negotiation processes: modeling frameworks and information technology. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 185–200

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hinojosa MA, Mármol AM (2011) Egalitarianism and utilitarianism in multiple criteria decision problems with partial information. Group Decis Negot 20(6):707–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiménez-Martín A, Gallego E, Mateos A, del Pozo JAF (2017) Restoring a radionuclide contaminated aquatic ecosystem: a group decision making problem with incomplete information within MAUT accounting for veto. Group Decis Negot 26(4):653–675

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1976) A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Manag Sci 23(2):140–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (2009) The foundations of collaborative group decisions. Int J Collab Eng 1(1–2):4–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Kirkwood CW (1975) Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Manag Sci 22(4):430–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decision analysis with multiple conflicting objectives. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim SH, Ahn BS (1997) Group decision making procedure considering preference strength under incomplete information. Comput Oper Res 24(12):1101–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SH, Ahn BS (1999) Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information. Eur J Oper Res 116(3):498–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SH, Han CH (2000) Establishing dominance between alternatives with incomplete information in a hierarchically structured attribute tree. Eur J Oper Res 122(1):79–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SH, Choi SH, Ahn BS (1998) Interactive group decision process with evolutionary database. Decis Support Syst 23(4):333–345

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood CW, Corner JL (1993) The effectiveness of partial information about attribute weights for ranking alternatives in multiattribute decision making. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 54(3):456–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirkwood CW, Sarin RK (1985) Ranking with partial information: a method and an application. Oper Res 33(1):38–48

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyva-López JC, Fernandez-Gonzalez E (2003) A new method for group decision support based on ELECTRE III methodology. Eur J Oper Res 148(1):14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malakooti B (2000) Ranking and screening multiple criteria alternatives with partial information and use of ordinal and cardinal strength of preferences. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 30(3):355–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mareschal B, Brans JP, Macharis C (1998) The GDSS PROMETHEE procedure: a PROMETHEE-GAIA based procedure for group decision support (No. 2013/9373). ULB – Universite Libre de Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Mármol AM, Puerto J, Fernández FR (2002) Sequential incorporation of imprecise information in multiple criteria decision processes. Eur J Oper Res 137(1):123–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mateos A, Jiménez-Martín A, Aguayo EA, Sabio P (2014) Dominance intensity measuring methods in MCDM with ordinal relations regarding weights. Knowl-Based Syst 70:26–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montiel LV, Bickel JE (2014) A generalized sampling approach for multilinear utility functions given partial preference information. Decis Anal 11(3):147–170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morais DC, de Almeida AT, Alencar LH, Clemente TRN, Cavalcanti CZB (2015) PROMETHEE-ROC model for assessing the readiness of technology for generating energy. Math Probl Eng 2015:1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP, Salo A (2005) Decision support by interval SMART/SWING – incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods. Decis Sci 36(2):317–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi H (2002) Voting procedures under uncertainty. Springer Science & Business Media, Turku, Finland

    Google Scholar 

  • Park KS (2004) Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 34(5):601–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park KS, Kim SH (1997) Tools for interactive multiattribute decision-making with incompletely identified information. Eur J Oper Res 98(1):111–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park KS, Kim SH, Yoon WC (1997) Establishing strict dominance between alternatives with special type of incomplete information. Eur J Oper Res 96(2):398–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punkka A, Salo A (2013) Preference programming with incomplete ordinal information. Eur J Oper Res 231(1):141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roselli LRP, de Almeida AT, Frej EA (2019) Decision neuroscience for improving data visualization of decision support in the FITradeoff method. Oper Res 19:933–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1992) Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements. Oper Res 40(6):1053–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1995) Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons. Eur J Oper Res 82(3):458–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA, Hamalainen RP (2001) Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)-elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 31(6):533–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo A, Punkka A (2005) Rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies. Eur J Oper Res 163(2):338–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando P, Dias LC (2009) Multiattribute choice with ordinal information: a comparison of different decision rules. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 39(3):545–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando P, Dias LC (2010) Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values. Comput Oper Res 37(12):2239–2247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarabando P, Dias LC, Vetschera R (2019) Group decision making with incomplete information: a dominance and quasi-optimality volume-based approach using Monte-Carlo simulation. Int Trans Oper Res 26(1):318–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stillwell WG, Seaver DA, Edwards W (1981) A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organ Behav Hum Perform 28(1):62–77

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R, Sarabando P, Dias L (2014) Levels of incomplete information in group decision models–a comprehensive simulation study. Comput Oper Res 51:160–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA (USA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber M (1987) Decision making with incomplete information. Eur J Oper Res 28(1):44–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber M, Borcherding K (1993) Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. Eur J Oper Res 67(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White CC, Holloway HA (2008) Resolvability for imprecise multiattribute alternative selection. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Humans 38(1):162–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work had partial support from the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CDSID – Center for Decision Systems and Information Development, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

    Adiel Teixeira de Almeida, Eduarda Asfora Frej, Danielle Costa Morais & Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa

  2. Departamento de Engenharia de Produção, Federal University of Pernambuco, Recife, Brazil

    Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa

Authors
  1. Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eduarda Asfora Frej
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Danielle Costa Morais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ana Paula Cabral Seixas Costa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Adiel Teixeira de Almeida .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wilfrid Laurier University Dept. Mathematics, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. University of Strathclyde Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Colin Eden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

de Almeida, A.T., Frej, E.A., Morais, D.C., Costa, A.P.C.S. (2020). Multiple Criteria Group Decisions with Partial Information About Preference. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_50-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_50-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation