Central European Journal of Operations Research

, Volume 22, Issue 4, pp 647–662 | Cite as

The effect of information on the quality of decisions

Original Paper

Abstract

We study the effect of additional information on the quality of decisions. We define the extreme case of complete information about probabilities as our reference scenario. There, decision makers (DMs) can use expected utility theory to evaluate the best alternative. Starting from the worst case—where DMs have no information at all about probabilities—we find a method of constantly increasing the information by systematically limiting the ranges of the probabilities. In our simulation-based study, we measure the effects of the constant increase in information by using different forms of relative volumes. We define these as the relative volumes of the gradually narrowing areas which lead to the same (or a similar) decision as with the probability in the reference scenario. Thus, the relative volumes account for the quality of information. Combining the quantity and quality of information, we find decreasing returns to scale on information, or in other words, the costs of gathering additional information increase with the level of information. Moreover, we show that more available alternatives influence the decision process negatively. Finally, we analyze the quality of decisions in processes where more states of nature are considered. We find that this degree of complexity in the decision process also has a negative influence on the quality of decisions.

Keywords

Decision analysis Decision making under uncertainty  Decreasing returns to scale on information Incomplete information Simulation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Rudolf Vetschera, David Wozabal, and four anonymous referees for their valuable comments.

References

  1. Charnetski J, Soland R (1978) Multiple-attribute decision making with partial information: the comparative hypervolume criterion. Nav Res Logist Q 25(1):279–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bana e Costa CA (1986) A multicriteria decision aid methodology to deal with conflicting situations on the weights. Eur J Oper Res 26(1):22–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2000) Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the vip analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 51(9):1070–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2005) Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture. Eur J Oper Res 160(2):291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Eiselt HA, Laporte G (1992) The use of domains in multicriteria decision making. Eur J Oper Res 61(3):292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans JR (1984) Sensitivity analysis in decision theory. Decis Sci 15(2):239–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishburn PC (1965) Analysis of decision with incomplete knowledge of probabilities. Oper Res 13(2):217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kvasnica M, Grieder P, Baotić M (2004) Multi-parametric toolbox (MPT). http://control.ee.ethz.ch/~mpt
  9. Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2001) SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Oper Res 49(3):444–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lahdelma R, Hokkanen J, Salminen P (1998) SMAA—stochastic multiobjective acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 106(1):137–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lahdelma R, Miettinen K, Salminen P (2003) Ordinal criteria in stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis—SMAA. Eur J Oper Res 147(1):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Munkres J (1984) Elements of algebraic topology. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Rubinstein RY (1982) Generating random vectors uniformly distributed inside and on the surface of different regions. Eur J Oper Res 10(2):205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sarabando P, Dias LC, Vetschera R (2012) Mediation with incomplete information: approaches to suggest potential agreements. Group Decis Negot 1:1–37Google Scholar
  15. Schneller GO, Sphicas GP (1983) Decision making under uncertainty: Starr’s domain criterion. Theory Decis 15:321–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schneller GO, Sphicas GP (1985) Notes and communications on sensitivity analysis in decision theory. Decis Sci 16(4):399–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Starr MK (1962) Product design and decision theory. Prentice Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  18. Starr MK (1966) A discussion of some normative criteria for decision-making under uncertainty. Ind Manag Rev 8:71–78Google Scholar
  19. Tervonen T, Lahdelma R (2007) Implementing stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis. Eur J Oper Res 178(2):500–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vetschera R (2009) Learning about preferences in electronic negotiations—a volume-based measurement method. Eur J Oper Res 194(1):452–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vetschera R, Chen Y, Hipel K, Kilgour D (2010) Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting. Eur J Oper Res 202(3):841–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Business, Economics, and StatisticsUniversity of ViennaViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations