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.
Decision analysis Decision making under uncertainty Decreasing returns to scale on information Incomplete information Simulation
The authors would like to thank Rudolf Vetschera, David Wozabal, and four anonymous referees for their valuable comments.
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
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
Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2000) Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the vip analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 51(9):1070–1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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
Eiselt HA, Laporte G (1992) The use of domains in multicriteria decision making. Eur J Oper Res 61(3):292–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar