Abstract

SMART (Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique, [Edwards, 1971, 1977]) provides a simple way to implement the principles of multiattribute utility theory (MAUT). Edwards [1977] argued that decisions depend on values and probabilities, both subjective quantities. Error can arise in modeling, and can also arise from elicitation. Modeling error is due to applying a model with simplifying assumptions. Elicitation error arises when measures obtained do not accurately reflect subject preference. The more complicated the questions, the more elicitation error there will be. SMART requires no judgments of preference or indifference among hypothetical alternatives, as is required with Logical Decision and most MAUT methods. Edwards argued [1977, p. 327] that hypothetical judgments were unreliable and unrepresentative of real preferences, and bore untutored decision makers into rejection of the elicitation process or acceptance of any response that would most quickly terminate questioning.

Keywords

Transportation Assure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barron, F.H. and Barrett, B.E. 1995. Working paper. Decision quality using ranked and partially ranked attribute weights.Google Scholar
  2. Brooks, D.G. and Kirkwood, C.W. 1988. Decision analysis to select a microcomputer networking strategy: A procedure and a case study. Journal of the Operational Research Society 39, 23–32.Google Scholar
  3. Edwards, W. 1971. Social utilities. The Engineering Economist Summer Symposium Series 6, 119–129.Google Scholar
  4. Edwards, W. 1977. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC-7:5, 326–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, W. and Barron, F. H. 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jones, M., Hope, C. and Hughes, R. 1990. A multi-attribute value model for the study of UK energy policy. Journal of the Operational Research Society 41:10, 919–929.Google Scholar
  7. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Kmietowicz, A.W. and Pearman, A.D. 1984. Decision theory, linear partial information and statistical dominance. Omega 12, 391–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Olson, D.L. and Dorai, V.K. 1992. Implementation of the centroid method of Solymosi and Dombi. European Journal of Operational Research 60:1, 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Quaddus, M.A., Atkinson, D.J. and Levy, M. 1992. An application of decision conferencing to strategic planning for a voluntary organization. Interfaces 22:6, 61–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Raiffa, H. 1968. Decision analysis: Introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  12. von Winterfeldt, D. and Edwards, W. 1986. Decision analysis and behavioral research. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Watson, S.R. and Buede, D.M. 1987. Decision synthesis: The principles and practice of decision analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York, Inc. 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • David L. Olson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Business Analysis, College of Business Administration and Graduate School of BusinessTexas A & M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations