Advertisement

Problems and Tools

  • Oleg I. Larichev
  • David L. Olson
Chapter

Abstract

People face multiple criteria in many decision contexts. Business people quite often face the problem of siting a location for various elements of their enterprise. Nuclear physicists need to select sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. These problems are complex, just as that of an individual looking for the appropriate drug to provide needed vitamins. There are many alternative drugs available, each with their own potential for complications. The advice of a physician is needed in this selection problem. Similarly, specialists in decision making with strong practical experience are extremely useful in enabling people to deal with complex multicriteria problems.

Keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process Criterion Weight Decision Method Logical Decision Preference Elicitation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anich, I. And Larichev, O. The method ELECTRE and problem of cycles on alternatives set. Automation and Control 1996, 108–118.Google Scholar
  2. Barzilai, J., Cook. W. and Golany, B. The analytic hierarchy process: Structure of the problem and its solutions. In Extremal Methods and Systems Analysis II, A. Ben-Israel, A. Ben-Tal, B. Golany, K.O. Kortanek and J.J. Rosseau, eds., Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. Brans, J.P. and Vincke, P. A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE method, Management Science 31, 1985, 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Budescu, D. and Wallsten, T. Processing linguistic probabilities: General principles and empirical evidence, The Psychology of Learning and Motivation 32, Academic Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  5. Dyer, J.S. and Sarin, R.K. Measurable multiattribute value functions, Operations Research 27, 1979, 810–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards, W. and Barron, F.H. Smarts and Smarter : Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 1994, 306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erev, I and Cohen, B. Verbal versus numerical probabilities: Efficiency, biases, and the preference paradox, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 45, 1990, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fischoff, B. The real world: What good it it? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65:3, 1996, 232–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Flanders, N.E., Brown, R.V., Andre’eva, Y. and Larichev, O. Justifying public decisions in Arctic oil and gas development: American and Russian approaches. Arctic 51:3, 1998, 262–279.Google Scholar
  10. Gonzalez-Vallejo, C. and Wallsten, T. The effects of communication mode on preference reversal and decision quality, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18, 1992, 855–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huber, B. and Huber,O. Development of the concept of comparative subjective probability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 44, 1987,304–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Keeney, R.L. Value-Focused Thinking, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  13. Keeney, R.L. and Nair, K. Evaluating potential nuclear power plant sites in the Pacific northwest using decision analysis, IIASA Professional Paper no. 76–1. Also in Bell, D.E., Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H., eds., Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, chapter 14, New York: Wiley, 1977; and in Keeney, R.L., Siting Energy Facilities, Chapter 3, New York: Wiley, 1980.Google Scholar
  14. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, New York: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  15. Larichev, O.I. Cognitive validity in design of decision-aiding techniques, Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 1:3, 1992, 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Larichev, O.I. and Moshkovich, H.M. Verbal Decision Analysis for Unstructured Problems, Boston: Kluwer Academic Press, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larichev, O.I., Olson, D.L., Moshkovich, H.M. and Mechitov, A.I. Numerical vs. cardinal measurements in multiattribute decision making: How exact is exact enough? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64:1, 1995, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lootsma, F.A. Scale sensitivity in a multiplicative variant of the AHP and SMART, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2:1, 1993, 87–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pitz, G.F. DECAID Computer Program, Carbondale, DL: University of Southern Illinois, 1987.Google Scholar
  20. Raiffa, H. Decision Analysis: Readings, Boston: Addison-Wesley, 1968.Roy, B. Classement et choix en présence de points du vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE), Rev. Française Automat, Informat., Recherche Operationelle 8, 1968 (in French).Google Scholar
  21. Roy, B. Methodologie Multicritere d’Aide a la Decision, Paris: Economica, 1985 (in French).Google Scholar
  22. Roy, B. Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publisher, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Roy, B. and Bouyssou, D. Comparison of two decision-aid models applied to a nuclear power plant siting example, European Journal of Operational Research 25, 1986, 200–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980.Google Scholar
  25. Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P. Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research 82:3, 1995, 458–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smith, G.R. and Speiser, F. Logical Decision: Multi-Measure Decision Analysis Software, Golden Co: PDQ Printing, 1991.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oleg I. Larichev
    • 1
  • David L. Olson
    • 2
  1. 1.Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityUSA

Personalised recommendations