Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Foundations of Decision

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fuzzy Decision Analysis: Multi Attribute Decision Making Approach

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 1121))

Abstract

Decisions unfold, guided by science’s light, in choices, science’s wisdom resides, for Guiding paths with less clarity. In this enlightening chapter on the Foundations of Decision Making, readers will embark on a journey through the intricate web of decision theory and decision science. Delving into the profound philosophy that underlies these concepts, we'll unravel the fundamental principles that guide human choices. With a systematic exploration of reputable domains and practical applications, readers will witness the transformative power of these principles in diverse contexts, from economics to psychology and beyond. We'll navigate through the Hierarchy of Decisions, dissecting the layers of choices from the mundane to the monumental, and in the process, gain invaluable insights into the art and science of decision-making. As we traverse this intellectual landscape, readers will acquire the skills to evaluate options with precision and make well-informed decisions based on robust reasoning. By the end of this chapter, readers will be able to comprehend and appreciate the fundamental principles and concepts that form the foundation of decision-making. They will develop a solid understanding of key components such as decision theory, rationality, and cognitive biases. With this knowledge, readers will acquire the necessary analytical skills to effectively recognize the complexity of decision-making scenarios, evaluate alternative options, and make informed decisions based on sound reasoning and evidence. Moreover, readers will gain a broader perspective on the significance of decision-making across various aspects of life, including personal, professional, and societal contexts. This chapter will lay a strong groundwork for readers’ journey towards becoming more confident and adept decision-makers

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Operations Research (OR) is a field of study that utilizes advanced analytical methods to facilitate improved decision-making. It draws upon mathematical sciences, such as mathematical modeling, statistical analysis, and mathematical optimization, to find optimal or near-optimal solutions to complex decision problems. With a focus on practical applications and human-technology interaction, operations research intersects with disciplines like industrial engineering, operations management, psychology, and organization science.

    The primary objective of operations research is to determine the best possible outcome for a given real-world objective. This could involve maximizing profit, performance, or yield, or minimizing loss, risk, or cost. By employing mathematical modeling techniques and sophisticated analysis, operations research provides insights and recommendations that guide decision-makers in making more effective choices. Although operations research initially emerged from military efforts before World War II, its methodologies and techniques have evolved over time and are now applied across a wide range of industries. The versatility of operations research allows it to address complex problems in various fields, including manufacturing, logistics, transportation, healthcare, finance, and telecommunications. By employing operations research, organizations can optimize their processes, allocate resources efficiently, and enhance overall performance. It enables decision-makers to analyze various scenarios, evaluate trade-offs, and make informed choices based on quantitative evidence. Through its interdisciplinary nature and emphasis on practical applications, operations research continues to contribute to the advancement and efficiency of decision-making in diverse industries.

References

  1. Soltanifar, M., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Sharafi, H., & Lozano, S. (2022). Resource allocation and target setting: A CSW–DEA based approach. Annals of Operations Research, 318(1), 557–589.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1989). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. In Multiple criteria decision making and risk analysis using microcomputers (pp. 81–126). Berlin: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Deng, J., Zhan, J., Ding, W., Liu, P., & Pedrycz, W. (2023). A novel prospect-theory-based three-way decision methodology in multi-scale information systems. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56(7), 6591–6625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Hammond, K. R., Hamm, R. M., Grassia, J., & Pearson, T. (1987). Direct comparison of the efficacy of intuitive and analytical cognition in expert judgment. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 17(5), 753–770.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Daniel, K. (2017). Thinking, fast and slow.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kahneman, D., & Klein, G. (2009). Conditions for intuitive expertise: A failure to disagree. American Psychologist, 64(6), 515–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Kahneman, D. (2003). Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1449–1475.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dijksterhuis, A., & Nordgren, L. F. (2006). A theory of unconscious thought. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 95–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Epstein, S. (1994). Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49(8), 709–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Gigerenzer, G., & Gaissmaier, W. (2011). Heuristic decision making. Annual review of psychology, 62, 451–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Klein, G. (2003). Intuition at work: Why developing your gut instincts will make you better at what you do. Crown Business.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Qin, J., Martínez, L., Pedrycz, W., Ma, X., & Liang, Y. (2023). An overview of granular computing in decision-making: Extensions, applications, and challenges. Information Fusion, 101833.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Liu, Z. L., Liu, F., Zhang, J. W., & Pedrycz, W. (2023). Optimizing consistency and consensus in group decision making based on relative projection between multiplicative reciprocal matrices. Expert Systems with Applications, 224, 119948.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kahneman, D., & Lovallo, D. (1993). Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk taking. Management Science, 39(1), 17–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mukherjee, S. P. (2021). Decision-making: Concepts, methods and techniques. SAGE Publishing India.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Wieder, B., & Ossimitz, M. L. (2015). The impact of Business Intelligence on the quality of decision making–a mediation model. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 1163–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Vahdani, B., Behzadi, S. S., Mousavi, S. M., & Shahriari, M. R. (2016). A dynamic virtual air hub location problem with balancing requirements via robust optimization: Mathematical modeling and solution methods. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 31(3), 1521–1534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Xiao, F., Wen, J., & Pedrycz, W. (2022). Generalized divergence-based decision-making method with an application to pattern classification. In IEEE transactions on knowledge and data engineering.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Kahneman, D., Lovallo, D., & Sibony, O. (2019). A structured approach to strategic decisions. MIT Sloan Management Review.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kahneman, D. (2019). Human engineering of decisions. In Ethics in an age of pervasive technology (pp. 190–192). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Shahriari, M., & Asoodeh, M. H. (2020). Developing a new model based on artificial intelligence techniques for predicting bitcoin fluctuations. Kepes, 18(4), 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Shahriari, M., & Asoodeh, M. H. (2021). Predicting long-term deposit openings of bank customers using decision tree and random forest classification. Kepes, 19(3), 70–81.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shadab, R., Shahriari, M., Esfeden, G. A., & Lotfi, F. H. (2022). Providing a heuristic model based on data envelopment analysis to improve the solution to the time-cost-quality trade-off problem considering risk and efficiency. Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems, 28(12), 2608–2625.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Shafiee, M. A., & Shahriari, M. R. (2021). A mathematical optimization model for integrating the problems of discrete time-cost tradeoff (DTCTP) and multi-mode resource-constrained project scheduling (MRCPSP). International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 13(4), 489–505.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Zhang, Q., Yang, Y., Ma, H., & Wu, Y. N. (2019). Interpreting cnns via decision trees. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (pp. 6261–6270).

    Google Scholar 

  27. Pilevari, N., Hasanzade, M., & Shahriari, M. (2014). A hybrid fuzzy multiple attribute decision making approach for identification and ranking influencing factors on Bullwhip Effect in supply chain: Real case of Steel industry. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 8(1), 49–63.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Shafiee, M., Lotfi, F. H., & Saleh, H. (2014). Supply chain performance evaluation with data envelopment analysis and balanced scorecard approach. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 38(21–22), 5092–5112.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  29. Shahriari, M. R. (2017). Soft computing based on a modified MCDM approach under intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Iranian Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 14(1), 23–41.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  30. Sharafi, H., Lotfi, F. H., Jahanshahloo, G. R., & Razipour-GhalehJough, S. (2020). Fair allocation fixed cost using cross-efficiency based on Pareto concept. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 37(01), 1950036.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  31. Sharifi, M., Saadvandi, M., & Shahriari, M. R. (2020). Presenting a series-parallel redundancy allocation problem with multi-state components using recursive algorithm and meta-heuristic. Scientia Iranica, 27(2), 970–982.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Shahriari, M. (2022). Using genetic algorithm to optimize a system with repairable components and multi-vacations for repairmen. International Journal of Nonlinear Analysis and Applications, 13(2), 3139–3144.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Sharifi, M., Shahriyari, M., Khajehpoor, A., & Mirtaheri, S. A. (2022). Reliability optimization of a k-out-of-n series-parallel system with warm standby components. Scientia Iranica, 29(6), 3523–3541.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sharifi, M., Cheragh, G., Dashti Maljaii, K., Zaretalab, A., & Shahriari, M. (2021). Reliability and cost optimization of a system with k-out-of-n configuration and choice of decreasing the components failure rates. Scientia Iranica, 28(6), 3602–3616.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shahriari, M. (2022). Using a hybrid NSGA-II to solve the redundancy allocation m model of series-parallel systems. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 14(4), 503–513.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sharifi, M., Shahriari, M. R., & Zaretalab, A. (2019). The effects of technical and organizational activities on redundancy allocation problem with choice of selecting redundancy strategies using the memetic algorithm. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 11(3), 165–176.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Yazdi, M., Khan, F., Abbassi, R., & Rusli, R. (2020). Improved DEMATEL methodology for effective safety management decision-making. Safety Science, 127, 104705.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zdražil, P., & Applová, P. (2017). Visual evaluation of changes in regional growth and disparities: usage of a pareto chart. Scientific papers of the University of Pardubice. Series D, Faculty of Economics and Administration. 41/2017.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Yasodai, P., & Ritha, W. A PARAMETRIC PROGRAMMING APPROACH TO AN INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY QUEUING MODEL. a a, 2(3), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Živković, Ž, Nikolić, Đ, Đorđević, P., Mihajlović, I., & Savić, M. (2015). Analytical network process in the framework of SWOT analysis for strategic decision making (Case study: Technical faculty in Bor, University of Belgrade, Serbia). Acta Polytechnica Hungarica, 12(7), 199–216.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Allahviranloo, T., Ghanbari, M., Hosseinzadeh, A. A., Haghi, E., & Nuraei, R. (2011). A note on “Fuzzy linear systems.” Fuzzy sets and systems, 177(1), 87–92.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  43. Allahviranloo, T., Shamsolkotabi, K. H., Kiani, N. A., & Alizadeh, L. (2007). Fuzzy integer linear programming problems. International Journal of Contemporary Mathematical Sciences, 2(4), 167–181.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  44. Shahriari, M. (2023). Redundancy allocation optimization based on the fuzzy universal generating function approach in the series-parallel systems. International Journal of Industrial Mathematics, 15(1), 69–77.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Jahanshahloo, G. R., Hosseinzadeh, F., Shoja, N., & Tohidi, G. (2003). A method for solving 0–1 multiple objective linear programming problem using dea. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 46(2), 189–202.

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  46. Mohagheghi, V., Mousavi, S. M., Vahdani, B., & Shahriari, M. R. (2017). R&D project evaluation and project portfolio selection by a new interval type-2 fuzzy optimization approach. Neural Computing and Applications, 28, 3869–3888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Eslami, R., Khodabakhshi, M., Jahanshahloo, G. R., Lotfi, F. H., & Khoveyni, M. (2012). Estimating most productive scale size with imprecise-chance constrained input–output orientation model in data envelopment analysis. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 63(1), 254–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Najafi, E., Aryanegad, M. B., Lotfi, F. H., & Ebnerasould, A. (2009). Efficiency and effectiveness rating of organization with combined DEA and BSC. Applied Mathematical Sciences, 3(25–28), 1249–1264.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nozari, H., Najafi, E., Fallah, M., & Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F. (2019). Quantitative analysis of key performance indicators of green supply chain in FMCG industries using non-linear fuzzy method. Mathematics, 7(11), 1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Razipour-GhalehJough, S., Lotfi, F. H., Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, M., & Sharafi, H. (2021). Benchmarking bank branches: A dynamic DEA approach. Journal of Information and Optimization Sciences, 42(6), 1203–1236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Soltanifar, M., Sharafi, H., Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Pedrycz, W., & Allahviranloo, T. (2023). Hybrid multi-attribute decision-making methods based on preferential voting. Preferential voting and applications: approaches based on data envelopment analysis (pp. 133–164). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  52. Sharifi, M., Moghaddam, T. A., & Shahriari, M. (2019). Multi-objective redundancy allocation problem with weighted-k-out-of-n subsystems. Heliyon, 5(12), e02346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Song, M., Han, L., & Pedrycz, W. (2022). A comprehensive study on effect of multi-subgroup background in group decision-making. Soft Computing, 26(24), 13543–13566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Shahriari, M. R., Pilevari, N., & Gholami, Z. (2016). The effect of information systems on the supply chain sustainability using DEMATEL method. Communications on Advanced Computational Science with Applications, 1, 47–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Trieu, V. H. (2017). Getting value from Business Intelligence systems: A review and research agenda. Decision Support Systems, 93, 111–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Krosnick, J. A. (2018). Questionnaire design. The Palgrave Handbook of Survey Research, 439–455.

    Google Scholar 

  57. XiVedung, E. (2017). Public policy and program evaluation. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

A special thanks to the Iranian DEA society for their unwavering spiritual support and consensus in the writing of this book. Your invaluable support has been truly remarkable, and we are deeply grateful for the opportunity to collaborate with such esteemed professionals.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, Hamid Sharafi & Somayeh Razipour GhalehJough

  2. Faculty of Engineering & Natural Sciences, Istinye University, Istanbul, Turkey

    Tofigh Allahviranloo

  3. Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Witold Pedrycz

  4. Department of Industrial Management, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammadreza Shahriari

Authors
  1. Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tofigh Allahviranloo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Witold Pedrycz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammadreza Shahriari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hamid Sharafi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Somayeh Razipour GhalehJough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Farhad Hosseinzadeh Lotfi .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hosseinzadeh Lotfi, F., Allahviranloo, T., Pedrycz, W., Shahriari, M., Sharafi, H., Razipour GhalehJough, S. (2023). Foundations of Decision. In: Fuzzy Decision Analysis: Multi Attribute Decision Making Approach. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 1121. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44742-6_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation