Browse > Article

Dominance, Potential Optimality, and Strict Preference Information in Multiple Criteria Decision Making  

Park, Kyung-Sam (Business School, Korea University)
Shin, Dong-Eun (Business School, Korea University)
Publication Information
Management Science and Financial Engineering / v.17, no.2, 2011 , pp. 63-84 More about this Journal
Abstract
The ordinary multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) approach requires two types of input, alternative values and criterion weights, and employs two schemes of alternative prioritization, dominance and potential optimality. This paper allows for incomplete information on both types of input and gives rise to the dominance relationships and potential optimality of alternatives. Unlike the earlier studies, we emphasize that incomplete information frequently takes the form of strict inequalities, such as strict orders and strict bounds, rather than weak inequalities. Then the issues of rising importance include: (1) The standard mathematical programming approach to prioritize alternatives cannot be used directly, because the feasible region for the permissible decision parameters becomes an open set. (2) We show that the earlier methods replacing the strict inequalities with weak ones, by employing a small positive number or zeroes, which closes the feasible set, may cause a serious problem and yield unacceptable prioritization results. Therefore, we address these important issues and develop a useful and simple method, without selecting any small value for the strict preference information. Given strict information on both types of decision parameters, we first construct a nonlinear program, transform it into a linear programming equivalent, and finally solve it via a two-stage method. An application is also demonstrated herein.
Keywords
Multi-Criteria Decision Making; Incomplete Information; Strict Preference Information; Dominance; Potential Optimality;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Mateos, A., S. Rios-Insua, and A. Jimenez, "Dominance, potential optimality and alternative ranking in imprecise multi‐attribute decision making," J. Opl. Res. Soc. 58 (2007), 326-336.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Moskowitz, H., P. V. Preckel, and A. Yang, "Multiple‐criteria robust interactive decision analysis (MCRID) for optimizing public policies," Eur. J. Opl. Res. 56 (1992), 219-236.   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Park, K. S., "Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete," IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Part A 34 (2004), 601-614.   DOI   ScienceOn
4 Park, K. S. and S. H. Kim, "Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with incompletely identified information," Eur. J. Opl. Res. 98 (1997), 111-123.   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Pearman, A. D., "Establishing dominance in multiattribute decision making using an ordered metric method," J. Opl. Res. Soc. 44 (1993), 461-469.   DOI
6 Kirkwood, C. W. and J. L. Corner, "The effectiveness of partial information about attribute weights for ranking alternatives in multiattribute decision making," Org. Behavior and Human Dec. Pro. 54 (1993), 456-476.   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Kirkwood, C. W. and R. K. Sarin, "Ranking with partial information: A method and an application," Opns. Res. 33 (1985), 38-48.   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Kmietowicz, Z. W. and A. D. Pearman, "Decision theory, linear partial information and statistical dominance," Omega 12 (1984), 391-399.   DOI   ScienceOn
9 Krantz, D. H., R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky, Foundations of Measurement, Academic Press: New York, 1971.
10 Lee, K. S., K. S. Park, Y. S. Eum, and K. Park, "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," Eur. J. Opl. Res. 134 (2001), 557-563.   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Cook, W. D. and M. Kress, "A multiple criteria decision model with ordinal preference data," Eur. J. Opl. Res. 54 (1991), 191-198.   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Keeney, R. L. and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley: New York, 1976.
13 Bouyssou, D., "Using DEA as a tool for MCDM: Some remarks," J. Opl. Res. Soc. 50 (1999), 974-978.   DOI
14 Cook, W. D., J. Doyle, R. Green, and M. Kress, "Multiple criteria modeling and ordinal data: Evaluation in terms of subsets of criteria," Eur. J. Opl. Res. 98 (1997), 602-609.   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Cooper, W. W., L. M. Seiford, and K. Tone, Data Envelopment Analysis: A Comprehensive Text with Models, Applications, and References and DEA-Solver Software, Kluwer-Academic Publishers: Boston, 2000.
16 Jimenez, A., S. Rios-Insua, and A. Mateos, "A generic multi-attribute analysis system," Comp. and Opns. Res. 33 (2006), 1081-1101.   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Ahn, B. S., "Extending Malakooti's model for ranking multicriteria alternatives with preference strength and partial information," IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern., Part A 33 (2003), 281-287.   DOI   ScienceOn
18 Dyer, J. S. and R. K. Sarin, "Measurable multiattribute value functions," Opns. Res. 27 (1979), 810-822.   DOI   ScienceOn
19 Fishburn, P. C., "Analysis of decisions with incomplete knowledge of probabilities," Opns. Res. 13 (1965), 217-237.   DOI   ScienceOn
20 Hazen, G. B., "Partial information, dominance, and potential optimality in multiattribute utility theory," Opns. Res. 34 (1986), 296-310.   DOI   ScienceOn
21 Arnold, V. I., I. Bardhan, W. W. Cooper, and A. Gallegos, "Primal and dual optimality in computer codes using two-stage solution procedures in DEA," Operations Research: Methods, Models and Applications, Aranson, J. and S. Zionts, (Eds.), Quorum Books: Westport, CT, (1998), 57-96.
22 Craig, C. S. and S. P. Douglas, International Marketing Research, John Wiley and Sons Ltd: New York, 2005.
23 Daniels, J. D., L. H. Radebaugh, and D. P. Sullivan, International Business: Environments and Operations, Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2008.
24 Anandalingam, G. and C. E. Olsson, "A multi-stage multi-attribute decision model for project selection," Eur. J. Opl. Res. 43 (1989), 271-283.   DOI   ScienceOn
25 Athanassopoulos, A. D. and V. V. Podinovski, "Dominance and potential optimality in multiple criteria decision analysis with imprecise information," J. Opl. Res. Soc. 48 (1997), 142-150.   DOI
26 Stewart, T. J., "Relationships between data envelopment analysis and multicriteria decision analysis," J. Opl. Res. Soc. 47 (1996), 654-665.   DOI
27 Barron, F. H. and B. E. Barret, "Decision quality using ranked attribute weights," Mngt. Sci. 42 (1996), 1515-1523.   DOI   ScienceOn
28 Belton, V. and S. P. Vickers, "Demystifying DEA-A visual interactive approach based on multiple criteria analysis," J. Opl. Res. Soc. 44 (1993), 883-896.
29 Sage, A. P. and C. C. White III, "ARIADNE: A knowledge-based interactive system for planning and decision support," IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. 14 (1984), 35-47.
30 Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hamalainen, Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Opns. Res. 40 (1992), 1053-1061.   DOI   ScienceOn
31 von Winterfeldt, D. and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press: New York, 1986.
32 Weber, M., "Decision making with incomplete information," Eur. J. Opl. Res. 28 (1987), 44-57.   DOI   ScienceOn
33 Malakooti, B., "Ranking and screening multiple criteria alternatives with partial information and use of ordinal and cardinal strength of preferences," IEEE Trans. Syst., Man, Cybern. 30 (2000), 355-368.   DOI   ScienceOn