Abstract
There are two basic approaches to multi-objective decision support. One of these assumes that the main objective of a decision support system (DSS) is to support learning by the decision maker (DSS user, modeler); this was the motivation for presenting most of the techniques and tools in this book. A different and older approach assumes that the main objective of a DSS is to support choice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Because many interpretations of classical approaches to decision analysis exist, we are aware that there might be some objections to classifying them as methods of “automating choice”. However, if we build a full model of a utility or value function of a human decision maker, we might just as well replace her/him by an automaton. In some cases, this is advantageous: automata do not tire and are always consistent.
This is a classical topic in decision analysis and much has already been written about it.
We should note that the concept of utility is reserved in decision theory for expected utility based on probabilistic representation of uncertainty. In cases without such representation of uncertainty it is preferable to speak of a value function.
Theoretically at least. Research in psychology and various paradoxes — such as the Allais paradox — show that one of the basic axioms of expected utility theory, the axiom of independence, does not necessarily describe the observed behavior of real decision makers. Thus, various alternative models of nonlinear dependence of expected utility on probabilities have been proposed (see e.g., French, 1986).
AHP is usually applied to problems with a discrete, finite number of decision options with directly specified outcomes or attributes. In principle, however, it could be applied to more complicated models, where the objectives yi are defined as (possibly nonlinear) functions of decisions x.
Also taking into account nondifferentiable and constrained cases.
The sign of this specific value as compared to the example considered in Chapter 6 is changed to make it easier to interpret positive quantities.
This is a very strong assumption; however, we use an arbitrary model to illustrate the diverse problems of investigating various model properties, and do not consider the issue of model validity.
A disadvantage of DIDAS-N is that it requires model formulation and modification in a traditional (not “user-friendly”) way.
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wierzbicki, A.P., Nakayama, H. (2000). Tools Supporting Choice. In: Wierzbicki, A.P., Makowski, M., Wessels, J. (eds) Model-Based Decision Support Methodology with Environmental Applications. The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, vol 9. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9552-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9552-0_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-5464-7
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-9552-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive