Advertisement

An MCDM/A Framework for Choosing Rules

  • Adiel Teixeira de AlmeidaEmail author
  • Danielle Costa Morais
  • Hannu Nurmi
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation book series (AGDN, volume 9)

Abstract

Our focus is on the decision process. A Framework for the DPVP (decision process for choosing a voting procedure) is necessary in order to guide how best to aid DMs. It is assumed that DMs may evaluate the impact of VP (Voting Procedure) properties on their own business decision process. It is assumed that the DMs have agreed on some voting procedure. Choosing the most appropriate MCDM/A (Multi-Criteria Decision Making/Aiding) method is essential to ensure the quality of the decision process. When choosing an MCDM/A method, the DM’s preferences should be taken into consideration. A check needs to be made on whether the DM uses compensatory or non-compensatory rationality.

References

  1. Arrow, K. (1963). Social choice and individual values (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Berger, J. O. (1985). Statistical decision theory and bayesian analysis. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Bouyssou, D. (1986). Some remarks on the notion of compensation in MCDM. European Journal of Operational Research, 26(1), 150–160.Google Scholar
  5. Brito, A. J. M., de Almeida, A. T., & Miranda, C. M. G. (2010). A Multi-criteria model for risk sorting of natural gas pipelines based on ELECTRE TRI integrating utility theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 200, 812–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. de Almeida, A. T. (2005). Multicriteria modelling of repair contract based on utility and ELECTRE I method with dependability and service quality criteria. Annals of Operations Research, Holanda, 138, 113–126.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Almeida, A. T. (2013). Processo de Decisão nas Organizações: Construindo Modelos de Decisão Multicritério (Decision Process in Organizations: Building Multicriteria Decision Models). São Paulo: Editora Atlas.Google Scholar
  8. de Almeida, A. T., Cavalcante, C. A. V., Alencar, M. H., Ferreira, R. J. P., Almeida-Filho, A. T., & Garcez T. V. (2015). Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis. In International Series in Operations Research and Management Science. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. de Almeida, A. T., de Almeida, J. A., Costa, A. P. C. S., & de Almeida -Filho, A. T. (2016). A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoff. European Journal of Operational Research, 250, 179–191.Google Scholar
  10. de Almeida, A. T., & Nurmi, H. (2014). Aiding the choice of a voting procedure for a business decision problem. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference of the INFORMS GDN Section and the EURO Working Group on DSS (pp. 269–276). Toulouse University.Google Scholar
  11. de Almeida, A. T., & Nurmi, H. (2015). A framework for aiding the choice of a voting procedure in a business decision context. In B. Kamiński & G. E. Kersten, T. Szapiro (Eds.), Outlooks and insights on group decision and negotiation. 218th ed. (pp. 211–25). Warsaw: Springer International Publishing.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_17.Google Scholar
  12. Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research, 36, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eden, C, & Ackermann, F. (2004). SODA. The principles. In J. Rosenhead, & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited. Second Edition, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
  14. Edwards, W., & 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
  15. Felsenthal, D. S. & Nurmi, H. (2018). Voting procedures for electing a single candidate. Proving their (in) vulnerability to various voting paradoxes. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Monotonicity paradoxes in the theory of elections. Discrete Applied Mathematics, 4, 119–134.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Keeney, R. L. (1976). A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Management Science, 23(2), 140–145.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decision-making. London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade- offs. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  20. Likert, R. (1932a). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 22(140), 55.Google Scholar
  21. Likert, R. (1932b). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.Google Scholar
  22. Munda, G. (2008). Social multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  23. Pardalos, P. M., Siskos, Y., & Zopounidis, C. (Eds.). (1995). Advances in multicriteria analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Naamani-Dery, L., de Almeida, A. T., & Nurmi, H. (2014). Choosing a voting procedure for a leisure group activity. In Proceedings of the Joint International Conference of the INFORMS GDN Section and the EURO Working Group on DSS (pp. 269–276). Toulouse University.Google Scholar
  25. Nurmi, H. (1983). Voting procedures: A summary analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 13(2), 181–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nurmi, H. (1987). Comparing voting systems. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nurmi, H. (1988). Discrepancies in the outcomes resulting from different voting schemes. Theory and Decision, 25(2), 193–208.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nurmi, H. (1992). An assessment of voting system simulations. Public Choice, 73, 459–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nurmi, H. (1995). On the difficulty of making social choices. Theory and Decision, 38, 99–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nurmi, H. (2002). Voting procedures under uncertainty. Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York.Google Scholar
  31. Raiffa, H. (1968). Decision analysis. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  32. Roy, B., & Słowinski, R. (2013). Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 1, 69–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69, 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon, H. A. (1960). The new science of management decision. New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon, H. A. (1982). Models of bounded rationality. MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade Federal de Pernambuco (UFPE)RecifeBrazil
  2. 2.University of TurkuTurkuFinland

Personalised recommendations