Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision-Making Tools: Deleting Criteria Using Sensitivity Analysis

  • Chapter
Hierarchical Decision Modeling

Part of the book series: Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management ((ITKM))

  • 949 Accesses

Abstract

Research has shown that as the attractiveness of alternatives rises with more choices, individuals experience conflict between the alternatives, which causes them to defer their decision, search for new alternatives, or choose the default option. Having lesser attributes simplifies complex problems and the decision-making process. This chapter uses the sensitivity analysis in hierarchical decision model, developed by Hongyi Chen, to prove that we can reduce the size of a problem and make the decision easier with the future change of values of attributes, without affecting the final decision.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

References

  1. Bond, S. D., Carlson, K. A., & Keeney, R. L. (2008). Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? Management Science, 54, 56–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is de-motivating: Can one desire too much of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 995–1006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chernev, A. (2006). Decision focus and consumer choice among assortments. The Journal of Consumer Research, 33, 50–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fasolo, B., McClelland, G. H., & Todd, P. M. (2007). Escaping the tyranny of choice: When fewer attributes make choice easier. Marketing Theory, 7, 13–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Malhotra, N. K. (1982). Information load and consumer decision making. The Journal of Consumer Research, 8, 419–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Miller, G. A. (2003). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. In B. J. Baars, W. P. Banks, & J. B. Newman (Eds.), Essential sources in the scientific study of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Glöckner, A., & Betsch, T. (2008). Multiple-reason decision making based on automatic processing. Bonn, Germany: MPI Collective Goods Preprint.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hauser, J. R., & Wernerfelt, B. (1990). An evaluation cost model of consideration sets. The Journal of Consumer Research, 16, 393–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Smith, L., & Gilhooly, K. (2006). Regression versus fast and frugal models of decision making: The case of prescribing for depression. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 265–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Dhami, M. K., & Harries, C. (2001). Fast and frugal versus regression models of human judgment. Thinking and Reasoning, 7, 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, H. (2007). Sensitivity analysis for hierarchical decision models. Portland: Portland State University. Doctor of Philosophy.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barron, H. (1987). Influence of missing attributes on selecting a best multi attributed alternative. Decision Science, 18, 194–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gigerenzer, G. (2007). Gut feeling: The intelligence of the unconscious. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Gigerenzer, G., & Goldstein, D. G. (1996). Reasoning the fast and frugal way: Models of bounded rationality. Psychological Review, 103, 650–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Todd, P. M. (2002). Fast and frugal heuristics for environmental bounded mind. In G. Gigerenzer & R. Selten (Eds.), Bounded rationality: The adaptive toolbox. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cho, Y. I. (2008). Intercoder reliability. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ho, C. (2004). Strategic evaluation of emerging technology in the semiconductor foundry industry (special case: Taiwan semiconductor foundry industry). Ph.D., Portland State University.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Engineering and Technology Management Department, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207, USA

    Fatima M. Albar & Dundar F. Kocaoglu

Authors
  1. Fatima M. Albar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dundar F. Kocaoglu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fatima M. Albar .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Dept. of Engineering and Technology Mana, Portland State University, Portland, Oregon, USA

    Tugrul U. Daim

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Albar, F.M., Kocaoglu, D.F. (2016). Decision-Making Tools: Deleting Criteria Using Sensitivity Analysis. In: Daim, T. (eds) Hierarchical Decision Modeling. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18558-3_14

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation