Advertisement

FITradeoff Method for the Location of Healthcare Facilities Based on Multiple Stakeholders’ Preferences

  • Marta Dell’Ovo
  • Eduarda Asfora FrejEmail author
  • Alessandra Oppio
  • Stefano Capolongo
  • Danielle Costa Morais
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 315)

Abstract

Multiple stakeholders’ preferences are considered for solving a healthcare facility location problem in the city of Milan, Italy. The preference modeling is based on the Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff (FITradeoff), a Multicriteria Decision Making (MCDM) method used to elicit criteria scaling constants in additive models. FITradeoff is an easy tool for decision makers, because it requires them to exert less effort than other traditional elicitation methods, as the tradeoff procedure. Therefore, it is expected that fewer inconsistencies will appear during the elicitation process. Sixteen criteria were used to evaluate in which of six potential areas a new hospital could be sited. An analyst with a strong background in MCDM interviewed four actors, and elicited their preferences with the help of the FITradeoff Decision Support System (FITradeoff DSS).

Keywords

Healthcare facilities location Multicriteria decision-making Additive model FITradeoff 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This study was partially sponsored by the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq) for which the authors are most grateful.

References

  1. 1.
    Bashiri, M., Hosseininezhad, S.J.: A fuzzy group decision support system for multifacility location problems. Int. J. Adv. Manuf. Technol. 42, 533–543 (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-008-1621-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Borcherding, K., Eppel, T., Von Winterfeldt, D.: Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement. Manag. Sci. 37, 1603–1619 (1991).  https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.37.12.1603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chiu, J.E., Tsai, H.H.: Applying Analytic Hierarchy Process to select optimal expansion of hospital location: the case of a regional teaching hospital in Yunlin. In: 10th International Conference on Service Systems and Service Management (ICSSSM), pp. 603–606. IEEE (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1109/icsssm.2013.6602588
  4. 4.
    Chou, S.Y., Chang, Y.H., Shen, C.Y.: A fuzzy simple additive weighting system under group decision-making for facility location selection with objective/subjective attributes. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 189, 132–145 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2007.05.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clímaco, J.N., Dias, L.C.: An approach to support negotiation processes with imprecise information multicriteria additive models. Group Decis. Negot. 15, 171–184 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9027-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    de Almeida, A.T.: FITradeoff method for resolving evaluation of criteria by interactive flexible elicitation in group and multicriteria decision aid. CDSID Working Paper also Presented as Keynote at Joint International Conference of the INFORMS GDN Section and the EURO Working Group on DSS, Toulouse (2014)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Almeida, A.T., Cavalcante, C.A.V., Alencar, M.H., Ferreira, R.J.P., Almeida-Filho, A.T., Garcez, T.V.: Multicriteria and Multiobjective Models for Risk, Reliability and Maintenance Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 231. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17969-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Almeida, A.T., de Almeida, J.A., Costa, A.P.C.S., de Almeida-Filho, A.T.: A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: flexible and interactive tradeoff. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 250, 179–191 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.08.058CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    de Almeida, A.T., Wachowicz, T.: Preference analysis and decision support in negotiations and group decisions. Group Decis. Negot. 26, 649–652 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-017-9538-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dell’Ovo, M., Capolongo, S.: Architectures for health: between historical contexts and suburban areas. Tool to support location strategies. Technè J. Technol. Arch. Environ. 12, 269–276 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.13128/techne-19362CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dell’Ovo, M., Frej, E.A., Oppio, A., Capolongo, S., Morais, D.C., de Almeida, A.T.: Multicriteria decision making for healthcare facilities location with visualization based on fitradeoff method. In: Linden, I., Liu, S., Colot, C. (eds.) ICDSST 2017. LNBIP, vol. 282, pp. 32–44. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-57487-5_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dente, B.: Understanding policy decisions. In: Dente, B. (ed.) Understanding Policy Decisions, pp. 1–27. Springer, Cham (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02520-9_1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dias, L., Clímaco, J.: ELECTRE TRI for groups with imprecise information on parameter values. Group Decis. Negot. 9, 355–377 (2000).  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:100873961CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ertuğrul, İ.: Fuzzy group decision making for the selection of facility location. Group Decis. Negot. 20, 725–740 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-010-9219-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grad, F.P.: The preamble of the constitution of the World Health Organization. Bull. World Health Organ. 80, 981 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hatami-Marbini, A., Tavana, M., Moradi, M., Kangi, F.: A fuzzy group ELECTRE method for safety and health assessment in hazardous waste recycling facilities. Saf. Sci. 51, 414–426 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ishizaka, A., Nemery, P.: A multi-criteria group decision framework for partner grouping when sharing facilities. Group Decis. Negot. 22, 773 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9292-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., Doǧan, I.: Fuzzy group decision-making for facility location selection. Inf. Sci. 157, 135–153 (2003).  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(03)00183-XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decision Analysis with Multiple Conflicting Objectives. Wiley, New York (1976)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kumar, S., Bansal, V.K.: A GIS-based methodology for safe site selection of a building in a hilly region. Front. Arch. Res. 5, 39–51 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2016.01.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Munda, G.: Social Multi-criteria Evaluation for a Sustainable Economy. Springer, Heidelberg (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-73703-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Norese, M.F.: ELECTRE III as a support for participatory decision-making on the localisation of waste-treatment plants. Land Use Policy 23, 76–85 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2004.08.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rao, C., Goh, M., Zhao, Y., Zheng, J.: Location selection of city logistics centers under sustainability. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 36, 29–44 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2015.02.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rockloff, S.F., Lockie, S.: Democratization of coastal zone decision making for indigenous Australians: insights from stakeholder analysis. Coast. Manag. 34, 251–266 (2006).  https://doi.org/10.1080/08920750600686653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Salo, A.A., Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements. Oper. Res. 40, 1053–1061 (1992).  https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.40.6.1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sarabando, P., Dias, L.C., Vetschera, R.: Mediation with incomplete information: approaches to suggest potential agreements. Group Decis. Negot. 22, 561–597 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-012-9283-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tavakkoli-Moghaddam, R., Sotoudeh-Anvari, A., Siadat, A.: A multi-criteria group decision-making approach for facility location selection using PROMETHEE under a fuzzy environment. In: Kamiński, B., Kersten, Gregory E., Szapiro, T. (eds.) GDN 2015. LNBIP, vol. 218, pp. 145–156. Springer, Cham (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weber, M., Borcherding, K.: Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision-making. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 67, 1–12 (1993).  https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(93)90318-HCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marta Dell’Ovo
    • 1
  • Eduarda Asfora Frej
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alessandra Oppio
    • 3
  • Stefano Capolongo
    • 1
  • Danielle Costa Morais
    • 2
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Architecture, Built Environment and Construction Engineering (ABC)Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly
  2. 2.CDSID - Center for Decision Systems and Information DevelopmentUniversidade Federal de Pernambuco – UFPERecifeBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU)Politecnico di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations