scholarly journals Using individual and common reference points to measure the performance of alternatives in multiple criteria evaluation

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewa Roszkowska ◽  
Marzena Filipowicz-Chomko ◽  
Tomasz Wachowicz
Keyword(s):  
Smart Growth ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Ranking Problem ◽  
Common Reference ◽  
Alternative State ◽  
Aspiration Levels ◽  
Common Framework ◽  
Multiple Criteria Evaluation

When evaluating or ordering alternatives in given multiple criteria, decision makers often use aspiration and reservation levels for criteria, which allows them to define some reference alternatives that build a common framework for the evaluation. In this paper, a new multiple criteria approach called DARP (Distances to Aspiration Reference Points) is presented, which can be implemented in a specific evaluation or ranking problem when many different aspiration levels should be taken into consideration. One example of such problem is measuring sustainable development of countries or states within the Union. In DARP, in order to measure the performance of alternative (state), the notion of distances between alternative and individual or common aspiration reference points is used. To handle the problem of different reference points, a modified max-min normalisation technique is proposed. DARP application for measuring Smart Growth of the EU countries is conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method.

scholarly journals Examples of Objectified Multiple Criteria Ranking in the Selection of Infrastructural Projects

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 18-25
Author(s):  
Edward Klimasara ◽  
Andrzej P. Wierzbicki
Keyword(s):  
Evaluation Criteria ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Multiple Objective ◽  
Evaluation Data ◽  
Multiple Criteria Evaluation ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Weighting Coefficients ◽  
Selection Of

The paper addresses the issue of multiple criteria rankings of infrastructural projects (buildings, roads, etc.). Although the amount of literature devoted to this subject is considerable, all methods proposed produce subjective rankings, dependent on a direct or indirect definition of weighting coefficients applicable to subsequent evaluation criteria. Infrastructural projects are usually selected and approved collegially, however, by a group of decision makers with preferences that may potentially differ significantly. Therefore, an objectified ranking, independent from subjectively defined weighting coefficients, is needed for infrastructural projects. Such a ranking is proposed, analyzed and applied by the authors of this paper. This ranking depends originally only on the multiple objective evaluation data, i.e. the values of evaluation criteria related to decision scenarios or alternatives. Such an approach does not render a fully objective ranking, since one of this kind does not exist at all. Even the choice of the ranking method is a subjective decision, but it is objectified to the extent possible. The paper presents several examples of multiple criteria evaluation of infrastructural projects, derived from literature, and compares subjective rankings published in literature with objectified rankings that are independent of weighting coefficients.

scholarly journals Reference points and management strategies: lessons from quantum mechanics

2006 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon T. Schnute ◽  
Rowan Haigh
Keyword(s):  
Quantum Mechanics ◽  
Management Strategies ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Surplus Production ◽  
Management Algorithm ◽  
Production Models ◽  
Conceptual Role ◽  
Common Framework ◽  
Mathematical Algorithms

Abstract Fisheries management often relies heavily on precautionary reference points estimated from complex statistical models. An alternative approach uses management strategies defined by mathematical algorithms that calculate controls, like catch quotas, directly from the observed data. We combine these two distinct paradigms into a common framework using arguments from the historical development of quantum mechanics. In fisheries, as in physics, the core of the argument lies in the technical details. We illustrate the process of designing a management algorithm similar to one actually used by the International Whaling Commission. Reference points and surplus production models play a conceptual role in defining management strategies, even if marine populations do not obey such simplistic rules. Physicists have encountered similar problems in formulating quantum theory, where mathematical objects with seemingly unrealistic properties generate results of great practical importance.

Fuzzy Decision Making in Politics: A Linguistic Fuzzy-Set Approach (LFSA)

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Badredine Arfi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Set Theory ◽  
Fuzzy Set ◽  
Fuzzy Set Theory ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Fuzzy Decision Making ◽  
Fuzzy Decision ◽  
Trust And Power

In this article I use linguistic fuzzy-set theory to analyze the process of decision making in politics. I first introduce a number of relevant elements of (numerical and linguistic) fuzzy-set theory that are needed to understand the terminology as well as to grasp the scope and depth of the approach. I then explicate a linguistic fuzzy-set approach (LFSA) to the process of decision making under conditions in which the decision makers are required to simultaneously satisfy multiple criteria. The LFSA approach is illustrated through a running (hypothetical) example of a situation in which state leaders need to decide how to combine trust and power to make a choice on security alignment.

scholarly journals Rank disequilibrium in multiple-criteria evaluation schemes

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 165-180
Author(s):  
Jonathan K. Hodge ◽  
Faye Sprague-Williams ◽  
Jamie Woelk
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Multiple Criteria Evaluation

The Power of Metaphor in Bringing Clarity for Learners in Learner-Centered Design

2017 ◽  
pp. 274-290
Author(s):  
John Ewing ◽  
Doug Reid
Keyword(s):  
Learning Theory ◽  
Social Constructivism ◽  
Reference Points ◽  
Community Of Learners ◽  
Student Centered ◽  
Common Reference ◽  
Learner Centered ◽  
Knowledge Learning ◽  
Learner Centered Pedagogy

The study focuses on guiding students through an exploration of social constructivism model as it relates to the roles of instructor and learner. It explores the use of a metaphor, the dot, to demonstrate that metaphors can support deeper understanding of difficult concepts inherent in learner-centered and constructivist pedagogies. This research was conducted to ascertain whether metaphors provide common reference points for learners that can be used to build and test new assumptions of knowledge. Additionally, the study highlights challenges that learner-centered pedagogy face when identifying preconceived constructs and moving towards the adoption of new thoughts, perspectives, and reasoning. In theory, this study identified the continuing role that metaphors play in the learning theory and how the literature can be explored further. In practice, the study identified student-centered activities, which include the learner as a contributor to knowledge, learning in a community of learners, and empowering the learner to change.

OP58 Testing Of A Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis Value Framework With Decision Makers Across Europe

2017 ◽  
Vol 33 (S1) ◽  
pp. 25-26
Author(s):  
Aris Angelis ◽  
Mark Linch ◽  
Gilberto Montibeller ◽  
Teresa Molina-Lopez ◽  
Anna Zawada ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Relative Weight ◽  
Value Theory ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis ◽  
Model Assessment ◽  
Value Assessment ◽  
Therapeutic Impact ◽  
Trade Offs

INTRODUCTION:We test in practice a Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) framework for the value assessment of a set of therapeutic options for the indication of hormone relapsed metastatic prostate cancer (mPC) through a series of simulation exercises with the participation of decision makers from different Health Technology Assessment (HTA)/insurance agencies across Europe, including TLV (Sweden), AETSA (Andalusia-Spain), INAMI-RIZIV (Belgium) and AOTMiT (Poland). The drugs evaluated were abiraterone, cabazitaxel and enzalutamide.METHODS:Using a multi-attribute value theory framework, past research outcomes and literature findings, an mPC-specific value tree was constructed incorporating relevant concerns as criteria. By adopting the MACBETH approach the different drugs were scored against the criteria through the development of value functions, relative weights were assigned to the criteria using a swing weighting technique, scores and weights were combined using an additive aggregation technique, and sensitivity analysis of results was conducted. All stages were informed through the participation of a small group of experts from each HTA/insurance agency at a series of decision conferences taking place in each country.RESULTS:Value parameters considered spanned the dimensions of therapeutic impact, safety profile, innovation level and socioeconomic impact. Overall weighted preference value scores were produced reflecting the performance of the treatments against the criteria while considering their relative importance. Order of treatments’ rankings was identical across all agencies, with enzalutamide scoring highest and cabazitaxel lowest. Therapeutic impact criteria always produced the greatest relative weight. Hypothetical priority setting decisions were made based on “value-for-money” grounds through the use of “cost per unit of value” metrics by incorporating purchasing costs.CONCLUSIONS:The MCDA framework tested possesses a number of characteristics that could facilitate decision making, including the systematic and explicit incorporation of value trade-offs as part of model assessment and the transparency throughout all its stages. Therefore, it has the prospects to act as a practical evaluation tool for value assessment and communication during the HTA process.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document