aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions on the web
Post on 02-Feb-2016
21 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Raimo P. HämäläinenSystems Analysis Laboratory
Helsinki University of Technologywww.raimo.hut.fi
JMCDA, Vol. 12 , No. 2-3, 2003, pp. 101-110.
Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web
www.decisionarium.hut.fi
Research inD E C I S I O N A R I U M
v. 3.2007
Research seminar, Levi, March 21-24, 2007
2
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
selected publications J. Mustajoki, R.P. Hämäläinen and A. Salo: Decision support by interval SMART/SWING – Incorporating
imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods, Decision Sciences, 2005.H. Ehtamo, R.P. Hämäläinen and V. Koskinen: An e-learning module on negotiation analysis, Proc. of HICSS-37, 2004.
J. Mustajoki and R.P. Hämäläinen, Making the even swaps method even easier, Manuscript, 2004. R.P. Hämäläinen, Decisionarium - Aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions on the Web, J. Multi-Crit. Dec. Anal., 2003.
H. Ehtamo, E. Kettunen and R.P. Hämäläinen: Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2001. J. Gustafsson, A. Salo and T. Gustafsson: PRIME Decisions - An interactive tool for value tree
analysis, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 2001.J. Mustajoki and R.P. Hämäläinen: Web-HIPRE - Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, INFOR, 2000.
D E C I S I O N A R I U M
PRIME DecisionsWINPRE
web-sites www.decisionarium.hut.fi www.dm.hut.fi
www.hipre.hut.fi www.jointgains.hut.fi www.opinions.hut.fi www.smart-swaps.hut.fi www.rich.hut.fiPRIME Decisions and WINPRE downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Downloadables
Web-HIPREvalue tree and AHP based decision support
Smart-Swaps
Opinions-Online platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group decisions
Joint Gains
groupcollaboration decision
making
computer support
CSCW
multicriteriadecision analysis
internet
groupdecision making
GDSS, NSS
DSS
multi-party negotiation support with the method of improving directions
Windows software for decision analysis with imprecise ratio statements
g l o b a l s p a c e f o r d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t
elimination of criteria and alternatives by even swaps
preference programming, PAIRS
Updated 25.10.2004
SystemsAnalysis Laboratory
RICH Decisionsrank inclusion in criteria
hierarchies
3
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Mission of Decisionarium
Provide resources for decision and negotiation support and advance the real and correct use of MCDA
History: HIPRE 3+ in 1992 MAVT/AHP for DOS systems
Today: e-learning modules provide help to learn the methods and global access to the software also for non OR/MS people
4
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Opinions-Online (www.opinions.hut.fi)• Platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group
decisions
Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi)• Value tree based decision analysis and support
WINPRE and PRIME Decisions (for Windows)
• Interval AHP, interval SMART/SWING and PRIME methods
RICH Decisions (www.rich.hut.fi)• Preference programming in MAVT
Smart-Swaps (www.smart-swaps.hut.fi)• Multicriteria decision support with the even swaps method
Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi)• Negotiation support with the method of improving directions
5
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
• Possibility to compare different weighting and rating methods
• AHP/MAVT and different scales
• Preference programming in MAVT and in the Even Swaps procedure
• Jointly improving direction method for negotiations
New Methodological Features
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Opinions-Online
Platform for Global Participation, Voting, Surveys and Group Decisions
Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen
Programming: Reijo Kalenius
www.opinions.hut.fiwww.opinions-online.com
Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
http://www.sal.hut.fi
7
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Surveys on the web
• Fast, easy and cheap
• Hyperlinks to background information
• Easy access to results
• Results can be analyzed on-line
• Access control: registration, e-mail list, domain, password
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Global Multicriteria Decision Support by Web-HIPRE
A Java-applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis
Raimo P. Hämäläinen
Jyri Mustajoki
www.hipre.hut.fi
Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
http://www.sal.hut.fi
9
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Web-HIPRE links can refer to any web-pages
10
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
• SMARTER uses rankings only
SWING,SMART and SMARTER Methods
11
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Future challenges
Web makes MCDA tools available to everybody - Should everybody use them?
It is the responsibility of the multicriteria decision analysis community to:
• Learn and teach the use different weighting methods
• Focus on the praxis and avoidance of behavioural biases
• Develop and identify “best practice” procedures
12
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Number-of-attribute-levels effect in
conjoint analysis
Splitting bias withweighting methodsbased on ranking
Rank reversal inAHP
Averages over agroup yield even
weights
Normalization
Decisionmakers onlygive ordinalinformation
Division ofattributes changes
weightsRange effect
Hierarchicalweighting leads to
steeper weights
Weighting methodsyield different weights
Sources of biases and problems
13
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Literature
Mustajoki, J. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, INFOR, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2000, pp. 208-220.
Hämäläinen, R.P.: Reversing the perspective on the applications of decision analysis, Decision Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 26-31.
Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. and Marttunen, M.: Participatory multicriteria decision support with Web-HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2004, pp. 537-547.
Pöyhönen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: There is hope in attribute weighting, INFOR, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2000, pp. 272-282.
Pöyhönen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: On the Convergence of Multiattribute Weighting Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 129, No. 3, 2001, pp. 569-585.
Pöyhönen, M., Vrolijk, H.C.J. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Behavioral and Procedural Consequences of Structural Variation in Value Trees, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 134, No. 1, 2001, pp. 218-227.
14
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
New Theory: Preference programming
Analysis with incomplete preference statements (intervals):
”...attribute is at least 2 times as but no more than 3 times as important as...”
Windows software• WINPRE – Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming Interval AHP, interval SMART/SWING and PAIRS• PRIME-Preference Ratios in Multiattribute Evaluation Method Incomplete preference statements Web software• RICH Decisions – Rank Inclusion in Criteria Hierarchies
15
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Uses of interval models
New generalized AHP and SMART/SWING methods
DM can also reply with intervals instead of exact point estimates – a new way to accommodate uncertainty
Interval sensitivity analysis
Variations allowed in several model parameters simultaneously - worst case analysis
Group decision making
All members´ opinions embedded in intervals = a joint common group model
16
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Interval SMART/SWING• A as reference - A given 10 points
• Point intervals given to the other attributes:– 5-20 points to attribute B– 10-30 points to attribute C
• Weight ratio between B and C not explicitly given by the DM
17
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Generalized SMART and SWING
Allow:
1. the reference attribute to be any attribute
2. the DM to reply with intervals instead of exact point estimates
3. also the reference attribute to have an interval
A family of Interval SMART/SWING methods– Mustajoki, Hämäläinen and Salo, 2005
18
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Reference attribute Reference Elicitation Name
Least important 10 (or any number) Point estimates SMART
Most important 100 (or any number) Point estimates SWING
Any Any number of points Point estimates SMART/SWING with a freereference attribute
Least important 10 (or any number) Intervals of points Interval SMART
Most important 100 (or any number) Intervals of points Interval SWING
Any Any number of points Intervals of points Interval SMART/SWING
Any Any interval Intervals of points Interval SMART/SWINGwith inteval referenceattribute
Generalized SMART and SWING
19
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Choice of the reference attribute
• Only the weight ratio constraints including the reference attribute are given
Feasible region depends on the choice of the reference attribute
20
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
WINPRE Software
21
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
PRIME Decisions Software
22
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Literature – Methodology
Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Operations Research, Vol. 40, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1053-1061.
Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 82, No. 3, 1995, pp. 458-475.
Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME) – Elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2001, pp. 533-545.
Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference Programming. (Manuscript) Downloadable at http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/msal03b.pdf
Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. and Salo, A.: Decision Support by Interval SMART/SWING - Incorporating Imprecision in the SMART and SWING Methods, Decision Sciences, Vol. 36, No.2, 2005, pp. 317-339.
23
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Literature – Tools and applicationsGustafsson, J., Salo, A. and Gustafsson, T.: PRIME Decisions - An Interactive
Tool for Value Tree Analysis, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, M. Köksalan and S. Zionts (eds.), 507, 2001, pp. 165-176.
Hämäläinen, R.P., Salo, A. and Pöysti, K.: Observations about consensus seeking in a multiple criteria environment, Proc. of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Hawaii, Vol. IV, January 1992, pp. 190-198.
Hämäläinen, R.P. and Pöyhönen, M.: On-line group decision support by preference programming in traffic planning, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 5, 1996, pp. 485-500.
Liesiö, J., Mild, P. and Salo, A.: Preference Programming for Robust Portfolio Modeling and Project Selection, European Journal of Operational Research (to appear)
Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. and Lindstedt, M.R.K.: Using intervals for Global Sensitivity and Worst Case Analyses in Multiattribute Value Trees, European Journal of Operational Research. (to appear)
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
RICH Decisions
www.rich.hut.fi
Design: Ahti Salo and Antti Punkka
Programming: Juuso Liesiö
Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
http://www.sal.hut.fi
25
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
The RICH Method
Based on:
Incomplete ordinal information about the relative importance of attributes
• ”environmental aspects belongs to the three most important attributes” or
• ”either cost or environmental aspects is the most important attribute”
26
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Dominance Structure and Decision Rules
27
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Literature
Salo, A. and Punkka, A.: Rank Inclusion in Criteria Hierarchies, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 163, No. 2, 2005, pp. 338-356.
Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME) – Elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2001, pp. 533-545.
Salo A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference Programming. (manuscript)
Ojanen, O., Makkonen, S. and Salo, A.: A Multi-Criteria Framework for the Selection of Risk Analysis Methods at Energy Utilities. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 16-35.
Punkka, A. and Salo, A.: RICHER: Preference Programming with Incomplete Ordinal Information. (submitted manuscript)
Salo, A. and Liesiö, J.: A Case Study in Participatory Priority-Setting for a Scandinavian Research Program, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. (to appear)
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Smart-Swaps
Smart Choices with the Even Swaps Method
Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen and Jyri MustajokiProgramming: Pauli Alanaatu
www.smart-swaps.hut.fi
Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
http://www.sal.hut.fi
29
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Smart Choices
• An iterative process to support multicriteria decision making
• Uses the even swaps method to make trade-offs
(Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1999)
30
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Even Swaps
• Carry out even swaps that makeAlternatives dominated (attribute-wise)
• There is another alternative, which is equal or better than this in every attribute, and better at least in one attribute
Attributes irrelevant• Each alternative has the same value on this attribute
These can be eliminated
• Process continues until one alternative, i.e. the best one, remains
31
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Supporting Even Swaps with Preference Programming
• Even Swaps process carried out as usual
• The DM’s preferences simultaneously modeled with Preference Programming– Intervals allow us to deal with incomplete
information – Trade-off information given in the even swaps can
be used to update the model
Suggestions for the Even Swaps process
32
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Decision support
Problem initialization
Updating of
the model
Make an even swap
Even Swaps Preference Programming
Practical dominance candidates
Initial statements about the attributes
Eliminate irrelevant attributes
Eliminate dominated alternatives
Even swap suggestions
More than oneremaining alternative
Yes
The most preferred alternative is found
No
Trade-off information
33
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
• Identification of practical dominances
• Suggestions for the next even swap to be made
• Additional supportInformation about what can be achieved with each
swap
Notification of dominances
Rankings indicated by colours
Process history allows backtracking
Smart-Swaps
34
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Example• Office selection problem (Hammond et al. 1999)
Dominatedby
Lombard
Practicallydominated
byMontana
(Slightly better in Monthly Cost, but equal or worse in all other attributes)
78
25
An even swap
Commute time removed as irrelevant
35
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Problem definition
36
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Entering trade-offs
37
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Process history
38
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1998. Even swaps: A rational method for making trade-offs, Harvard Business Review, 76(2), 137-149.
Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1999. Smart choices. A practical guide to making better decisions, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.
Mustajoki, J. Hämäläinen, R.P., 2005. A Preference Programming Approach to Make the Even Swaps Method Even Easier, Decision Analysis, 2(2), 110-123.
Salo, A., Hämäläinen, R.P., 1992. Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Operations Research, 40(6), 1053-1061.
Applications of Even Swaps:
Gregory, R., Wellman, K., 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study, Ecological Economics, 39, 37-52.
Kajanus, M., Ahola, J., Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., 2001. Application of even swaps for strategy selection in a rural enterprise, Management Decision, 39(5), 394-402.
Literature
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
eLearning Decision Makingwww.mcda.hut.fi
eLearning sites on:Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
Decision Making Under Uncertainty Negotiation Analysis
Prof. Raimo P. HämäläinenSystems Analysis Laboratory
Helsinki University of Technologyhttp://www.sal.hut.fi
40
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
eLearning sitesMaterial:• Theory sections, interactive computer assignments• Animations and video clips, online quizzes, theory assignments
Decisionarium software:• Web-HIPRE, PRIME Decisions, Opinions-Online.vote, and Joint Gains, video clips help the use
eLearning modules: • 4 - 6 hours study time• Instructors can create their own modules using the material and software• Academic non-profit use is free
41
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
42
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Academic Test Use is Free !
Opinions-Online (www.opinions.hut.fi)
Commercial site and pricing: www.opinions-online.com
Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi)
WINPRE and PRIME Decisions (Windows)
RICH Decisions (www.rich.hut.fi)
Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi)
Smart-Swaps (www.smart-swaps.hut.fi)
Please, let us know your experiences.
43
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Contributions of colleagues andstudents at SAL
• HIPRE 3 +: Hannu Lauri• Web-HIPRE: Jyri Mustajoki, Ville Likitalo, Sami Nousiainen• Joint Gains: Eero Kettunen, Harri Jäälinoja, Tero Karttunen, Sampo
Vuorinen• Opinions-Online: Reijo Kalenius, Ville Koskinen Janne Pöllönen• Smart-Swaps: Pauli Alanaatu, Ville Karttunen, Arttu Arstila, Juuso
Nissinen• WINPRE: Jyri Helenius• PRIME Decisions: Janne Gustafsson, Tommi Gustafsson• RICH Decisions: Juuso Liesiö, Antti Punkka• e-learning MCDA: Ville Koskinen, Jaakko Dietrich, Markus Porthin
Thank you!
44
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
Public participation project sites
• PÄIJÄNNE - Lake Regulation(www.paijanne.hut.fi)
• PRIMEREG / Kallavesi - Lake Regulation(www.kallavesi.hut.fi, www.opinion.hut.fi/servlet/tulokset?foldername=syke)
• STUK / Milk Conference - Radiation Emergency(www.riihi.hut.fi/stuk)
45
S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology
SAL eLearning sites
• www.dm.hut.fiDecision making resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory
• www.mcda.hut.fieLearning in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis
• www.negotiation.hut.fieLearning in Negotiation Analysis
• www.decisionarium.hut.fiDecision support tools and resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory
• www.or-world.comOR-World project site
top related