Aiding Decisions and Collecting Opinions on the Web D E C I S I O N A R I U M a 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 www.decisionarium.hut.fi Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology www.sal.hut.fi

D E C I S I O N A R I U M 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 mobile group support facility group decision making group collaboration multicriteria decision analysis WINPRE internet decision making GDSS, NSS notebooks in a wireless LAN CSCW PAIRS, interval AHP/SMART DSS Joint Gains multi-party negotiation support with the method of improving directions internet tools for decision analysis with imprecise ratio statements computer support PRIME Decisions Opinions-Online Web-HIPRE value tree and AHP based decision support platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group decisions web-sites www.decisionarium.hut.fi www.hipre.hut.fi www.jointgains.hut.fi www.opinions.hut.fi www.smartchoices.hut.fi PRIME Decisions and WINPRE: downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Downloadables Smart Choices elimination of criteria/alternatives by even swaps selected publications J. Mustajoki and R.P. Hämäläinen: Web-HIPRE - Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, manuscipt, 2000. A. Salo and R.P. Hämäläinen: Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Operations Research, 1992. A. Salo and R.P. Hämäläinen: Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons, EJOR, 1995. R.P. Hämäläinen and M. Pöyhönen: On-line group decision support by preference programming in traffic planning, Group Decision and Negotiation, 1996. A. Salo and R.P. Hämäläinen: PRIME - Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation, manuscipt , 1999. H. Ehtamo, E. Kettunen and R.P. Hämäläinen: Searching for Joint Gains in Multi-Party Negotiations, EJOR, 2000. Updated 22.2.2000 Systems Analysis Laboratory

Global Decision Support 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 Smart Choices Software (www.smartchoices.hut.fi) Multicriteria decision support with the even swaps method Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi) Multi-party negotiation support with the method of improving directions

eLearning Decision Making www.dm.hut.fi SAL eLearning sites: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis www.mcda.hut.fi Decision Making Under Uncertainty Negotiation Analysis www.negotiation.hut.fi

SAL eLearning sites Material: 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 eLearning modules: 4 - 6 hours study time Instructors can create their own modules using the material and software Academic non-profit use is free

Opinions-Online Platform for Global Participation, Voting, Surveys and Group Decisions www.opinions-online.com Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen Programming: Reijo Kalenius

Surveys on the web Fast, easy and cheap Hyperlinks to background information Easy access to results Results can be analyzed on-line

Creating a new session Browser-based generation of new sessions Fast and simple Templates available

Possible questions Survey section Best/worst Ranking Rating Approval voting Written comments

Survey section Multiple single choice questions Unrestricted number of alternatives Also used to select user groups in results

Ranking Participant ranks all or some of the best alternatives

Multiattribute rating Numerical values for different attributes

Approval voting The user is asked to pick the alternatives that he/she can approve Often better than a simple “choose best” question when trying to reach a consensus

Sessions with access restrictions By: Registration, domain, e-mail list The participants have a username and password The system sends passwords by email if an email-address list is specified Users previous submission is replaced by the newest one -> Opinion barometer

Viewing the results In real-time In selected user groups Public or restricted access

Advanced voting rules www.opinion.vote.hut.fi Condorcet criteria Copeland’s methods, Dodgson’s method, Maximin method Borda count Nanson’s method, University method Black’s method Plurality voting Coombs’ method, Hare system, Bishop method

Advanced voting rules For example Borda Count

Examples of use Course evaluation (universities,schools,seminars) Customer satisfaction survey Gathering marketing opinions Teledemocracy - citizens’ participation Organisation’s internal surveys Website feedback forms Etc, etc.

Global Multicriteria Decision Support by Web-HIPRE A Java-applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis www.hipre.hut.fi Raimo P. Hämäläinen Jyri Mustajoki Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology http://www.sal.hut.fi

Web-HIPRE links can refer to any web-pages

Direct Weighting Note: Weights in this example are her personal opinions

SWING,SMART and SMARTER Methods SMARTER uses rankings only

Pairwise Comparison - AHP Continuous scale 1-9 Numerical, verbal or graphical approach

Value Function Ratings of alternatives shown Any shape of the value function allowed

Composite Priorities Bar graphs or numerical values Bars divided by the contribution of each criterion

Group Decision Support Group model is the weighted sum of individual decision makers’ composite priorities for the alternatives

Defining Group Members Individual value trees can be different Composite priorities of each group member - obtained from their individual models - shown in the definition phase

Aggregate Group Priorities Contribution of each group member indicated by segments

Sensitivity analysis Changes in the relative importance of decision makers can be analyzed

Now that we have the global Web-HIPRE Is there finally hope in real life attribute weighting ? NO: If procedural and behavioural aspects are ignored YES: If risks of biases are acknowledged and avoided by instruction

The sources of biases and problems

Future challenges Web makes MCDA tools available to everybody - Should everybody use them ? It is the resbonsibility of the multicriteria decision analysis community to: learn to use different weighting methods focus on the praxis and avoidance of behavioural biases develop and identify “best practice” procedures

Literature M. Pöyhönen and R.P. Hämäläinen: There is hope in attribute weighting, INFOR, Vol. 38, no. 3, Aug. 2000, pp. 272-282. M. Pöyhönen and R.P. Hämäläinen: On the Convergence of Multiattribute Weighting Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 129, No. 3, March 2001, pp. 569-585. M. Pöyhönen, H.C.J. Vrolijk and R.P. Hämäläinen: Behavioral and Procedural Consequences of Structural Variation in Value Trees, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 134/1, 2001, pp. 218-227. J. Mustajoki and R.P.Hämäläinen: Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, INFOR, Vol. 38, no. 3, Aug. 2000, pp. 208-220. J. Mustajoki, R.P. Hämäläinen and M. Marttunen: Participatory multicriteria decision support with Web-HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy. Manuscript 2002.

Smart Choices Software Smart Choices with the Even Swaps Method www.smartchoices.hut.fi Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen, Jyri Mustajoki Programming: Pauli Alanaatu Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology http://www.sal.hut.fi 1

Smart Choices An iterative process to support multicriteria decision making Uses the even swaps method to make trade-offs two alternatives are made equal in some attribute and the change is compensated in some other attribute (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1999)

Even swaps Make  These can be removed from the problem attributes irrelevant same value in every alternative or alternatives dominated outranked by some other alternative in every attribute  These can be removed from the problem Process continues until the best i.e. remaining alternative is found

Smart Choices Software Support The handling of the consequences matrix Making even swaps Undo - Redo Rankings of the alternatives, etc. Procedural support Information about the even swaps Smart suggestions for the next even swaps Identification of practically, i.e. almost dominated alternatives

Office location (Hammond et al., 1999)

Even swaps interface

Joint Gains Negotiation Support in the Internet www.jointgains.hut.fi Eero Kettunen, Raimo P. Hämäläinen, and Harri Ehtamo Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology www.sal.hut.fi 1

Joint Gains Negotiation Support in the Internet user can create his own case 2 to N participants (negotiating parties, DM’s) 2 to M continuous decision variables linear inequality constraints participants distributed in the web

Method of Improving Directions Ehtamo, Kettunen, and Hämäläinen (2002) Efficient frontier . Utility of DM 1 Utility of DM 2 Interactive method for reaching efficient alternatives Search of joint gains from a given initial alternative In the mediation process participants are given simple comparison tasks: “Which one of these two alternatives do you prefer, alternative A or B?” 6

Mediation Process Tasks in Preference Identification Initial alternative considered as “current alternative” Task 1 for identifying participants’ most preferred directions Joint Gains calculates a jointly improving direction Task 2 for identifying participants’ most preferred alternatives in the jointly improving direction series of pairwise comparisons series of pairwise comparisons

Mediation Process Reaching Joint Gain - Acceptance of the New Alternative Joint Gains finds potential candidate for a jointly improving alternative (compared to the current one) Joint Gains asks the participants if they prefer the candidate to the current one If a jointly improving alternative is found, it becomes the next “current alternative” and the process is repeated ? one pairwise comparison

DM’s Utility Functions? DM’s reply holistically No explicit assessment of utility functions Joint Gains only calls for local preference information Post-settlement setting in the neighborhood of the current alternative Joint Gains allows learning and change of preferences during the process

Case example: Business Two participants buyer and seller Three decision variables unit price ($): 10..50 amount (lb): 1..1000 delivery (days): 1..30 Delivery constraint (figure): 999*delivery - 29*amount ³ 970 Initial agreement: 30 $, 100 lb, 25 days 30 delivery (days) 1 1 1000 amount (lb)

Creating a case: Criteria to provide optional decision aiding

Creating a case: Constraints

Sessions Participants take part in sessions within the case Sessions produce efficient alternatives Case administrator can start new sessions on-line and define new initial starting points Sessions can be parallel Each session has an independent mediation process Joint Gains - Business Session 1 ® efficient point Session 2 ® efficient point Session 3 ® efficient point . Session n ® efficient point

Participant can access the case anywhere in the world with a Java enabled browser I am case admistrator

New comparison task is given after all participants have completed the first one Preference identification task 2 Not started Preference identification task 1 JOINT GAIN? Stopped

Pairwise Comparison in a Comparison Task

Session view - joint gains after two steps

Literature Kettunen, E., R. P. Hämäläinen, and H. Ehtamo. (1999). “Joint Gains - Negotiation Support in the Internet,” Computer Software. Systems Analysis Laboratory, HUT, Finland. www.joingains.hut.fi Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R.P. Hämäläinen. (1999). “How to select Fair Improving Directions in a negotiation Model over Continuous Issues,” IEEE Trans. On Syst., Man, and Cybern. - C. 29(1), 26-33 Ehtamo, H., E. Kettunen, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (2000) “Searching for Joint Gains in Multi-Party Negotiations”. European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 130, No. 1, February 2001, pp. 54-69 Hämäläinen, H., E. Kettunen, M. Marttunen, and H. Ehtamo. (2001) Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 331-353, 2001.

Academic Use is Free ! Opinions-Online (www.opinions.hut.fi) Commercial site and pricing: www.opinions-online.com Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi) Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi) Smart Choices (www.smartchoices.hut.fi) WINPRE and PRIME for interval models available at: www.decisionarium.hut.fi Please, let us know your experiences. Is there interest in testing global group processes ?

Public participatory projects 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)

SAL eLearning sites www.dm.hut.fi Decision making resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory www.mcda.hut.fi eLearning in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis www.negotiation.hut.fi eLearning in Negotiation Analysis www.decisionarium.hut.fi Decision support tools and resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory www.or-world.com OR-World project site