Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Chapter 12 Analyzing Semistructured Decision Support Systems Systems Analysis and Design Kendall and Kendall Fifth Edition.

Advertisements

Hydrogen Production Decisions: Decision Making in View of Differing Stakeholder Preferences Elvin Yuzugullu Doctoral Candidate The George Washington University.

1PRIME Decisions - An Interactive Tool for Value Tree Analysis Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory PRIME Decisions - An Interactive.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory RPM – Robust Portfolio Modeling for Project Selection Pekka Mild, Juuso Liesiö and Ahti Salo.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory RICHER – A Method for Exploiting Incomplete Ordinal Information in Value Trees Antti Punkka.

Introduction to Management Science

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 1 We have the tools How to attract the people? Creating a culture of Web-based participation.

Mika Marttunen Finnish Environment Institute R., P. Hämäläinen Helsinki University of Technology Project web page: DECISION ANALYSIS.

Introduction to Management Science

1 Enviromatics Decision support systems Decision support systems Вонр. проф. д-р Александар Маркоски Технички факултет – Битола 2008 год.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology A Preference Programming Approach to Make the Even Swaps Method Even Easier Jyri Mustajoki.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision Support for the Even Swaps Process with Preference Programming Jyri Mustajoki Raimo.

Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology e-Learning Negotiation Analysis Harri Ehtamo Raimo P Hämäläinen Ville Koskinen Systems Analysis.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Using Intervals for Global Sensitivity and Worst Case Analyses in Multiattribute Value Trees.

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Kai Virtanen, Tuomas Raivio, and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory (SAL)

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision and Negotiation Support in Multi-Stakeholder Development of Lake Regulation Policy.

ELearning / MCDA Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Introduction to Value Tree Analysis eLearning resources / MCDA team Director.

The Internet in Education Objectives Introduction Overview –The World Wide Web –Web Page v. Web Site v. Portal Unique and Compelling Characteristics Navigation.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Ahti Salo and Antti Punkka Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Rank-Based Sensitivity Analysis of Multiattribute Value Models Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory RPM-Explorer - A Web-based Tool for Interactive Portfolio Decision Analysis Erkka Jalonen.

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Kai Virtanen, Raimo P. Hämäläinen and Ville Mattila Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki.

E-participation Requires Systems Intelligence Paula Siitonen and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory Marcelo.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology We have the tools How to attract the people? Creating a culture of Web-based participation.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 1 Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology

1 Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology How to Benefit from Decision Analysis in Environmental Life Cycle Assessment Pauli Miettinen.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Can We Avoid Biases in Environmental Decision Analysis ? Raimo P. Hämäläinen Helsinki University.

LINDA’S INTERVIEWSGAP ANALYSES Task 1: DEVELOP OBJECTIVE FUNCTIONS AND INTERFACE ELEMENTS IMPORTANT TO STAKEHOLDERS Drivers, Goals, Barriers Spatial habitat.

Software Requirements Engineering Negotiation Process Lecture-18.

Chapter 9 - Multicriteria Decision Making 1 Chapter 9 Multicriteria Decision Making Introduction to Management Science 8th Edition by Bernard W. Taylor.

Enabling Technology for Participatory Spatial Decision Making Hans Voss Gennady Andrienko Natalia Andrienko Spatial Decision Support Team

Decision Support System for the Long-Term City Metabolism Planning Problem Work Package 54 Mark Morley, Diogo Vitorino, Kourosh Behzadian, Rita Ugarelli,

Mika Marttunen Mikko Dufva Finnish Environment Institute Jyri Mustajoki Tampere University of Technology Timo P. Karjalainen Thule Institute, University.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Observations from computer- supported Even Swaps experiments using the Smart-Swaps software.

1 Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University, School of Science December, 2010 Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and.

A Dynamic Interval Goal Programming Approach to the Regulation of a Lake-River System Raimo P. Hämäläinen Juha Mäntysaari S ystems Analysis Laboratory.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 1 Raimo P. Hämäläinen Jyri Mustajoki Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Selecting Forest Sites for Voluntary Conservation in Finland Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Practical dominance and process support in the Even Swaps method Jyri Mustajoki Raimo P.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology.

Methodologies and Tools for Technology Needs Assessment: an Overview Zou Ji Dept. of environmental Economics and Management, Renmin University of China.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision Conferencing in Nuclear Emergency Management by Raimo P. Hämäläinen Mats Lindstedt.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory 1DAS workshop Ahti A. Salo and Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki.

MCDA can be realized in many ways A. Decision makers and experts use MCDA on their own, no stakeholders involved B. Stakeholders opinions are.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 1 Decision Analysis Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Incomplete Ordinal Information in Value Tree Analysis Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems.

Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology An e-Learning module on Negotiation Analysis Harri Ehtamo Raimo P.

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Master’s Thesis Antti Punkka “ Uses of Ordinal Preference Information in Interactive Decision.

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology 15th MCDM conference - Ankara Mats Lindstedt / 1 Using Intervals for Global.

Water Use Planning Siobhan Jackson BC Hydro Generation November 3, 2004 CEATI Water Management Workshop, Vancouver BC Translating Sustainability Theory.

ON ELICITATION TECHNIQUES OF NEAR-CONSISTENT PAIRWISE COMPARISON MATRICES József Temesi Department of Operations Research Corvinus University of Budapest,

Mustajoki, Hämäläinen and Salo Decision support by interval SMART/SWING / 1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Decision support.

preference statements

Chapter 8 Environments, Alternatives, and Decisions.

Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff Elicitation Procedure

Aiding Decisions and Collecting Opinions on the Web

ION 21 Team Portal System Decision-making and motivation forecasting system for the 21st century.

Multi-Criteria Decision Aiding with the Use of DECERNS WebSDSS

MBA, PhD student Behavioral studies of Decision making

Aiding Decisions and Collecting Opinions on the Web

Raimo P. Hämäläinen Juha Mäntysaari

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 group decision making multicriteria decision analysis group.

Overview The World Wide Web has changed the way that people

Decision support by interval SMART/SWING Methods to incorporate uncertainty into multiattribute analysis Ahti Salo Jyri Mustajoki Raimo P. Hämäläinen.

Juuso Liesiö, Pekka Mild and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory

Planning process in river basin management

Introduction to Value Tree Analysis

Chapter 12 Analyzing Semistructured Decision Support Systems

FITradeoff Method (Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff)

Presentation transcript:

Decision and Negotiation Support in Multi-Stakeholder Development of Lake Regulation Policy Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology http://www.hut.fi/Units/SAL/Web-Activities/ These slides are part of the tutorial: Tung X. Bui, Stony Ishikawa, Raimo P. Hämäläinen and Melvin Shakun “Environmental Negotiation with Information Technology” 32nd Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences

The Framework 1. Structuring the problem 2. Identifying Pareto-optimal alternatives 3. Seeking group consensus 4. Seeking public acceptance Objective to provide support for the whole decision process

Information Technology Dynamic policy alternatives: ISMO - Interactive analysis of dynamic water regulation Strategies by Multicriteria Optimization Problem Structuring - comparison of policy alternatives: HIPRE 3+ Web-HIPRE

Pareto-optimal policies: Joint-Gains - Generating efficient alternatives (in testing with simplefied goals) Group-consensus: HIPRE Grouplink (Interval AHP model) WINPRE - Workbench for Interval Preference Programming (Interval AHP, SMART/SWING) Opinion Online - Web-based survey and voting Public - acceptance:

Development of Water Level Management Policy in Lake Päijänne Annual regulation policy defined by 5-6 water level goals Stakeholders with conflicting objectives Power producers, fishermen, farmers, regreational users First phase of true testing Role playing experiments

LAKE PÄIJÄNNE RIVER KYMIJOKI LAKES RUOTSALAINEN AND KONNIVESI LAKE PYHÄJÄRVI RIVER KYMIJOKI 10 20 30 40 50 km

Need for Modeling and Decision Support Dynamic system No intuitive solutions - impacts are functions of decision variables Interactive analysis of impacts Multiple criteria Many stakeholder groups

Dynamic Regulation Policies

Utopia solution Realistic solution Water level Water level Outflow

Web-HIPRE Values related to the regulation policy Decision analysis interviews of stakeholders Open public prioritizations

Structuring the Problem Iterative value tree analysis Hierarchical structuring and prioritization Decision criteria Learning the ranges by initial prioritizations with temporary alternatives Stakeholder grouping

Web-HIPRE - Java-Applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis Starting Window

The First Interactive MCDA Software in the Internet Web-HIPRE = HIerarchical PREference analysis in the World Wide Web Successor of the the decision support software HIPRE 3+ Unlimited global access Opens up a new dimension in decision support

Global Platform for Individual and Group Decision Support Computer Supported Collaborative Decision Making - Physical distance is no longer a barrier Individual models can be processed at the same or at different times Group results easy to collect Model links can contain additional WWW-links, graphics, sound or video This can increase the quality of decision support dramatically

Web-HIPRE as a Java-applet Platform independent - works in different computer environments No installations on local machines - just a Java-enabled browser needed (e.g. Netscape 3.01, Internet Explorer 3.0 or newer) Updated version always available On-line help also implemented by WWW-links

Value Tree Analysis by Web-HIPRE

Web-HIPRE Weights Environmentalist

Weighting Methods Spported by Web-HIPRE Direct weighting, SMART, SWING SMARTER - rank based Pairwise Comparisons (AHP) Value Functions Any combinations of these

Method of Improving Directions Joint Gains software Interactive method for the identification of efficient alternatives (Ehtamo, Kettunen and Hämäläinen (1998)) Decision makers reply to simple questions: “Which one of these alternatives do you prefer most?” or “Which one of these two alternatives do you prefer, A or B?”

Negotiation Support System Joint Gains - Negotiation Support System Joint Gains DM interface Subject 5: “power company” Joint Gains Mediator Joint Gains DM interface Subject 4: “farmer” Local area network questions replies Joint Gains DM interface Joint Gains DM interface Joint Gains DM interface Subject 1: “environmentalist” Subject 3: “fisherman” Subject 2: “summer resident”

Mediation Processes for 2 and 3 DM Groups initial and intermediate points stopping point Roles: Fisherman & Farmer Farmer, Power company & Summer resident Summer resident & Environmentalist

Seeking Group Consensus Select and evaluate a representative set of efficient alternatives by interval value tree analysis Objective to reach consensus Tool for consensus seeking HIPRE 3+ Group Link WINPRE - Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming

HIPRE Group Link Individual AHP prioritizations (HIPRE) Combination of prioritizations (Group Link) Interval preference model (WINPRE) View from interval preference model for three DMs: Recreation Landscape DM1 DM2 DM3 Landscape Biodiversity DM2 DM3 DM1 DM2 DM1 DM3

WINPRE - Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming (AHP mode) Group priorities embedded in the interval statements

Dominance and Value Intervals The combined interval preferences models

Stakeholder Participation and Public Acceptance http://www. hut Project home pages Web-HIPRE Representatives’ prioritizations available for public in the web interactively OPINION Online - Open web-based voting and survey generator - Voting for alternatives: best and/or acceptable - On-line analysis of results

References WWW-sites The Päijänne regulation policy project: http://leino.hut.fi/päijänne.htm Web-HIPRE - Java-applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis, Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology (http://www.hipre.hut.fi). WINPRE - Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming v. 1.0, Computer software, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. Downloadable at http://www.hut.fi/ Units/Systems.Analysis/Downloadables/. References Ehtamo, H., R. P. Hämäläinen, P. Heiskanen, J. Teich, M. Verkama, and S. Zionts (1999), “Generating Pareto Solutions in Two-Party Negotiations by Adjusting Artificial Constraints,” Management Science, Vol. 45, No. 12, pp. 1697-1709. Ehtamo, H., E. Kettunen, and R. P. Hämäläinen (2001), “Searching for Joint Gains in Multi-Party Negotiations,” European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 130, No. 1, pp. 54-69. Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R. P. Hämäläinen (1998), “How to Select Fair Improving Directions in a Negotiation Model over Continuous Issues,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part C: Applications and Reviews, Vol. 28, No. 4, November 1998. Hämäläinen, R. P. (1988), “Computer Assisted Energy Policy Analysis in the Parliament of Finland,” Interfaces, 18(4), 12-23. Hämäläinen, R. P., A. A. Salo, and K. Pöysti (1991), “Observations about Consensus Seeking in a Multiple Criteria Environment,” Proceedings of the 25th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, 4, 190- 198. Hämäläinen, R. P. and H. Lauri (1993), HIPRE 3+ Decision Support Software vs. 3.13, User’s Guide, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki University of Technology. Hämäläinen, R. P. and E. Kettunen (1994), “On-Line Group Decision Support by HIPRE 3+ Group Link,” Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, July 11-13, 1994, George Washington University, Washington D.C., 547-557.

Hämäläinen, R. P., and O. Leikola (1995), “Spontaneous Decision Conferencing in Parliamentary Negotiations,” Proceedings of the 28th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE Computer Society Press, 4, 290-299. R.P. Hämäläinen, M. Lindstedt and K. Sinkko (2000), “Multi-attribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management,” Risk Analysis, Vol. 20 no. 4, pp. 455-468 R.P. Hämäläinen, E. Kettunen, M. Marttunen and H. Ehtamo(2000), “Towards decision and negotiation support in multi-stakeholder development of lake regulation policy,” Group Decision and Negotiation. (to appear) (an extended version at: http://www.hut.fi/Units/SAL/Publications/m-index.html Hämäläinen, R. P. and J. Mäntysaari (1998), “Interactive Spreadsheet Modelling of Regulation Strategies for a Lake-River System,” Proceedings of the 17th IASTED International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control, February 18-20, 1998, IASTED - Acta Press, Anaheim, Grindelwald, Switzerland, 181-184. Hämäläinen, R. P. and M. Pöyhönen (1996), “On-Line Group Decision Support by Preference Programming in Traffic Planning,” Group Decision and Negotiation, 5, 485-500. Marttunen, M. and R. P. Hämäläinen (1995), “Decision Analysis Interviews in Environmental Impact Assessment,” European Journal of Operational Research, 87, 551-563. Pöyhönen, M., H. C. Vrolijk, and R. P. Hämäläinen (2001), “Behavioral and Procedural Consequences of Structural Variation in Value Trees,” European Journal of Operational Research. (to appear) Downloadable at http://www.hut.fi/Units/Systems.Analysis/ Publications/. Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen (1992), “Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements,” Operations Research, 40, 1053-1061. Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen (1995), “Preference Programming through Approximative Ratio Comparisons,” European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 458-475. Salo A. (1995), “Interactive decision aiding for group decision support,” European Journal of Operational Research, 84, 134-149.