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

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

ELearning / MCDA Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Case: Family selecting a car eLearning resources / MCDA team Director prof.

Advertisements

Teknillinen korkeakoulu Systeemianalyysin laboratorio 1 Graduate school seminar Rank-Based DEA-Efficiency Analysis Samuli Leppänen Systems.

Developing the Strategic Research Agenda (SRA) for the Forest-Based Sector Technology Platform (FTP) RPM-Analysis Ahti Salo, Totti Könnölä and Ville Brummer.

Multi‑Criteria Decision Making

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Robust Portfolio Modeling for Scenario-Based Project Appraisal Juuso Liesiö, Pekka Mild.

1 Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University School of Science P.O. Box 11100, Aalto.

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.

Analytic Hierarchy Process Multiple-criteria decision-making Real world decision problems –multiple, diverse criteria –qualitative as well as quantitative.

Copyright © 2006 Pearson Education Canada Inc Course Arrangement !!! Nov. 22,Tuesday Last Class Nov. 23,WednesdayQuiz 5 Nov. 25, FridayTutorial 5.

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.

The Rational Decision-Making Process

Multi Criteria Decision Modeling Preference Ranking The Analytical Hierarchy Process.

I’M THINKING ABOUT BUYING A CAR BUT WHICH ONE DO I CHOOSE? WHICH ONE IS BEST FOR ME??

1 The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 2 Overview of the AHP 1.Set up decision hierarchy 2.Make pairwise comparisons of attributes and alternatives 3.Transform.

Strategic Project Alignment With Team Expert Choice

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.

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory A Portfolio Model for the Allocation of Resources to Standardization Activities Antti Toppila,

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

Presented by Johanna Lind and Anna Schurba Facility Location Planning using the Analytic Hierarchy Process Specialisation Seminar „Facility Location Planning“

 Design creates a new artifact (system, component or process) to meet a given need.  Broad Classifications ◦ Creative Designs – the first PDAs ◦ Variant.

Robustness in assessment of strategic transport projects The 21st International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making Jyväskylä June

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Robust Portfolio Selection in Multiattribute Capital Budgeting Pekka Mild and Ahti Salo.

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.

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 Robust Portfolio Modeling in the Development of National Research Priorities Ville Brummer.

Quantitative Analysis for Management Multifactor Evaluation Process and Analytic Hierarchy Process Dr. Mohammad T. Isaai Graduate School of Management.

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

1 1 Slide © 2004 Thomson/South-Western Chapter 17 Multicriteria Decisions n Goal Programming n Goal Programming: Formulation and Graphical Solution and.

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.

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 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory INFORMS 2007 Seattle Efficiency and Sensitivity Analyses in the Evaluation of University.

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

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.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Selecting Forest Sites for Voluntary Conservation with Robust Portfolio Modeling Antti.

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

2nd Meeting of Young Researchers on MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION AIDING Iryna Yevseyeva Niilo Mäki Instituutti University of Jyväskylä, Finland

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

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Portfolio and Scenario Analysis in the Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation of Weapon Systems Jussi.

1 Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Fostering the Diversity of Innovation Activities through e-Participation Totti Könnölä,

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.

Selecting a portfolio of actions with incomplete and action-dependent scenario probabilities E. Vilkkumaa, J. Liesiö, A. Salo EURO XXVII Glasgow 12 th.

1 School of Science and Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory Graduate school seminar presentation Current research topics in Portfolio Decision.

1 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Effects-Based Operations as a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Problem Jouni Pousi, Kai.

1 Ratio-Based Efficiency Analysis (REA) Antti Punkka and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory Aalto University School of Science and Technology P.O. Box.

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

Helsinki University of Technology Systems Analysis Laboratory EURO 2009, Bonn Supporting Infrastructure Maintenance Project Selection with Robust Portfolio.

To Accompany Russell and Taylor, Operations Management, 4th Edition,  2003 Prentice-Hall, Inc. All rights reserved. Supplement S7 Supplier Selection.

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

Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff Elicitation Procedure

A Scoring Model for Job Selection

Incomplete ordinal information in value tree analysis and comparison of DMU’s efficiency ratios with incomplete information Antti Punkka supervisor Prof.

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.

Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory

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

CS/EE/ME 75(a) Nov. 19, 2018 Today: Prelimnary Design Review Homework.

Juuso Liesiö, Pekka Mild and Ahti Salo Systems Analysis Laboratory

Introduction to Value Tree Analysis

FITradeoff Method (Flexible and Interactive Tradeoff)

Presentation transcript:

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

2 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Research issues Most methods of hierarchical weighting –Require numerical information in preference elicitation –Do not solicit the DM’s preferences concerning the overall performance of the alternatives –Tend to oblige the DM to give preference statements in a form or about matters he/she does not feel confident with Incomplete ordinal information –Allows the DM to associate sets of ranks to sets of alternatives / attributes –Appears to be flexible, fast if necessary, robust, easy to give decisionmaker’s confidence in the method

3 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Background Incomplete preference information –Arbel (1989) (LPs, dominance concepts) extends the AHP to incomplete preference statements –PAIRS, Preference Programming, PRIME (Salo and Hämäläinen 1992, 1995, 2001) hierarchical value trees, consistency, decision recommendations software (Winpre, PRIME Decisions), applications Rank Inclusion in Criteria Hierarchies (RICH) (Salo and Punkka 2002) –Incomplete ordinal information about the importance of attributes e.g., the two most important attributes are some of these three Compatible rankings, non-convex feasible regions, extreme points –Manuscript (submitted to EJOR in June 2002) –Software: RICH Decisions (Liesiö and Salo) –Applications evaluation of risk management tools (Ojanen 2002) Wood Wisdom II (Salo and Liesiö 2002)

4 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Different forms of incomplete ordinal information (Incomplete) ordinal information about the importance of attributes (RICH) (Incomplete) ordinal information about the attribute-specific performances of the alternatives, score information in form of intervals (Incomplete) ordinal information about the overall performances of the alternatives, interpreted as pairwise dominance LPs for 1) maximum and minimum overall values of the alternatives and 2) pairwise dominance structures Constraints for the MCDM problem from the preference statements and initial conditions (interpretation of weights, scores) Decision recommendations and pairwise dominance structures

5 S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Prospects for further research Theory development –Computational evaluation –Procedural recommendations –Scenario-based pricing of investment opportunities Software implementations –Front-end tools –Server tools Case studies –Risk management strategies –Comparative analysis of research themes