Multi-Attribute Decision Making MADM Many decisions involve consideration of multiple attributes Another term: multiple criteria Examples: –Purchasing.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Linear Programming. Introduction: Linear Programming deals with the optimization (max. or min.) of a function of variables, known as ‘objective function’,
Advertisements

Multi-Attribute Utility Theory (MAUT)
Multi‑Criteria Decision Making
Copyright © 2006 Pearson Education Canada Inc. Chapter 14 Consumer Decision Making I: The Process Consumer Behaviour Canadian Edition Schiffman/Kanuk/Das.
Rational Choice Sociology Lecture 4 Rational Choice under Uncertainty.
Multiobjective Value Analysis.  A procedure for ranking alternatives and selecting the most preferred  Appropriate for multiple conflicting objectives.
Multiobjective Analysis. An Example Adam Miller is an independent consultant. Two year’s ago he signed a lease for office space. The lease is about to.
Analytic Hierarchy Process Multiple-criteria decision-making Real world decision problems –multiple, diverse criteria –qualitative as well as quantitative.
Multi-Attribute Utility Models with Interactions
13.21 A decision maker faces a risky gamble in which she may obtain one of five outcomes. Label the outcomes A, B, C, D, and E. A is the most preferred,
Copyright © 2006 Pearson Education Canada Inc Course Arrangement !!! Nov. 22,Tuesday Last Class Nov. 23,WednesdayQuiz 5 Nov. 25, FridayTutorial 5.
Mutli-Attribute Decision Making Scott Matthews Courses: /
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.
Multi-Criteria Decision Aide (MCDA) at the Watershed Scale Watershed HealthLand-Use Change and Social Context Biophysical Land Use Society Community Economy.
Consumer Decision Making
INFM 718A / LBSC 705 Information For Decision Making
1 Mutli-Attribute Decision Making Eliciting Weights Scott Matthews Courses: /
Consumer Decision Making
1 Multi-Criteria Decision Making MCDM Approaches.
MADM Y. İlker TOPCU, Ph.D twitter.com/yitopcu.
Constructing the Decision Model Y. İlker TOPCU, Ph.D twitter.com/yitopcu.
ELearning / MCDA Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology Introduction to Value Tree Analysis eLearning resources / MCDA team Director.
Energy Drink Report BY OMAR ABDUL, JACOB BIMBI, AND ZACH CLIPPER.
Analyzing the Problem (MAVT) Y. İlker TOPCU, Ph.D twitter.com/yitopcu.
Consumer Behavior Conjoint analysis Conjoint Analysis.
Roles of Economists and New Analytical Requirements
Spreadsheet Modeling and Decision Analysis, 3e, by Cliff Ragsdale. © 2001 South-Western/Thomson Learning Multicriteria Decision Making u Decision.
Multi-Criteria Decision Making by: Mehrdad ghafoori Saber seyyed ali
1 Chapter 16 The Analytic Hierarchy Process. 2 The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which was developed by Thomas Saaty when he was acting as an adviser.
USING PREFERENCE CONSTRAINTS TO SOLVE MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION MAKING PROBLEMS Tanja Magoč, Martine Ceberio, and François Modave Computer Science Department,
BestChoice: A Decision Support System for Supplier Selection in e-Marketplaces June 26, 2006 Dongjoo Lee, Tahee Lee, Sue-kyung Lee, Ok-ran Jeong, Hyeonsang.
1 Mutli-Attribute Decision Making Scott Matthews Courses: / /
Making a Hard Decision Maneesha Mankad. Industrial Engineering at Disney.
Consumer Decision Making I: The Process. What Would a Pet Owner Need to Know in Order to Make a Decision About Buying Pet Insurance? 2 Copyright 2010.
Multi-Criteria Decision Making
An overview of multi-criteria analysis techniques The main role of the techniques is to deal with the difficulties that human decision-makers have been.
Chapter 7 Consumer Decision Making. Sample Consumption Decisions Buy or not buy? Buy car or go on a cruise? Buy sedan or coupe? Buy Toyota or Volvo? Buy.
Preference Modelling and Decision Support Roman Słowiński Poznań University of Technology, Poland  Roman Słowiński.
Comparison by Division of Two Quantities A proportional comparison in which one quantity can be described as a ratio of the other.
Copyright ©2015 by Pearson Education, Inc. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey All rights reserved. Engineering Economy, Sixteenth Edition By William.
Fuel Cell Systems Engineering, F06 Fuel Cell Systems Engineering Lecture 7 Quantitative Decision Methods.
The Design Process Applying Value Analysis to Determine an Optimum Solution by Prof. Bitar Last edit: 03/24/15.
CONSUMER BEHAVIOR Assistant professor Bojan Georgievski PhD
16469 Low Energy Building Design Conflict and Interaction in Environmental Engineering Design.
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.
Decision Making Matrix A Closer Look at Preliminary Ideas.
New Product Development Management NPDM 6 Mohsen SADEGHI Department of Graduate School of Management and Economics Sharif University of Technology.
Essentials for Measurement. Basic requirements for measuring 1) The reduction of experience to a one dimensional abstraction. 2) More or less comparisons.
Preference Modelling and Decision Support Roman Słowiński Poznań University of Technology, Poland  Roman Słowiński.
Understanding Buyers Module Three. Categories of Buyers FirmsInstitutionsGovernments Non-Profit Organizations ________________ ________________.
DADSS Multiattribute Utility Theory. Administrative Details Homework Assignment 6 is due Monday. (slightly shorter) Homework Assignment 7 posted tonight.
Analytic Hierarchy Process Multiple-criteria decision-making Real world decision problems –multiple, diverse criteria –qualitative as well as quantitative.
1 Civil Systems Planning Benefit/Cost Analysis Scott Matthews Courses: / / Lecture 16.
A notional science prioritisation Morton, Alec and Bird, D. and Jones, A. and White, M. (2011) Decision conferencing for science prioritisation in the.
The Decision Making Process Week 4 MGT Principles of Management and Business.
Consumer Decision Making
Culture and Group decision Making exercise
Reality of Highway Construction Equipment in Palestine
Supplement S7 Supplier Selection.
Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
The Modeling Process Objective Hierarchies Variables and Attributes
Fundamentals of Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Problems
Attitudes and Attributes
Developing a Hiring System
Chapter 14: Decision Making Considering Multiattributes
IME634: Management Decision Analysis
Introduction to Value Tree Analysis
Multi-Attribute Decision Making MADM
Presentation transcript:

Multi-Attribute Decision Making MADM Many decisions involve consideration of multiple attributes Another term: multiple criteria Examples: –Purchasing a car, boat, house, production equipment –Deciding among several designs of system or system improvement

Multi-Attribute Utility functions Very often these decision involve conflicting objectives (criteria) Conflicts and trade-offs for other situations: –Car, house, etc. –Rarely does one alternative provide the optimum of all desired criteria Use multi-attribute utility functions to model these decisions

Multi-Attribute Utility functions Determine the objectives of the decision Determine the attributes (criteria) Search for alternative Collect data, raw/natural values of each alternative for each criteria Convert raw data to Utilities (0 to 1) Assessing the relative value of each criteria, weights Evaluate the Total Utility of each alternative Perform Sensitivity Choose best

Common Decision situations Single future with multiple criteria: 2 dimensions W j A j C i W1C1W1C1 W2C2W2C2 WnCnWnCn A1A1 v 11 v 12 v 1n A2A2 v 21 v 22 v 2n AmAm v m1 v m2 v mn

Additive utility function Criteria: C 1, C 2, …, C n, or C i, i = 1 to n Alternatives: A 1, A 2, …, A m, or A j, j = 1 to m You have a utility function for each: U 1 (x 1 ), U 2 (x 2 ), …, U m (x m ), on a scale of 0 to 1. For best x, U(x) = 1, For worst x, U(x) = 0 Utility of v ij of x j = u ij TU(x j ) = w 1 U(x 11 )+ w 2 U(x 21 )+ … + w n U(x nm ) = w i U(x ij ) w i is the weight of the i th attribute, w i = 1

Objectives and Attributes Goals & Objectives  Attributes, Criteria –Goals are usually non-measurable, qualitative language –Objectives are measure measurement scales of the attributes –$$, MPG, Ratings, Speed, etc.

Objectives and Attributes Essential aspects of objectives The set of objectives should represent the overall goals. The objectives in the set should not be redundant Objectives converted to measurable attributes Attribute scales must be operational – provide an easy way to measure and obtain evaluate on outcomes

Example Automobile example: –Three alternatives –five attributes (criteria): Price($), fuel efficiency(mpg), Safety(Rating), Comfort/Ride(Rating), Color Min price(Less is better), Max Others(more is better) –Relatively easy to evaluate More complex with more attributes and different measurement scales

Additive utility function Consider: How do you compare preference of attributes with different metrics? (apples and oranges) How do you compare the attributes in terms of importance to the decision? –Safety is twice as important as price?? Utility function to model preferences

Additive utility function Criteria: C 1, C 2, …, C n, or C i, i = 1 to n Alternatives: A 1, A 2, …, A m, or A j, j = 1 to m You have a utility function for each: U 1 (x 1 ), U 2 (x 2 ), …, U m (x m ), on a scale of 0 to 1. For best x, U(x) = 1, For worst x, U(x) = 0 Utility of v ij of x j = u ij U(x j ) = w 1 U(x 11 )+ w 2 U(x 21 )+ … + w n U(x nm ) = w i U(x ij ) w i is the weight of the i th attribute, w i = 1

Example Scores – determine scores on the same attribute scale (utility) for valid comparison Assessing weights – determine the importance of each weight relative to the others. Example: Choosing an Automobile Raw or natural scores (measurements) PriceFuel Effic. (MPG)Safety RatingComfort/RideColor Prexel$22, Red Criston$25, Black Thrush$27, Blue

Utility function Example: More is Better, Choosing an Automobile determine the best and worst raw scores on each attribute –Fuel Effic.: Best: Criston (38), Worst: Prexel (32) –Utility of Best, Worst: U(38) = 1, U(32) = 0 –Utility of Thrush (35mpg)? Linear scaling u i (x) = (x – Worst Value) / (Best Value – Worst Value) u i (35) = (35 – 32) / (38 – 32) = 3 / 6= 0.50

Utility function Example: Less is Better, Choosing an Automobile determine the best and worst raw scores on each attribute –Price: Best: Prexel ($22), Worst: Thrush ($27) –Utility of price: U(Best[min]) = U(22) = 1, ….and U(Worst[max]) = U(27) = 0 –Utility of Criston($25)? Linear scaling u i (x) = (Worst Value - X) / (Worst Value – Best Value) u i (25) = ( ) / (27 – 22) = 2 / 5= 0.4

Assessing qualitative attributes Some attributes may not have natural scales of measurement or may be qualitative This is a subjective evaluation. Example: color of automobile –Three possible colors: Red, Blue, or Black –Determine most preferred and least preferred –Then scale to utility of 0 to 1 U(most preferred) = 1, U(least preferred) = 0 –Determine where the intermediate colors are on this 0 to 1 scale. U(Red) = 1, U(Black) = 0 U(Blue) = ?? Subjective: U(Blue) = 0.7

Decision Table with Utilities After all raw scores are converted to utilities, this is the decision table. Price Fuel Effic. (MPG) Safety RatingComfort/RideColor Prexel Criston Thrush

Assessing weights Determine the relative importance of each criteria (attribute) There are several methods. –Subjective ranking and evaluating –Pricing out –Swing Weighting Determine the weights, w i, and

Assessing weights Subjective ranking and evaluating –Rank the criteria in importance –Give higher weights to more important and lower weights to less important. –Remember Example: price(c 1 ), fuel efficiency(c 2 ), safety(c 3 ), comfort/ride(c 4 ), and color(c 5 ) Ranking: [C 2 and C 3 ], C 4, [C 1 and C 5 ]. Weights: C 1 = 0.1, C 2 = 0.3, C 3 = 0.3, C 4 = 0.2, C 5 = 0.1

Applying the Weights – Total Utility TU(x j ) = w 1 U(x 11 )+ w 2 U(x 21 )+ … + w n U(x nm ) = w i U(x ij ) For A 1, the Prexel, the Total Utility Score = (0.1)(1) + (0.3)(0) + (0.3)(0.21) + (0.2)(0) + (0.1)(1) = %30% 20%10% Price Fuel Effic. (MPG) Safety RatingComfort/RideColor Prexel Criston Thrush

Evaluating all Alternatives 10%30% 20%10%100% Price Fuel Effic. (MPG) Safety RatingComfort/RideColor Total Score Prexel Criston Thrush

Sensitivity Analysis Play with the weights, adjust up and down Find where alternatives are equal in total utility How do the adjusted weights feel compared to the original set of weights?

Sensitivity Example Equal weights More weight on Price 20% 100% Price Fuel Effic. (MPG) Safety Rating Comfort/RideColor Total Score Prexel Criston Thrush %20% 10% 100% Price Fuel Effic. (MPG) Safety Rating Comfort/RideColor Total Score Prexel Criston Thrush