MCDM methods: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement
RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 56 (2022) no. 4, pp. 2221-2233

This paper critically reviews practical difficulties inherent in some of the existing multi-criteria decision-making methods. The paper also emphasizes why a benchmark decision situation is essential in assessing the capabilities of any multi-criteria decision-making method. The capability is in terms of accuracy in modeling the human decision-making process. Most multi-criteria decision-making methods consist of two important steps. The first step involves elicitation of preferences from the decision-maker on various criteria and alternatives of the problem. In the second step, the preferences defined by the decision-maker are aggregated. The overall score generated after aggregation is used in rank order calculation and final selection. However, if the prescriptions of multi-criteria decision-making method do not resemble actual or real decision of the very same decision-maker, then multi-criteria decision-making method failed in either capturing the true preferences of the decision-maker or in aggregating these preferences as per the expectations of the decision-maker. This paper discusses some of the latest theories of decision-making and provides three important directions to improve the descriptive aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis.

DOI : 10.1051/ro/2022060
Classification : 90-02, 90B50, 91B08, 91B16, 91B06
Keywords: Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, behavioral decision making, prospect theory, complexity theory, range sensitivity
@article{RO_2022__56_4_2221_0,
     author = {Dhurkari, Ram Kumar},
     title = {MCDM methods: {Practical} difficulties and future directions for improvement},
     journal = {RAIRO. Operations Research},
     pages = {2221--2233},
     year = {2022},
     publisher = {EDP-Sciences},
     volume = {56},
     number = {4},
     doi = {10.1051/ro/2022060},
     mrnumber = {4456295},
     language = {en},
     url = {https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022060/}
}
TY  - JOUR
AU  - Dhurkari, Ram Kumar
TI  - MCDM methods: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement
JO  - RAIRO. Operations Research
PY  - 2022
SP  - 2221
EP  - 2233
VL  - 56
IS  - 4
PB  - EDP-Sciences
UR  - https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022060/
DO  - 10.1051/ro/2022060
LA  - en
ID  - RO_2022__56_4_2221_0
ER  - 
%0 Journal Article
%A Dhurkari, Ram Kumar
%T MCDM methods: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement
%J RAIRO. Operations Research
%D 2022
%P 2221-2233
%V 56
%N 4
%I EDP-Sciences
%U https://www.numdam.org/articles/10.1051/ro/2022060/
%R 10.1051/ro/2022060
%G en
%F RO_2022__56_4_2221_0
Dhurkari, Ram Kumar. MCDM methods: Practical difficulties and future directions for improvement. RAIRO. Operations Research, Tome 56 (2022) no. 4, pp. 2221-2233. doi: 10.1051/ro/2022060

[1] M. Abdellaoui, H. Bleidhrodt and O. L’Haridon, A tractable method to measure utility and loss aversion under prospect theory. J. Risk Uncertainty 36 (2008) 245–266. | Zbl | DOI

[2] N. H. Anderson, Primacy effects in personality impression formation using a generalized order effect paradigm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2 (1965) 1–9. | DOI

[3] N. H. Anderson, Component ratings in impression formation. Psychonomic Sci. 6 (1966) 279–280. | DOI

[4] N. H. Anderson, Integration theory and attitude change. Psychol. Rev. 78 (1971) 171–206. | DOI

[5] N. H. Anderson and A. Jacobson, Effect of stimulus inconsistency and discounting instructions in personality impression formation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2 (1965) 531–539. | DOI

[6] S. E. Asch, Forming impressions of personality. J. Abnormal Soc. Psychol. 41 (1946) 258–290. | DOI

[7] C. A. Bana E Costa and J. C. Vansnick, The MACBETH approach: basic ideas, software and an application. In: Advances in Decision Analysis, edited by N. Meskens and M. Roubens. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1997) 131–157. | Zbl

[8] N. C. Barberis, Thirty years of prospect theory in economics: a review and assessment. J. Econ. Perspect. 27 (2013) 173–196. | DOI

[9] L. R. Beach and T. R. Mitchell, A contingency model for the selection of decision strategies. Acad. Manage. Rev. 3 (1978) 439–449. | DOI

[10] J. Beattie and J. Baron, Investigating the effect of stimulus range on attribute weight. J. Exp. Psychol. Human Percept. Perform. 17 (1991) 571–585. | DOI

[11] M. Behzadian, R. K. Kazemzadeh, A. Albadvi and M. Aghdasi, PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 100 (2010) 198–215. | Zbl | DOI

[12] V. Belton and A. E. Gear, On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11 (1983) 228–230. | DOI

[13] S. Benferhat, D. Dubois, S. Kaci and H. Prade, Modeling positive and negative information in possibility theory. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23 (2008) 1094–1118. | Zbl | DOI

[14] J. R. Bettman and W. C. Park, Effects of prior knowledge, experience, and phase of the choice process on the choice process and on consumer decision processes: a protocol analysis. J. Consum. Res. 7 (1980) 141–154. | DOI

[15] J. R. Bettman, M. F. Luce and J. W. Payne, Constructive consumer choice processes. J. Consum. Res. 25 (1998) 187–217. | DOI

[16] H. Bleichrodt, U. Schmidt and H. Zank, Additive utility in prospect theory. Manage. Sci. 55 (2009) 863–873. | Zbl | DOI

[17] J.-P. Brans, B. Mareschal, PROMETHEE methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, edited by J. Figueira, G. Salvatore and M. Ehrgott. Springer, New York (2005) 163–195. | Zbl

[18] P. W. Bridgman, Dimensional Analysis. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT (1922). | Zbl | JFM

[19] J. T. Cacioppo and G. G. Bernston, The affect system: architecture and operating characteristics. Curr. Directions Psychol. Sci. 8 (1999) 133–137. | DOI

[20] J. T. Cacioppo, W. L. Gardner and G. G. Bernston, Beyond bipolar conceptualizations and measures: the case of attitudes and evaluative space. Personal Soc. Psychol. Rev. 1 (1997) 3–25. | DOI

[21] J. M. Choplin and J. E. Hummel, Comparison-induced decoy effects. Memory Cogn. 33 (2005) 332–343. | DOI

[22] M. Cinelli, M. Kadziński, M. Gonzalez and R. Słowinski, How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega 96 (2020) 102261. | DOI

[23] R. M. Dawes and B. Corrigan, Linear models in decision making. Psychol. Bull. 81 (1974) 95–106. | DOI

[24] B. Dehe and D. Bamford, Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models: a case of healthcare infrastructure location. Expert Syst. App. 42 (2015) 6717–6727. | DOI

[25] P. Delquie, Inconsistent tradeoffs between attributes: new evidence in preference assessment biases. Manage. Sci. 39 (1993) 1382–1395. | Zbl | DOI

[26] P. Delquié, Bi-matching: a new preference assessment method to reduce compatibility effects. Manage. Sci. 43 (1997) 640–658. | Zbl | DOI

[27] C. Devers, R. Wiseman and R. Holmes, The effects of endowment and loss aversion in managerial stock option valuation. Acad. Manage. J. 50 (2007) 191–208. | DOI

[28] R. Dhar and R. Glazer, Similarity in context: cognitive representation and violation of preference and perceptual invariance in consumer choice. Organiz. Behav. Human Decis. Processes 67 (1996) 280–293. | DOI

[29] R. K. Dhurkari, MCGL: a new reference dependent MCDM method. Int. J. Oper. Res. 36 (2019) 477–495. | MR | DOI

[30] R. K. Dhurkari and A. K. Swain, MCGL: a new method for modelling the choice behavior of the decision maker. In: Proceedings of Decision Sciences Institute’s 44th Annual Meeting at Baltimore, USA (2013).

[31] J. S. Dyer and R. E. Wendell, A critique of the analytic hierarchy process. Technical Report 84/85–4–24, Department of Management, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA (1985).

[32] H. J. Einhorn, Use of nonlinear, non-compensatory models as a function of task and amount of information. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 6 (1971) 1–27. | DOI

[33] H. J. Einhorn and R. M. Hogarth, Behavioral decision theory: processes of judgment and choice. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 32 (1981) 53–88. | DOI

[34] Z. P. Fan, X. Zhang, F. D. Chen and Y. Liu, Multiple attribute decision making considering aspiration-levels: a method based on prospect theory. Comput. Ind. Eng. 65 (2013) 341–350. | DOI

[35] J. Figueira, S. Greco and M. Ehrgott, Editors. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer-Verlag, New York (2016). | MR | Zbl

[36] G. W. Fischer, Range sensitivity of attribute weights in multi-attribute value models. Organiz. Behav. Human Decis. Processes 62 (1995) 252–266. | DOI

[37] G. Fischer and S. A. Hawkins, Strategy compatibility, scale compatibility, and the prominence effect. J. Exp. Psychol. Human Percept. Perform. 19 (1993) 580–597. | DOI

[38] E. H. Forman and S. I. Gass, The analytic hierarchy process – an exposition. Oper. Res. 49 (2001) 469–486. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[39] S. Gächter, E. J. Johnson and A. I. Herrmann, Individual-level loss aversion in riskless and risky choices. Theory Decis. 92 (2022) 599–624. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[40] Y. Ganzach, Attribute scatter and decision outcome: judgment versus choice. Organiz. Behav. Human Decis. Processes 62 (1995) 113–122. | DOI

[41] L. F. A. M. Gomes and X. I. González, Behavioral multi-criteria decision analysis: further elaborations on the TODIM method. Found. Comput. Decis. Sci. 37 (2012) 3–8. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[42] L. F. A. M. Gomes and M. M. P. P. Lima, TODIM: basics and application to multicriteria ranking of projects with environmental impacts. Found. Comput. Decis. Sci. 16 (1992) 113–127. | Zbl

[43] L. F. A. M. Gomes and L. A. D. Rangel, An application of the TODIM method to the multicriteria rental evaluation of residential properties. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 193 (2009) 204–211. | Zbl | DOI

[44] M. Grabisch and C. Labreuche, A decade of application of the Choquet and Sugeno integrals in multi-criteria decision aid. Ann. Oper. Res. 175 (2010) 247–286. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[45] R. P. Hämäläinen and S. Alaja, The threat of biases in environmental decision analysis. Research reports, E12, Systems Analysis Laboratory, Helsinki, Finland. Association for Consumer Research, Ann Arbor, MI (2003) 431–437. http://www.e-reports.sal.hut.fi.

[46] S. A. Hawkins, Information processing strategies in riskless preference reversals: the prominence effect. Organiz. Behav. Human Decis. Processes 59 (1994) 1–26. | DOI

[47] J. Huber and N. M. Klein, Adapting cutoffs to the choice environment: the effects of attribute correlation and reliability. J. Consum. Res. 18 (1991) 346–357. | DOI

[48] J. Huber, J. W. Payne and C. Puto, Adding asymmetrically dominated alternatives: violations of regularity and the similarity hypothesis. J. Consum. Res. 9 (1982) 90–98. | DOI

[49] C. L. Hwang and K. Yoon, Multiple Attribute Decision Making-Methods and Applications, A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer-Verlag, New York (1981). | MR | Zbl

[50] E. Jacquet-Lagreze and Y. Siskos, Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience, invited review. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 130 (2001) 233–245. | Zbl | DOI

[51] I. L. Janis and L. Mann, Decision Making: A Psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. Free Press, New York (1977).

[52] E. Johnson and E. J. Russo, Product familiarity and learning new information. J. Consum. Res. 11 (1984) 542–550. | DOI

[53] S. Kaci, Logical formalisms for representing bipolar preferences. Int. J. Intell. Syst. 23 (2008) 985–997. | Zbl | DOI

[54] D. Kahneman and D. T. Miller, Norm theory: comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychol. Rev. 93 (1986) 136–153. | DOI

[55] M. F. Kaplan, Context effects in impression formation: the weighted average versus the meaning change formulation. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 19 (1971) 92–99. | DOI

[56] S. Kauffman, The Origins of Order. Oxford University Press, New York, (1993). | DOI

[57] R. Keeney, Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper. Res. 50 (2002) 935–945. | Zbl | DOI

[58] R. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives. Wiley, New York (1976). | MR | Zbl

[59] N. M. Klein and S. W. Bither, An investigation of utility-directed cut off selection. J. Consum. Res. 14 (1987) 240–255. | DOI

[60] M. M. Köksalan, J. Wallenius and S. Zionts, Multiple Criteria Decision Making: From Early History to the 21st Century. World Scientific, Singapore (2011). | DOI

[61] R. Lahdelma and P. Salminen, Prospect theory and stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis (SMAA). Omega 37 (2009) 961–971. | DOI

[62] A. K. Lampel and N. H. Anderson, Combining visual and verbal information in an impression formation task. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 9 (1968) 1–6. | DOI

[63] O. I. Larichev, Normative and Descriptive aspects of decision making. In: Multi-criteria Decision Making, Advances in MCDM Models: Algorithms, Theory and Applications: 5.1–5.24, edited by T. Gal, T. Stewart and T. Hanne. Kluwer Academic Publishing, Boston, (1999). | MR | Zbl

[64] R. D. Luce, Individual Choice Behavior. John Wiley, New York (1959). | MR | Zbl

[65] A. Mardani, A. Jusoh, K. Md Nor, Z. Khalifah, N. Zakwan and A. Valipour, Multiple criteria decision-making techniques and their applications – a review of the literature from 2000 to 2014. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraž. 28 (2015) 516–571.

[66] R. Meyer and E. J. Johnson, Empirical generalizations in the modeling of consumer choice. Marketing Sci. 14 (1995) 180–189. | DOI

[67] W. L. Moore, A cross-validity comparison of rating-based and choice-based conjoint analysis models. Int. J. Res. Marketing 21 (2004) 299–312. | DOI

[68] N. Novemsky and D. Kahneman, The boundaries of loss aversion. J. Marketing Res. 42 (2005) 119–128. | DOI

[69] G. C. Oden and N. H. Anderson, Differential weighting in integration theory. J. Exp. Psychol. 89 (1971) 152–161. | DOI

[70] J. W. Payne, Task Complexity and contingent processing in decision making: an information search and protocol analysis. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 16 (1976) 366–387. | DOI

[71] J. W. Payne, Contingent decision behavior. Psychol. Bull. 92 (1982) 382–402. | DOI

[72] J. W. Payne, M. L. Braunstein and J. S. Carroll, Exploring predecisiohal behavior: an alternative approach to decision research. Organiz. Behav. Human Perform. 22 (1978) 17–44. | DOI

[73] J. W. Payne, J. R. Bettman and E. J. Johnson, Behavioral decision research: a constructive processing perspective. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 43 (1992) 87–131. | DOI

[74] M. A. Pereira, J. R. Figueira and R. C. Marques, Using a choquet integral-based approach for incorporating decision-maker’s preference judgments in a data envelopment analysis model. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 284 (2020) 1016–1030. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[75] J. C. Pettibone and D. H. Wedell, Examining models of nondominated decoy effects across judgment and choice. Organiz. Behav. Human Decis. Processes 81 (2000) 300–328. | DOI

[76] J. C. Pettibone and D. H. Wedell, Testing alternative explanations of phantom decoy effects. J. Behav. Decis. Making 20 (2007) 323–341. | DOI

[77] D. G. Pope and M. E. Schweitzer, Is tiger woods loss averse? Persistent bias in the face of experience, competition, and high stakes. Am. Econ. Rev. 101 (2011) 129–157. | DOI

[78] M. Pöyhönen and R. P. Hämäläinen, On the convergence of multi attribute weighting methods. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 129 (2001) 569–585. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[79] A. R. Pratkanis and P. H. Farquhar, A brief history of research on phantom alternatives: evidence for seven empirical generalizations about phantoms. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 13 (1992) 103–122. | DOI

[80] R. M. Roe, J. R. Busemeyer and J. T. Townsend, Multi-alternative decision field theory: a dynamic connectionist model of decision making. Psychol. Rev. 108 (2001) 370–392. | DOI

[81] B. Roy, Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiples (la methode ELECTRE). Revue Francaise d’Informatique et de Recherche Operationnelle 8 (1968) 57–75.

[82] B. Roy, From optimization to multicriteria decision aid: three main operational attitudes. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Making, edited by H. Thierez and S. Zionts. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Vol. 130. Springer, Berlin (1976) 1–32. | Zbl | DOI

[83] B. Roy, Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands (1996). | Zbl | DOI

[84] T. L. Saaty, A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Math. Psychol. 15 (1977) 234–281. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[85] P. Salminen and J. Wallenius, Testing prospect theory in a deterministic multiple criteria decision-making environment. Decis. Sci. 24 (1993) 279–294. | DOI

[86] P. Schoemaker, The expected utility model: its variants, purposes, evidence and limitations. J. Econ. Literature 20 (1982) 529–563.

[87] R. Schumer and R. Cohen, Eine Untersuchung zur sozialen Urteilsbildung. II. Bemerkungen zur verschiedenen konkurrierenden Modellen der Urteilsbildung. Archiv fur die gesamte Psychologie. 120 (1968) 180–202.

[88] A. Shekhovtsov and W. Sałabun, A comparative case study of the VIKOR and TOPSIS rankings similarity. Proc. Comput. Sci. 176 (2020) 3730–3740. | DOI

[89] H. Simon, Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol. Rev. 63 (1956) 129–138. | DOI

[90] H. A. Simon, Invariants of human behavior. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 41 (1990) 1–19. | DOI

[91] I. Simonson, Choice based on reasons: the case of attraction and compromise effects. J. Consumer Res. 16 (1989) 158–174. | DOI

[92] I. Simonson and A. Tversky, Choice in context: tradeoff contrast and extremeness aversion. J. Marketing Res. 29 (1992) 231–295. | DOI

[93] P. Slovic, Analyzing the expert judge: a descriptive study of a stockbroker’s decision processes. J. Appl. Psychol. 53 (1969) 255–263. | DOI

[94] P. Slovic, B. Fischhoff and S. Lichtenstein, Behavioral decision theory. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 28 (1977) 1–39. | DOI

[95] P. Slovic, M. Finucane, E. Peters and D. G. Macgregor, The affect heuristic. In: Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, edited by T. Gilovitch, D. Griffin and D. Kahneman. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002) 397–420. | DOI

[96] R. L. Solso, Cognitive Psychology. Allyn and Bacon Inc., Boston (1988).

[97] E. Triantaphyllou, Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, USA (2000). | Zbl

[98] E. Triantaphyllou, Two new cases of rank reversals when the AHP and some of its additive variants are used that do not occur with the Multiplicative AHP. Multi-Criteria Decis. Anal. 10 (2001) 11–25. | Zbl | DOI

[99] K. Tsetsos, M. Usher and N. Chater, Preference reversal in multiattribute choice. Psychol. Rev. 117 (2010) 1275–1293. | DOI

[100] A. Tversky, Intransitivity of preferences. Psychol. Rev. 76 (1969) 31–48. | DOI

[101] A. Tversky, elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychol. Rev. 79 (1972) 281–299. | DOI

[102] A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference dependent model. Q. J. Econ. 107 (1991) 1039–1061. | DOI

[103] A. Tversky and I. Simonson, Context dependent preferences. Manage. Sci. 39 (1993) 1179–1189. | Zbl | DOI

[104] A. Tversky, S. Sattath and P. Slovic, Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol. Rev. XCV (1988) 371–384. | DOI

[105] M. Usher and J. L. Mcclelland, Loss aversion and inhibition in dynamical models of multialternative choice. Psychol. Rev. 111 (2004) 757–769. | DOI

[106] E. Valenzi and L. R. Andrews, Individual differences in the decision process of employment interviewers. J. Appl. Psychol. 58 (1973) 49–53. | DOI

[107] J. Wallenius, J. S. Dyer, P. C. Fishburn, R. E. Steuer, S. Zionts and K. Deb, Multiple criteria decision making, multi attribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Manage. Sci. 54 (2008) 1336–1349. | Zbl | DOI

[108] X. Wang and E. Triantaphyllou, Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods. Omega 36 (2008) 45–63. | DOI

[109] J. Wątróbski, J. Jankowski, P. Ziemba, A. Karczmarczyk and M. Zioło, Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection: rule set database and exemplary decision support system implementation blueprints. Data Brief 22 (2019) 639. | DOI

[110] J. Watróbski, J. Jankowski, P. Ziemba, A. Karczmarczyk and M. Zioło, Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega 86 (2019) 107–124. | DOI

[111] A. P. Wierzbicki, The use of reference objectives in multiobjective optimization. In: MCDM Theory and Application, edited by G. Fandel and T. Gal. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. Vol. 177. Springer, Berlin (1980) 468–486. | MR | Zbl

[112] H. Zank, Cumulative prospect theory for parametric and mult-iattribute utilities. Math. Oper. Res. 26 (2001) 67–81. | MR | Zbl | DOI

[113] M. Zeleny, The attribute-dynamic attitude model (ADAM). Manage. Sci. 23 (1976) 12–26. | MR | Zbl | DOI

Cité par Sources :