Criteria preprocessing in multi-actor multi-criteria analysis

IF 1.9 Q3 MANAGEMENT
He Huang, Rocsildes Canoy, Nicolas Brusselaers, Geert te Boveldt
{"title":"Criteria preprocessing in multi-actor multi-criteria analysis","authors":"He Huang,&nbsp;Rocsildes Canoy,&nbsp;Nicolas Brusselaers,&nbsp;Geert te Boveldt","doi":"10.1002/mcda.1804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Multi-actor multi-criteria analysis is a group decision-making framework that allows multiple stakeholder groups to be involved in the decision-making process, facilitating the understanding of the points of consensus and conflict among the stakeholder groups. Carefully selecting suitable criteria is important as they illustrate the possibly divergent priorities of the respective stakeholder group, and overlooking important criteria can lead to erroneous outcomes. Furthermore, the number of criteria needs specific consideration, as a too large number poses problems for human cognition, but a too small number inaccurately represents the stakeholder's interest. In stakeholder groups with many members, such as those representing citizens, defining a criteria set is likely to be even more complicated. Currently, there is no formal guideline to assist facilitators in defining these criteria sets. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for criteria preprocessing with stakeholder involvement that includes a guideline for firstly selecting criteria into a tentative list and secondly selecting the final criteria set. It provides a procedure on how to determine criteria considering the priorities of stakeholder groups with regard to the context. As a final step, we propose a mathematical model for selecting a number of criteria that are both cognitively manageable and representative for the participants' priorities. Based on the principles of the Pareto analysis, as well as the cognitive judgment theory “magic number seven plus or minus two”, a recommendation list of the criteria is generated. It prevents key criteria from being omitted while at the same time limiting the overall number of criteria. This framework is applied to a social decision-making case for construction logistics, and the results are compared with the conventional approach of criteria definition.</p>","PeriodicalId":45876,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mcda.1804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multi-actor multi-criteria analysis is a group decision-making framework that allows multiple stakeholder groups to be involved in the decision-making process, facilitating the understanding of the points of consensus and conflict among the stakeholder groups. Carefully selecting suitable criteria is important as they illustrate the possibly divergent priorities of the respective stakeholder group, and overlooking important criteria can lead to erroneous outcomes. Furthermore, the number of criteria needs specific consideration, as a too large number poses problems for human cognition, but a too small number inaccurately represents the stakeholder's interest. In stakeholder groups with many members, such as those representing citizens, defining a criteria set is likely to be even more complicated. Currently, there is no formal guideline to assist facilitators in defining these criteria sets. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for criteria preprocessing with stakeholder involvement that includes a guideline for firstly selecting criteria into a tentative list and secondly selecting the final criteria set. It provides a procedure on how to determine criteria considering the priorities of stakeholder groups with regard to the context. As a final step, we propose a mathematical model for selecting a number of criteria that are both cognitively manageable and representative for the participants' priorities. Based on the principles of the Pareto analysis, as well as the cognitive judgment theory “magic number seven plus or minus two”, a recommendation list of the criteria is generated. It prevents key criteria from being omitted while at the same time limiting the overall number of criteria. This framework is applied to a social decision-making case for construction logistics, and the results are compared with the conventional approach of criteria definition.

多参与者多标准分析中的标准预处理
多主体多准则分析是一种群体决策框架,它允许多个利益相关者群体参与决策过程,有助于理解利益相关者群体之间的共识点和冲突点。仔细选择合适的标准是很重要的,因为它们说明了各自利益相关者群体可能存在的不同优先级,而忽略重要的标准可能导致错误的结果。此外,标准的数量需要特别考虑,因为太多的标准会给人类的认知带来问题,而太少的标准又不能准确地代表利益相关者的利益。在有许多成员的利益相关者群体中,比如代表公民的群体,定义一套标准可能会更加复杂。目前,还没有正式的指导方针来帮助主持人定义这些标准集。在本文中,我们提出了一个具有利益相关者参与的标准预处理的新框架,该框架包括首先将标准选择到暂定列表中,然后选择最终标准集的指导方针。它提供了一个程序,说明如何确定考虑到利益相关者群体在上下文方面的优先事项的标准。作为最后一步,我们提出了一个数学模型,用于选择一些既在认知上可管理又代表参与者优先事项的标准。基于帕累托分析的原则,以及认知判断理论“神奇数字7±2”,生成了标准的推荐列表。它可以防止省略关键的标准,同时限制标准的总数。将该框架应用于建筑物流社会决策案例,并将结果与传统的标准定义方法进行了比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
14
期刊介绍: The Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis was launched in 1992, and from the outset has aimed to be the repository of choice for papers covering all aspects of MCDA/MCDM. The journal provides an international forum for the presentation and discussion of all aspects of research, application and evaluation of multi-criteria decision analysis, and publishes material from a variety of disciplines and all schools of thought. Papers addressing mathematical, theoretical, and behavioural aspects are welcome, as are case studies, applications and evaluation of techniques and methodologies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信