双标准优化中优先选择与渐进选择的比较评价

G. Klein, H. Moskowitz, A. Ravindran
{"title":"双标准优化中优先选择与渐进选择的比较评价","authors":"G. Klein, H. Moskowitz, A. Ravindran","doi":"10.1002/NAV.3800330212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Procedures for solving multiple criteria problems are receiving increasing attention. Two major solution approaches are those involving prior articulation and progressive articulation of preference information. A progressive articulation (interactive) optimization approach, called the Paired Comparison Method (PCM) is compared to the prior articulation approach of a priori utility function measurement in a quality control decision environment from the perspective of the decision maker. The three major issues investigated included: (1) the ease of use of each method, (2) the preferences of solutions obtained, and (3) the insight provided by the methodology into the nature and structure of the problem. The problem setting involved management students who were rquired to determine an acceptance sampling plan using both methods. The PCM provided the most preferred solutions and was considered easier to use and understand. The prior articulation of preference method was found to give more insight into the problem structure. The results suggest that a hybrid approach, combining both prior preference assessment and an interactive procedure exploiting the advantages of each, should be employed to solve multiple criteria problems.","PeriodicalId":431817,"journal":{"name":"Naval Research Logistics Quarterly","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1986-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"24","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative evaluation of prior versus progressive articulation of preference in bicriterion optimization\",\"authors\":\"G. Klein, H. Moskowitz, A. Ravindran\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/NAV.3800330212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Procedures for solving multiple criteria problems are receiving increasing attention. Two major solution approaches are those involving prior articulation and progressive articulation of preference information. A progressive articulation (interactive) optimization approach, called the Paired Comparison Method (PCM) is compared to the prior articulation approach of a priori utility function measurement in a quality control decision environment from the perspective of the decision maker. The three major issues investigated included: (1) the ease of use of each method, (2) the preferences of solutions obtained, and (3) the insight provided by the methodology into the nature and structure of the problem. The problem setting involved management students who were rquired to determine an acceptance sampling plan using both methods. The PCM provided the most preferred solutions and was considered easier to use and understand. The prior articulation of preference method was found to give more insight into the problem structure. The results suggest that a hybrid approach, combining both prior preference assessment and an interactive procedure exploiting the advantages of each, should be employed to solve multiple criteria problems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":431817,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Naval Research Logistics Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1986-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"24\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Naval Research Logistics Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/NAV.3800330212\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naval Research Logistics Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/NAV.3800330212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 24

摘要

解决多准则问题的程序正受到越来越多的关注。两种主要的解决方法是涉及偏好信息的先验发音和渐进发音。从决策者的角度,将一种称为配对比较法(PCM)的渐进衔接(交互)优化方法与质量控制决策环境中先验效用函数测量的先验衔接方法进行了比较。调查的三个主要问题包括:(1)每种方法的易用性,(2)获得的解决方案的偏好,以及(3)方法对问题的性质和结构提供的洞察力。问题设置涉及管理专业的学生,他们被要求使用这两种方法确定一个接受抽样计划。PCM提供了最受欢迎的解决方案,并且被认为更容易使用和理解。优选的先验衔接方法可以更深入地了解问题的结构。结果表明,应采用混合方法,结合优先偏好评估和利用各自优势的交互过程,来解决多标准问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative evaluation of prior versus progressive articulation of preference in bicriterion optimization
Procedures for solving multiple criteria problems are receiving increasing attention. Two major solution approaches are those involving prior articulation and progressive articulation of preference information. A progressive articulation (interactive) optimization approach, called the Paired Comparison Method (PCM) is compared to the prior articulation approach of a priori utility function measurement in a quality control decision environment from the perspective of the decision maker. The three major issues investigated included: (1) the ease of use of each method, (2) the preferences of solutions obtained, and (3) the insight provided by the methodology into the nature and structure of the problem. The problem setting involved management students who were rquired to determine an acceptance sampling plan using both methods. The PCM provided the most preferred solutions and was considered easier to use and understand. The prior articulation of preference method was found to give more insight into the problem structure. The results suggest that a hybrid approach, combining both prior preference assessment and an interactive procedure exploiting the advantages of each, should be employed to solve multiple criteria problems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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