Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selection problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule

In this paper, a likelihood based evidence acquisition approach is proposed to acquire evidence from experts'assessments as recorded in historical datasets. Then a data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model is introduced to R&D project selection process by combining multiple pieces of evidence with different weights and reliabilities. As a result, the total belief degrees and the overall performance can be generated for ranking and selecting projects. Finally, a case study on the R&D project selection for the National Science Foundation of China is conducted to show the effectiveness of the proposed model. The data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model for project evaluation and selection (1) utilizes experimental data to represent experts' assessments by using belief distributions over the set of final funding outcomes, and through this historic statistics it helps experts and applicants to understand the funding probability to a given assessment grade, (2) implies the mapping relationships between the evaluation grades and the final funding outcomes by using historical data, and (3) provides a way to make fair decisions by taking experts' reliabilities into account. In the data-driven evidential reasoning rule based model, experts play different roles in accordance with their reliabilities which are determined by their previous review track records, and the selection process is made interpretable and fairer. The newly proposed model reduces the time-consuming panel review work for both managers and experts, and significantly improves the efficiency and quality of project selection process. Although the model is demonstrated for project selection in the NSFC, it can be generalized to other funding agencies or industries.Comment: 20 pages, forthcoming in International Journal of Project Management (2019

Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders‟ decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AHP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach

Connectionist Inference Models

The performance of symbolic inference tasks has long been a challenge to connectionists. In this paper, we present an extended survey of this area. Existing connectionist inference systems are reviewed, with particular reference to how they perform variable binding and rule-based reasoning, and whether they involve distributed or localist representations. The benefits and disadvantages of different representations and systems are outlined, and conclusions drawn regarding the capabilities of connectionist inference systems when compared with symbolic inference systems or when used for cognitive modeling

Using evidence combination for transformer defect diagnosis

This paper describes a number of methods of evidence combination, and their applicability to the domain of transformer defect diagnosis. It explains how evidence combination fits into an on-line and implemented agent-based condition monitoring system, and the benefits of giving selected agents reflective abilities. Reflection has not previously been deployed in an industrial setting, and theoretical work has been in domains other than power engineering. This paper presents the results of implementing five different methods of evidence combination, showing that reflective techniques give greater accuracy than non-reflective

A Case-Based Reasoning Method for Locating Evidence During Digital Forensic Device Triage

The role of triage in digital forensics is disputed, with some practitioners questioning its reliability for identifying evidential data. Although successfully implemented in the field of medicine, triage has not established itself to the same degree in digital forensics. This article presents a novel approach to triage for digital forensics. Case-Based Reasoning Forensic Triager (CBR-FT) is a method for collecting and reusing past digital forensic investigation information in order to highlight likely evidential areas on a suspect operating system, thereby helping an investigator to decide where to search for evidence. The CBR-FT framework is discussed and the results of twenty test triage examinations are presented. CBR-FT has been shown to be a more effective method of triage when compared to a practitioner using a leading commercial application

Port choice by intra-regional container service operators : an application of decision-making techniques to liner services between Malaysian and other Asian ports

Intra-regional container service operators are challenged to design regular and reliable liner services connecting regional ports at the lowest cost and shortest transit time while considering customer demand. This paper focuses on the selection of ports of call in regular intra-regional container services, an under-researched part of the container shipping market. A combination of decision-making techniques (i.e. Analytical Hierarchy Process, fuzzy link-based and Evidential Reasoning) are presented to assist intra-regional container service operators in selecting ports of call. The proposed methodology is empirically applied to container services between Malaysian and other nearby Asian ports. While Port Klang is the main gateway to Malaysia, the results show that other Malaysian ports should play a more prominent role in accommodating intra-Asian container services. This research can assist maritime stakeholders in evaluating intra-regional port-to-port liner service configurations. Furthermore, the novel mix of decision-making techniques complements and enriches existing academic literature on port choice and liner service configuration