Dynamic Stochastic Multi-Criteria Decision Making Method Based on Prospect Theory and Conjoint Analysis

A method based on prospect theory and conjoint analysis is proposed for dynamic stochastic multi-criteria decision making problems, in which the information about criteria weight is unknown and criteria values follow some kinds of distributions. Decision-maker’s attitude towards risk is introduced into this paper. First, data is collected by investigation and criteria weights are derived by conjoint analysis. The prospect values of each alternative in different periods are calculated according to distribution function. Then, index distribution decides time sequence weight, and overall prospect values of each alternative are obtained and ranked by aggregating prospect values in different periods. Finally, an example of choosing the best product illustrates the feasibility and effectiveness of this method

The SMAA-PROMETHEE method

Abstract: PROMETHEE methods are widely used in Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) to deal with real world decision making problems. In this paper, we propose to apply the Stochastic Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (SMAA) to the family of PROMETHEE methods in order to explore the whole set of parameters compatible with some preference information provided by the Decision Maker (DM). The application of the presented methodology is described in a didactic example

Developing A Group Decision Support System (gdss) For Decision Making Under Uncertainty

Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) problems are often associated with tradeoffs between performances of the available alternative solutions under decision making criteria. These problems become more complex when performances are associated with uncertainty. This study proposes a stochastic MCDM procedure that can handle uncertainty in MCDM problems. The proposed method coverts a stochastic MCDM problem into many deterministic ones through a Monte-Carlo (MC) selection. Each deterministic problem is then solved using a range of MCDM methods and the ranking order of the alternatives is established for each deterministic MCDM. The final ranking of the alternatives can be determined based on winning probabilities and ranking distribution of the alternatives. Ranking probability distributions can help the decision-maker understand the risk associated with the overall ranking of the options. Therefore, the final selection of the best alternative can be affected by the risk tolerance of the decisionmakers. A Group Decision Support System (GDSS) is developed here with a user-friendly interface to facilitate the application of the proposed MC-MCDM approach in real-world multiparticipant decision making for an average user. The GDSS uses a range of decision making methods to increase the robustness of the decision analysis outputs and to help understand the sensitivity of the results to level of cooperation among the decision-makers. The decision analysis methods included in the GDSS are: 1) conventional MCDM methods (Maximin, Lexicographic, TOPSIS, SAW and Dominance), appropriate when there is a high cooperation level among the decision-makers; 2) social choice rules or voting methods (Condorcet Choice, Borda scoring, Plurality, Anti-Plurality, Median Voting, Hare System of voting, Majoritarian iii Compromise ,and Condorcet Practical), appropriate for cases with medium cooperation level among the decision-makers; and 3) Fallback Bargaining methods (Unanimity, Q-Approval and Fallback Bargaining with Impasse), appropriate for cases with non-cooperative decision-makers. To underline the utility of the proposed method and the developed GDSS in providing valuable insights into real-world hydro-environmental group decision making, the GDSS is applied to a benchmark example, namely the California‘s Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta decision making problem. The implications of GDSS‘ outputs (winning probabilities and ranking distributions) are discussed. Findings are compared with those of previous studies, which used other methods to solve this problem, to highlight the sensitivity of the results to the choice of decision analysis methods and/or different cooperation levels among the decision-maker