Weighting Under Ambiguous Preferences and Imprecise Differences in a Cardinal Rank Ordering Process

References

• R. Keeney and H. Raiffa, Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs (John Wiley, NY, 1976).
   Google Scholar
• R. Keeney, Making better decision makers, in Decision Analysis 1(4) (2004) 193–204.
   Google Scholar
• D. von Winterfeldt and W. Edwards, Decision Analysis and Behavioural Research (Cambridge University Press, NY, 1986).
   Google Scholar
• V. Belton and T. Stewart, Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach (Kluwer Academic Publishers, UK, 2002).
   Google Scholar
• T. Saaty, How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process, in Interfaces 24(6) (1994) 19–43.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• B. Roy, The outranking approach and the foundation of Electre methods, in Theory and Decision 31(1) (1991) 49–73.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J.P. Brans, Ph. Vincke and B. Mareschal, How to select and how to rank projects: the PROMETHEE method, in European Journal of Operational Research 24(2) (1986) 228–238.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R.V. Brown, Making decision research useful - not just rewarding, in Judgment and Decision Making 1(2) (2006) 162–173.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Wallenius, J.S. Dyer, P.C. Fishburn, R.E. Steuer, S. Zionts and K. Deb, Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead, in Management Science 54(7) (2008) 1336–1349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. French and D.-L. Xu, Comparison study of multi- attribute decision analytic software, in Journal of Multi- Criteria Decision Analysis 13(2-3) (2005) 65–80.
   Google Scholar
• R.T. Clemen and T. Reilly, Making Hard Decisions with Decision Tools Suite (Duxburry Press, 1999).
   Google Scholar
• F. Barron and B. Barrett, Decision quality using ranked attribute weights, in Management Science 42(11) (1996) 1515–1523.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Z. Shapira, Risk Taking: A Managerial Perspective (Russel Sage Foundation, NY, 1995).
   Google Scholar
• J. Corner and P Corner, Characteristics of decisions in decision analysis practice, in Journal of the Operational Research Society 46(3) (1995) 304–314.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, Rational choice and the framing of decisions, in Journal of Business 59(4) (1986) 251–278.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Lichtenstein and P. Slovic(eds.), The Construction of Preference (Cambridge University Press, NY, 2006).
   Google Scholar
• J. Pictet and D. Bollinger, Extended use of the cards procedure as a simple elicitation technique for MAVT. Application to public procurement in Switzerland, in European Journal of Operational Research 185(3) (2008) 1300–1307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• P. Bottomley and J. Doyle, A comparison of three weight elicitation methods: good, better, and best, in Omega 29(6) (2001) 553–560.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• K. Katsikopoulos and B. Fasolo, New tools for decision analysts, in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A: Systems and Humans 36(5), (2006) 960–967.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E.U. Choo, B. Schoner and W.C. Wedley, Interpretation of criteria weights in multicriteria decision making, in Computers & Industrial Engineering 37(3) (1999) 527–541.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• C.R. Fox and K.E. See, Belief and preference in decision under uncertainty, in Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgement and Decision Making, eds. D. Hardman and L. Macchi (John Wiley & Sons, 2003).
   Google Scholar
• D. Ellsberg, Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms, in Quarterly Journal of Economics 75(4) (1961) 643–669.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Tversky and D. Kahneman, The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice, in Science 211(4481) (1981) 453–458.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L.A. Lenert and J.R. Treadwell, Effects on preferences of violations of procedural invariance, in Medical Decision Making 19(4) (1999) 473–481.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Pöyhönen and R.P. Hämäläinen, On the convergence of multiattribute weighting methods, in European Journal of Operational Research 129(3) (2001) 569–585.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Larsson, J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg and M. Danielson, Decision Analysis with Multiple Objectives in a Frame- work for Evaluating Imprecision, in International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness, and Knowledge-Based Systems 13(5) (2005) 495–509.
   Google Scholar
• K.S. Park, Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete, in IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics- Part A: Systems and Humans 34(5) (2004) 601–614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Larsson, J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg and M. Danielson, Decision analysis with multiple objectives in a frame- work for evaluating imprecision", in International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 13(5) (2005) 495–509.
   Google Scholar
• J. Jia, G.W. Fischer and J. Dyer, Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: a simulation study, in Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 11(2) (1998) 85–105.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Danielson and L. Ekenberg, Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees, in European Journal of Operational Research 181(2) (2007) 808–816.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A. Jiménez, S. Rios-Insua and A. Mateos, A generic multi-attribute analysis system", in Computers & Operational Research 33(4) (2006) 1081–1101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Mustajoki, R.P. Hämäläinen and A. Salo, Decision support by interval SMART/SWING - incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods, in Decision Sciences 36(2) (2005) 317–339.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• W.G. Stillwell, D.A. Seaver and W. Edwards, A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute decision making, in Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 28(1) (1981) 62–77.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• W. Edwards and F.H. Barron, SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement, in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60(3) (1994) 306–325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• M. Riabacke, M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg and A. Larsson, A Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an MCDA Process, in Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Algorithmic Decision Theory (2009) 168–179.
   Google Scholar
• M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, J. Idefeldt and A. Larsson, Using a Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis – the Case of Nacka Municipality, in Decision Analysis 4(2) (2007) 76–90.
   Google Scholar
• M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, A. Ekengren, T. Hökby, and J. Lidén, Decision Process Support for Participatory Democracy, in Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 15(1-2) (2008) 15–30.
   Google Scholar
• M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, A. Larsson and M. Riabacke, Transparent public decision making: Discussion and case study in Sweden, in E-Democracy: A Group Decision and Negotiation Perspective, Rios Insua, D. and (French, S., eds., (Springer, 2010).
   Google Scholar
• E. Ekener-Petersen, G. Finnveden, A. Larsson, P. Sandin and K. Alverbro, A framework tool for integrated decision making involving ethical issues - case study on destruction of ammunition, forthcoming.
   Google Scholar