aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions on the web

1

S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology

Raimo P. HämäläinenSystems Analysis Laboratory

Helsinki University of Technologywww.raimo.hut.fi

JMCDA, Vol. 12 , No. 2-3, 2003, pp. 101-110.

Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web

www.decisionarium.hut.fi

Research inD E C I S I O N A R I U M

v. 3.2007

Research seminar, Levi, March 21-24, 2007

2


selected publications J. Mustajoki, R.P. Hämäläinen and A. Salo: Decision support by interval SMART/SWING – Incorporating

imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods, Decision Sciences, 2005.H. Ehtamo, R.P. Hämäläinen and V. Koskinen: An e-learning module on negotiation analysis, Proc. of HICSS-37, 2004.

J. Mustajoki and R.P. Hämäläinen, Making the even swaps method even easier, Manuscript, 2004. R.P. Hämäläinen, Decisionarium - Aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions on the Web, J. Multi-Crit. Dec. Anal., 2003.

H. Ehtamo, E. Kettunen and R.P. Hämäläinen: Searching for joint gains in multi-party negotiations, Eur. J. Oper. Res., 2001. J. Gustafsson, A. Salo and T. Gustafsson: PRIME Decisions - An interactive tool for value tree

analysis, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, 2001.J. Mustajoki and R.P. Hämäläinen: Web-HIPRE - Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, INFOR, 2000.

D E C I S I O N A R I U M

PRIME DecisionsWINPRE

web-sites www.decisionarium.hut.fi www.dm.hut.fi

www.hipre.hut.fi www.jointgains.hut.fi www.opinions.hut.fi www.smart-swaps.hut.fi www.rich.hut.fiPRIME Decisions and WINPRE downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Downloadables

Web-HIPREvalue tree and AHP based decision support

Smart-Swaps

Opinions-Online platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group decisions

Joint Gains

groupcollaboration decision

making

computer support

CSCW

multicriteriadecision analysis

internet

groupdecision making

GDSS, NSS

DSS

multi-party negotiation support with the method of improving directions

Windows software for decision analysis with imprecise ratio statements

g l o b a l s p a c e f o r d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t

elimination of criteria and alternatives by even swaps

preference programming, PAIRS

Updated 25.10.2004

SystemsAnalysis Laboratory

RICH Decisionsrank inclusion in criteria

hierarchies

3


Mission of Decisionarium

Provide resources for decision and negotiation support and advance the real and correct use of MCDA

History: HIPRE 3+ in 1992 MAVT/AHP for DOS systems

Today: e-learning modules provide help to learn the methods and global access to the software also for non OR/MS people

4


Opinions-Online (www.opinions.hut.fi)• Platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group

decisions

Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi)• Value tree based decision analysis and support

WINPRE and PRIME Decisions (for Windows)

• Interval AHP, interval SMART/SWING and PRIME methods

RICH Decisions (www.rich.hut.fi)• Preference programming in MAVT

Smart-Swaps (www.smart-swaps.hut.fi)• Multicriteria decision support with the even swaps method

Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi)• Negotiation support with the method of improving directions

5


• Possibility to compare different weighting and rating methods

• AHP/MAVT and different scales

• Preference programming in MAVT and in the Even Swaps procedure

• Jointly improving direction method for negotiations

New Methodological Features


Opinions-Online

Platform for Global Participation, Voting, Surveys and Group Decisions

Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen

Programming: Reijo Kalenius

www.opinions.hut.fiwww.opinions-online.com

Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology

http://www.sal.hut.fi

7


Surveys on the web

• Fast, easy and cheap

• Hyperlinks to background information

• Easy access to results

• Results can be analyzed on-line

• Access control: registration, e-mail list, domain, password


Global Multicriteria Decision Support by Web-HIPRE

A Java-applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis

Raimo P. Hämäläinen

Jyri Mustajoki

www.hipre.hut.fi



9


Web-HIPRE links can refer to any web-pages

10


• SMARTER uses rankings only

SWING,SMART and SMARTER Methods

11


Future challenges

Web makes MCDA tools available to everybody - Should everybody use them?

It is the responsibility of the multicriteria decision analysis community to:

• Learn and teach the use different weighting methods

• Focus on the praxis and avoidance of behavioural biases

• Develop and identify “best practice” procedures

12


Number-of-attribute-levels effect in

conjoint analysis

Splitting bias withweighting methodsbased on ranking

Rank reversal inAHP

Averages over agroup yield even

weights

Normalization

Decisionmakers onlygive ordinalinformation

Division ofattributes changes

weightsRange effect

Hierarchicalweighting leads to

steeper weights

Weighting methodsyield different weights

Sources of biases and problems

13


Literature

Mustajoki, J. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, INFOR, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2000, pp. 208-220.

Hämäläinen, R.P.: Reversing the perspective on the applications of decision analysis, Decision Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 26-31.

Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. and Marttunen, M.: Participatory multicriteria decision support with Web-HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy. Environmental Modelling & Software, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2004, pp. 537-547.

Pöyhönen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: There is hope in attribute weighting, INFOR, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2000, pp. 272-282.

Pöyhönen, M. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: On the Convergence of Multiattribute Weighting Methods, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 129, No. 3, 2001, pp. 569-585.

Pöyhönen, M., Vrolijk, H.C.J. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Behavioral and Procedural Consequences of Structural Variation in Value Trees, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 134, No. 1, 2001, pp. 218-227.

14


New Theory: Preference programming

Analysis with incomplete preference statements (intervals):

”...attribute is at least 2 times as but no more than 3 times as important as...”

Windows software• WINPRE – Workbench for Interactive Preference Programming Interval AHP, interval SMART/SWING and PAIRS• PRIME-Preference Ratios in Multiattribute Evaluation Method Incomplete preference statements Web software• RICH Decisions – Rank Inclusion in Criteria Hierarchies

15


Uses of interval models

New generalized AHP and SMART/SWING methods

DM can also reply with intervals instead of exact point estimates – a new way to accommodate uncertainty

Interval sensitivity analysis

Variations allowed in several model parameters simultaneously - worst case analysis

Group decision making

All members´ opinions embedded in intervals = a joint common group model

16


Interval SMART/SWING• A as reference - A given 10 points

• Point intervals given to the other attributes:– 5-20 points to attribute B– 10-30 points to attribute C

• Weight ratio between B and C not explicitly given by the DM

17


Generalized SMART and SWING

Allow:

1. the reference attribute to be any attribute

2. the DM to reply with intervals instead of exact point estimates

3. also the reference attribute to have an interval

A family of Interval SMART/SWING methods– Mustajoki, Hämäläinen and Salo, 2005

18


Reference attribute Reference Elicitation Name

Least important 10 (or any number) Point estimates SMART

Most important 100 (or any number) Point estimates SWING

Any Any number of points Point estimates SMART/SWING with a freereference attribute

Least important 10 (or any number) Intervals of points Interval SMART

Most important 100 (or any number) Intervals of points Interval SWING

Any Any number of points Intervals of points Interval SMART/SWING

Any Any interval Intervals of points Interval SMART/SWINGwith inteval referenceattribute

Generalized SMART and SWING

19


Choice of the reference attribute

• Only the weight ratio constraints including the reference attribute are given

Feasible region depends on the choice of the reference attribute

20


WINPRE Software

21


PRIME Decisions Software

22


Literature – Methodology

Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Operations Research, Vol. 40, No. 6, 1992, pp. 1053-1061.

Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 82, No. 3, 1995, pp. 458-475.

Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME) – Elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2001, pp. 533-545.

Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference Programming. (Manuscript) Downloadable at http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/msal03b.pdf

Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. and Salo, A.: Decision Support by Interval SMART/SWING - Incorporating Imprecision in the SMART and SWING Methods, Decision Sciences, Vol. 36, No.2, 2005, pp. 317-339.

23


Literature – Tools and applicationsGustafsson, J., Salo, A. and Gustafsson, T.: PRIME Decisions - An Interactive

Tool for Value Tree Analysis, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, M. Köksalan and S. Zionts (eds.), 507, 2001, pp. 165-176.

Hämäläinen, R.P., Salo, A. and Pöysti, K.: Observations about consensus seeking in a multiple criteria environment, Proc. of the Twenty-Fifth Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, Hawaii, Vol. IV, January 1992, pp. 190-198.

Hämäläinen, R.P. and Pöyhönen, M.: On-line group decision support by preference programming in traffic planning, Group Decision and Negotiation, Vol. 5, 1996, pp. 485-500.

Liesiö, J., Mild, P. and Salo, A.: Preference Programming for Robust Portfolio Modeling and Project Selection, European Journal of Operational Research (to appear)

Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. and Lindstedt, M.R.K.: Using intervals for Global Sensitivity and Worst Case Analyses in Multiattribute Value Trees, European Journal of Operational Research. (to appear)


RICH Decisions

www.rich.hut.fi

Design: Ahti Salo and Antti Punkka

Programming: Juuso Liesiö



25


The RICH Method

Based on:

Incomplete ordinal information about the relative importance of attributes

• ”environmental aspects belongs to the three most important attributes” or

• ”either cost or environmental aspects is the most important attribute”

26


Dominance Structure and Decision Rules

27


Literature

Salo, A. and Punkka, A.: Rank Inclusion in Criteria Hierarchies, European Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 163, No. 2, 2005, pp. 338-356.

Salo, A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME) – Elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 31, No. 6, 2001, pp. 533-545.

Salo A. and Hämäläinen, R.P.: Preference Programming. (manuscript)

Ojanen, O., Makkonen, S. and Salo, A.: A Multi-Criteria Framework for the Selection of Risk Analysis Methods at Energy Utilities. International Journal of Risk Assessment and Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, 2005, pp. 16-35.

Punkka, A. and Salo, A.: RICHER: Preference Programming with Incomplete Ordinal Information. (submitted manuscript)

Salo, A. and Liesiö, J.: A Case Study in Participatory Priority-Setting for a Scandinavian Research Program, International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making. (to appear)


Smart-Swaps

Smart Choices with the Even Swaps Method

Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen and Jyri MustajokiProgramming: Pauli Alanaatu

www.smart-swaps.hut.fi



29


Smart Choices

• An iterative process to support multicriteria decision making

• Uses the even swaps method to make trade-offs

(Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1999)

30


Even Swaps

• Carry out even swaps that makeAlternatives dominated (attribute-wise)

• There is another alternative, which is equal or better than this in every attribute, and better at least in one attribute

Attributes irrelevant• Each alternative has the same value on this attribute

These can be eliminated

• Process continues until one alternative, i.e. the best one, remains

31


Supporting Even Swaps with Preference Programming

• Even Swaps process carried out as usual

• The DM’s preferences simultaneously modeled with Preference Programming– Intervals allow us to deal with incomplete

information – Trade-off information given in the even swaps can

be used to update the model

Suggestions for the Even Swaps process

32


Decision support

Problem initialization

Updating of

the model

Make an even swap

Even Swaps Preference Programming

Practical dominance candidates

Initial statements about the attributes

Eliminate irrelevant attributes

Eliminate dominated alternatives

Even swap suggestions

More than oneremaining alternative

Yes

The most preferred alternative is found

No

Trade-off information

33


• Identification of practical dominances

• Suggestions for the next even swap to be made

• Additional supportInformation about what can be achieved with each

swap

Notification of dominances

Rankings indicated by colours

Process history allows backtracking

Smart-Swaps

34


Example• Office selection problem (Hammond et al. 1999)

Dominatedby

Lombard

Practicallydominated

byMontana

(Slightly better in Monthly Cost, but equal or worse in all other attributes)

78

25

An even swap

Commute time removed as irrelevant

35


Problem definition

36


Entering trade-offs

37


Process history

38


Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1998. Even swaps: A rational method for making trade-offs, Harvard Business Review, 76(2), 137-149.

Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1999. Smart choices. A practical guide to making better decisions, Harvard Business School Press, Boston.

Mustajoki, J. Hämäläinen, R.P., 2005. A Preference Programming Approach to Make the Even Swaps Method Even Easier, Decision Analysis, 2(2), 110-123.

Salo, A., Hämäläinen, R.P., 1992. Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Operations Research, 40(6), 1053-1061.

Applications of Even Swaps:

Gregory, R., Wellman, K., 2001. Bringing stakeholder values into environmental policy choices: a community-based estuary case study, Ecological Economics, 39, 37-52.

Kajanus, M., Ahola, J., Kurttila, M., Pesonen, M., 2001. Application of even swaps for strategy selection in a rural enterprise, Management Decision, 39(5), 394-402.

Literature


eLearning Decision Makingwww.mcda.hut.fi

eLearning sites on:Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

Decision Making Under Uncertainty Negotiation Analysis

Prof. Raimo P. HämäläinenSystems Analysis Laboratory

Helsinki University of Technologyhttp://www.sal.hut.fi

40


eLearning sitesMaterial:• Theory sections, interactive computer assignments• Animations and video clips, online quizzes, theory assignments

Decisionarium software:• Web-HIPRE, PRIME Decisions, Opinions-Online.vote, and Joint Gains, video clips help the use

eLearning modules: • 4 - 6 hours study time• Instructors can create their own modules using the material and software• Academic non-profit use is free

41


42


Academic Test Use is Free !

Opinions-Online (www.opinions.hut.fi)

Commercial site and pricing: www.opinions-online.com

Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi)

WINPRE and PRIME Decisions (Windows)

RICH Decisions (www.rich.hut.fi)

Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi)

Smart-Swaps (www.smart-swaps.hut.fi)

Please, let us know your experiences.

43


Contributions of colleagues andstudents at SAL

• HIPRE 3 +: Hannu Lauri• Web-HIPRE: Jyri Mustajoki, Ville Likitalo, Sami Nousiainen• Joint Gains: Eero Kettunen, Harri Jäälinoja, Tero Karttunen, Sampo

Vuorinen• Opinions-Online: Reijo Kalenius, Ville Koskinen Janne Pöllönen• Smart-Swaps: Pauli Alanaatu, Ville Karttunen, Arttu Arstila, Juuso

Nissinen• WINPRE: Jyri Helenius• PRIME Decisions: Janne Gustafsson, Tommi Gustafsson• RICH Decisions: Juuso Liesiö, Antti Punkka• e-learning MCDA: Ville Koskinen, Jaakko Dietrich, Markus Porthin

Thank you!

44


Public participation project sites

• PÄIJÄNNE - Lake Regulation(www.paijanne.hut.fi)

• PRIMEREG / Kallavesi - Lake Regulation(www.kallavesi.hut.fi, www.opinion.hut.fi/servlet/tulokset?foldername=syke)

• STUK / Milk Conference - Radiation Emergency(www.riihi.hut.fi/stuk)

45


SAL eLearning sites

• www.dm.hut.fiDecision making resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory

• www.mcda.hut.fieLearning in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis

• www.negotiation.hut.fieLearning in Negotiation Analysis

• www.decisionarium.hut.fiDecision support tools and resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory

• www.or-world.comOR-World project site

aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions on the web

Documents

global decision support

firesearch ind e c i

ahp analysis

decision sciences

negotiation analysis

r i u mv

value tree analysis

global participation