A comparison of multiattribute decision-making techniques using an iterative procedure to derive a convergent criterion
Lai, Shih-Kung
This item is only available for download by members of the University of Illinois community. Students, faculty, and staff at the U of I may log in with your NetID and password to view the item. If you are trying to access an Illinois-restricted dissertation or thesis, you can request a copy through your library's Inter-Library Loan office or purchase a copy directly from ProQuest.
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/2142/20781
Description
Title
A comparison of multiattribute decision-making techniques using an iterative procedure to derive a convergent criterion
Author(s)
Lai, Shih-Kung
Issue Date
1990
Doctoral Committee Chair(s)
Hopkins, Lewis D.
Department of Study
Urban and Regional Planning
Discipline
Regional Planning
Degree Granting Institution
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Degree Name
Ph.D.
Degree Level
Dissertation
Keyword(s)
Psychology, Experimental
Operations Research
Urban and Regional Planning
Language
eng
Abstract
The objectives of the dissertation are to: (1) deductively compare five commonly used multiattribute decision making techniques and clarify the meanings of weights and (2) empirically evaluate the effectiveness of the techniques. The five techniques are multiattribute utility theory (MAUT), weighting and rating (WR), the analytic hierarchy process (AHP), concordance analysis (CA), and computation of equivalent alternatives (CEA).
From the deductive comparison, we concluded (1) that the tradeoffs among attributes can be transformed from one technique to another, (2) that the weights in these techniques have different meanings and can be explicitly identified, (3) that a valid criterion can be derived internally from a neutral procedure for empirical comparisons, and (4) that the application of WR and CA is limited because of their embedded assumptions.
Three techniques (MAUT, AHP, and AHP$\sp\prime$) were compared empirically. The AHP$\sp\prime$ technique is a modified version of the original AHP to conform to the mathematical meaning of weights. Two experiments were conducted. In the first experiment, two techniques (MAUT and AHP$\sp\prime$) were compared based on an iterative procedure. In the iterative procedure, the subjects applied one technique first, then the other, and iterated each until a stopping rule was met. The judgments in each iteration were anchored by the judgments made in or transformed from the preceding two iterations. The final judgments were neutral to the two techniques and, therefore, were the criterion based on which the techniques were compared. In the second experiment, MAUT was compared with AHP based on the same iterative procedure.
The hypotheses for the two experiments were (1) that AHP$\sp\prime$ is more effective than MAUT because of the ease of use and the elicitation questions conforming to the mathematics in AHP$\sp\prime$ and (2) that MAUT is more effective than AHP because the elicitation questions of relative importance in AHP are ambiguous. The results did not support either hypothesis. MAUT was more effective than AHP$\sp\prime$ in the first experiment, but not significantly different from AHP in the second.
Use this login method if you
don't
have an
@illinois.edu
email address.
(Oops, I do have one)
IDEALS migrated to a new platform on June 23, 2022. If you created
your account prior to this date, you will have to reset your password
using the forgot-password link below.
