Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web

1. Research in D E C I S I O N A R I U M Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web Research seminar, Levi, March 21-24, 2007 www.decisionarium.hut.fi Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology www.raimo.hut.fi JMCDA, Vol. 12 , No. 2-3, 2003, pp. 101-110. v. 3.2007

2. Systems Analysis Laboratory Updated 25.10.2004 D E C I S I O N A R I U M 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 group decision making multicriteria decision analysis group collaboration decision making GDSS, NSS Joint Gains multi-party negotiation support with the method of improving directions RICH Decisions rank inclusion in criteria hierarchies CSCW DSS Opinions-Online Windows software for decision analysis with imprecise ratio statements platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group decisions internet PRIME Decisions computer support WINPRE preference programming, PAIRS Web-HIPRE Smart-Swaps value tree and AHP based decision support 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.fi PRIME Decisions and WINPRE downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Downloadables 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. elimination of criteria and alternatives by even swaps

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 fornon 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 andPRIME 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. New Methodological Features • 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

6. Opinions-OnlinePlatform for Global Participation, Voting, Surveys and Group Decisions www.opinions.hut.fi www.opinions-online.com Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen Programming: Reijo Kalenius Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki 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

8. Global Multicriteria Decision Support by Web-HIPREA Java-applet for Value Tree and AHP Analysis www.hipre.hut.fi Raimo P. Hämäläinen Jyri Mustajoki Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology http://www.sal.hut.fi

9. Web-HIPRE links can refer to any web-pages

10. SWING,SMART and SMARTER Methods • SMARTER uses rankings only

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. 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 incompletepreference 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. 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 applications Gustafsson, 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)

24. RICH Decisions www.rich.hut.fi Design: Ahti Salo and Antti Punkka Programming: Juuso Liesiö Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology http://www.sal.hut.fi

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)

28. Smart-SwapsSmart Choices with the Even Swaps Method www.smart-swaps.hut.fi Design: Raimo P. Hämäläinen and Jyri Mustajoki Programming: Pauli Alanaatu Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology http://www.sal.hut.fi

29. Smart Choices • An iterative process to support multicriteria decision making • Uses theeven swaps method to make trade-offs (Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, 1999)

30. Even Swaps • Carry out even swaps that make Alternatives 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. Preference Programming Even Swaps Updating of the model Problem initialization Initial statements about the attributes Practical dominance candidates Eliminate dominated alternatives Eliminate irrelevant attributes No More than one remaining alternative Yes Even swap suggestions Make an even swap Trade-off information The most preferred alternative is found Decision support

33. Smart-Swaps • Identification of practical dominances • Suggestions for the next even swap to be made • Additional support Information about what can be achieved with each swap Notification of dominances Rankings indicated by colours Process history allows backtracking

34. 25 78 Practically dominated by Montana Dominated by Lombard Commute time removed as irrelevant (Slightly better in Monthly Cost, but equal or worse in all other attributes) Example • Office selection problem (Hammond et al. 1999) An even swap

35. Problem definition

36. Entering trade-offs

37. Process history

38. Literature 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.

39. eLearning Decision Makingwww.mcda.hut.fieLearning sites on:Multiple Criteria Decision AnalysisDecision Making Under Uncertainty Negotiation Analysis Prof. Raimo P. Hämäläinen Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology http://www.sal.hut.fi

40. eLearning sites • Material: • 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

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 and students 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.fi • Decision making resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory • www.mcda.hut.fi • eLearning in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis • www.negotiation.hut.fi • eLearning in Negotiation Analysis • www.decisionarium.hut.fi • Decision support tools and resources at Systems Analysis Laboratory • www.or-world.com • OR-World project site