Towards cognitive decision support: A model of behavioural assessment of multi-criteria methods

• Autorzy: Roszkowska Ewa , Wachowicz Tomasz
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

The Negotiation Support Systems often implement multiple criteria decision aiding (MCDA) techniques for building a negotiation scoring system. Those formal models should meet the needs, motivations, expectations, and cognitive abilities of users. In this paper, we try to explore the effects of decision maker’s subjective perception of ease of use, time requirements, interface, preference representation, and efficiency of a particular MCDA method on the choice regarding the future use of this method. The multinomial logistic regression model is built and analysed. The analysis is based on data from online decision making experiments, where three MCDA methods were implemented, i.e. AHP, SMART, and TOPSIS. The study provides several interesting findings, concerning the behavioural aspects of multiple criteria decision aiding in software support systems. Most of the users recommended TOPSIS as the best one for supporting decisions in the future. This is a fast technique, for which we used an attractive graphical interface, suggesting that these factors play a crucial role in the users’ choices. However, the causative regression model showed that the user’s positive experience in using a particular method, i.e. its effectiveness in solving an exemplary numerical case, has the highest impact on the method’s choice for future use. The second most important factor is the adequacy in representing the user’s preferences by this method. We show, however, that the strengths of effects and their significance may vary across the methods. Understanding the decision maker’s evaluations of the MCDA techniques may help build a cognitive negotiation support system that satisfies the user’s expectations.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

decision support; behavioural decision analysis; preference analysis; AHP; SMART; TOPSIS

• Wydawca: Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Control and Cybernetics
• Rocznik: 2021
• Tom: Vol. 50, No. 1
• Strony: 145--168
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 40 poz., rys., tab.

Twórcy

autor

Roszkowska Ewa

• University of Bialystok, Warszawska 53, 15-063 Bialystok, Poland

autor

Wachowicz Tomasz

• University of Economics in Katowice, 1 Maja 50, 40-287 Katowice, Poland

Bibliografia

• Aiken, L. S., West, S. G. and Reno, R. R. (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. Sage Publications, Inc.
• Bichler, M., Kersten, G. and Strecker, S. (2003) Towards a structured design of electronic negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(4), 311–335. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024867820235
• Chrzan, K. (1994) Three kinds of order effects in choice-based conjoint analysis. Marketing Letters, 5(2), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00994106
• Davis, F. D. (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 319–340.
• Edwards, W. and Barron, F. H. (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 60(3), 306–325.
• Epstein, S., Pacini, R., Denes-Raj, V. and Heier, H. (1996) Individual differences in intuitive–experiential and analytical–rational thinking styles. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 390–405.
• Gershon, M. and Duckstein, L. (1984) A procedure for selection of a multiobjective technique with application to water and mineral resources. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 14(3), 245–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/0096-3003(84)90024-9
• Gershon, M. E. (1981) Model choice in multi-objective decision-making in natural resource systems [Dissertation]. University of Arizona.
• Hobbs, B. F. (1986) What can we learn from experiments in multiobjective decision analysis? IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 16(3), 384–394.
• Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S. and Sturdivant, R. (2013) Applied Logistic Regression. Wiley & Sons.
• Jelassi, T., Kersten, G. and Zionts, S. (1990) An Introduction to Group Decision and Negotiation Support. In: C. A. Bana e Costa, ed., Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer, 537-568.
• Kersten, G. E. (2003) The Science and Engineering of E-Negotiation: An Introduction. HICSS, 3, 27–1.
• Kersten, G. E. and Cray, D. (1996) Perspectives on representation and analysis of negotiation: Towards cognitive support systems. Group Decision and Negotiation, 5(4), 433–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02404644
• Kersten, G. E. and Lai, H. (2007) Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(6), 553–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9095-5
• Kersten, G. E. and Noronha, S. J. (1999) WWW-based negotiation support: Design, implementation, and use. Decision Support Systems, 25(2), 135–154.
• Kersten, G. E., Roszkowska, E. and Wachowicz, T. (2018) Representative Decision-Making and the Propensity to Use Round and Sharp Numbers in Preference Specification. In: Y. Chen, G. E. Kersten, R. Vetschera and H. Xu, eds., Group Decision and Negotiation in an Uncertain World. GDN 2018, Springer, 315, 43–55.
• Kersten, G., Roszkowska, E. and Wachowicz, T. (2017) The Heuristics and Biases in Using the Negotiation Support Systems. In: M. Schoop and D. M. Kilgour, eds., Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Technical Perspective. Springer International Publishing, 215-228 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63546-0 16
• Leoneti, A. B. (2016) Considerations regarding the choice of ranking multiple criteria decision making methods. Pesquisa Operacional, 36(2), 259–277.
• Mustajoki, J. and H¨am¨al¨ainen, R. P. (2000)Web-Hipre: Global Decision Support By Value Tree And AHP Analysis. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 38(3), 208–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/03155986.2000.11732409
• Petrucci, C. J. (2009) A primer for social worker researchers on how to conduct a multinomial logistic regression. Journal of Social Service Research, 35(2), 193–205.
• Power, D. J. (2008) Decision support systems: A historical overview. In: Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1. Springer, 121-140.
• Roszkowska, E. and Wachowicz, T., eds. (2016) Negocjacje. Analiza i wspomaganie decyzji. Wolters Kluwer. https://www.legimi.pl/ebooknegocjacje-analiza-i-wspomaganie-decyzji-tomasz-wachowicz-ewaroszkowska,b149781.html
• Saaty, T. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill.
• Saaty, T. L. (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. International Journal of Services Sciences, 1(1), 83–98.
• Saaty, T. L. and Ergu, D. (2015) When is a decision-making method trustworthy? Criteria for evaluating multi-criteria decision-making methods. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 14(06), 1171–1187.
• Savage, S. J. and Waldman, D. M. (2008) Learning and fatigue during choice experiments: A comparison of online and mail survey modes. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 23(3), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.984
• Schoop, M., Jertila, A. and List, T. (2003) Negoisst: A negotiation support system for electronic business-to-business negotiations in e-commerce. Data & Knowledge Engineering, 47(3), 371–401.
• Scott, S. G. and Bruce, R. A. (1995) Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818–831.
• Strack, F. (1992) ”Order Effects” in Survey Research: Activation and Information Functions of Preceding Questions. In: N. Schwarz and S. Sudman, eds., Context Effects in Social and Psychological Research. Springer, 23-34. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-2848-6 3
• Tabachnick, B. G., Fidell, L. S. and Ullman, J. B. (2007) Using Multivariate Statistics 5. Pearson Boston, MA.
• Tecle, A. (1988) Choice of multicriterion decision making techniques for watershed management. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Arizona.
• Thiessen, E. M. and Soberg, A. (2003) Smartsettle described with the montreal taxonomy. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12(2), 165.
• Toplak, M. E., West, R. F. and Stanovich, K. E. (2014) Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20(2), 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
• Turel, O. and Yuan, Y. (2007) User Acceptance ofWeb-Based Negotiation Support Systems: The Role of Perceived Intention of the Negotiating Partner to Negotiate Online. Group Decision and Negotiation, 16(5), 451–468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-006-9069-z
• Wachowicz, T., Roszkowska, E. and Filipowicz-Chomko, M. (2018) What Impacts a Choice of Decision Support Method in Multiple Criteria Decision Making Problem? In: X.-j. Jiang, H.-y. Xu, Sh.-w. He and G. Y. Ke, eds., Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Group Decision and Negotiation. Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 275-279.
• Wachowicz, T., Kersten, G. E. and Roszkowska, E. (2019) How do I tell you what I want? Agent’s interpretation of principal’s preferences and its impact on understanding the negotiation process and outcomes. Operational Research, 19(4), 993–1032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-018-00448-y
• Wachowicz, T. and Roszkowska, E. (2021) Holistic Preferences and Prenegotiation Preparation. In: D. M. Kilgour and C. Eden, eds., Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation (2nd ed.). Springer, Cham. 255–289. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1 64-1
• Wątróbski, J., Jankowski, J., Ziemba, P., Karczmarczyk, A. and Zioło, M. (2019) Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection. Omega, 86, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2018.07.004
• Yoon, K. and Hwang, C. L. (1981) Multiple Attribute Decision Making-Methods and Applications: A State-Of-The-Art Survey. Springer-Verlag.
• Yuan, Y., Head, M. and Du, M. (2003) The effects of multimedia communication on web-based negotiation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 12, 89–109. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:102301680437