QUANTITATIVE TECHNIQUES

FOR DECISION MAKING

DECIOSION ANALYSIS
KRIPA SHANKER Ph D (Cornell)
FIITK, FNAE, FIE(I), FITEE(I), LMISTE, LMIIIE, MORSI, MORSA, SMIIE

Adjunct, Visiting, and Guest Faculty

Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology (BHU) Varanasi
Former Emeritus Fellow
Industrial and Management Engineering Department
Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
Former Vice Chancellor, Uttar Pradesh Technical University Lucknow
Former Deputy Director, Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur
1
Prof Kripa Shanker Mechanical Engineering IIT (BHU) Varanasi
 2
Prof Kripa Shanker Mechanical Engineering IIT (BHU) Varanasi
DECISION ANALYSIS -Software
Decision-Making Software (DM Software) is software for computer applications that
help individuals and organizations make choices and take decisions, typically by
ranking, prioritizing or choosing from a number of options.

An early example of DM software was described in 1973. Before the advent of the
World Wide Web, most DM software was spreadsheet-based, with the first web-based DM
software appearing in the mid-1990s. Nowadays, many DM software products (mostly web-
based) are available.
Most DM software focuses on ranking, prioritizing or choosing from among alternatives
characterized on multiple criteria or attributes. Thus most DM software is based on
decision analysis, usually multi-criteria decision-making, and so is often referred to as
"decision analysis or "multi-criteria decision-making" software – commonly shortened to
"decision-making software". Some decision support systems include a DM software
component.
PURPOSE
• DM software can assist decision-makers at various stages of the decision-
making process, including problem exploration and formulation, identification of
decision alternatives and solution constraints, structuring of preferences, and
tradeoff judgements.
• The purpose of DM software is to support the analysis, not to replace it.
• DM software should be used to support the process, not as the driving or
dominating force.
• DM software should not be employed blindly. Before using a software, it is
necessary to have a sound knowledge of the adopted methodology and of the
3
decision problem at hand. Kripa Shanker
DECISION ANALYSIS -Software
Decision-Making Methods
As mentioned earlier, most DM software is based on multi-criteria decision making
(MCDM). MCDM involves evaluating and combining alternatives' characteristics on
two or more criteria or attributes in order to rank, prioritize or choose from among
the alternatives.

There is currently a great deal of interest in quantitative methods for decision

making. Many decision analysts argue for multi-attribute decision analysis as the
gold standard to which other methods should be compared, based on its rigorous
axiomatic basis. Some other MCDM methods include:
• Aggregated Indices Randomization Method (AIRM)
• Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
• Analytic network process (ANP, an extension of AHP)
• DEX (Decision EXpert)
• Elimination and Choice Expressing Reality (ELECTRE)
• Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique
(MACBETH)
• Multi-attribute global inference of quality (MAGIQ)
• Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives (PAPRIKA)
• Preference Ranking Organization Method for Enrichment Evaluation
(PROMETHEE)
• Evidential reasoning approach for MCDM under hybrid uncertainty
4
Kripa Shanker
DECISION ANALYSIS -Software
Methods (Contd.)
There are significant differences between these methods and, accordingly,
the DM software implementing them. Such differences include:
1. The extent to which the decision problem is broken into a hierarchy of
sub-problems;
2. Whether or not pairwise comparisons of alternatives and/or criteria are
used to elicit decision-makers' preferences;
3. The use of interval scale or ratio scale measurements of decision-
makers' preferences;
4. The number of criteria included;
5. The number of alternatives evaluated, ranging from a few (finite) to
infinite;
6. The extent to which numerical scores are used to value and/or rank
alternatives;
7. The extent to which incomplete rankings (relative to complete rankings)
of alternatives are produced;
8. The extent to which uncertainty is modeled and analyzed.

5
Kripa Shanker
 DECISION ANALYSIS -Softwa
e following notable examples. Software
Supporte
d MCDA
SOFTWARE FEATURES
Comparis
Pairwise
Sensitivit
y Analysis
Group
Evaluatio
Web-
based
Methods on n
e capabilities of various software packages is available in the Decision Analysis Software Survey conducted by the Institute for Operations Research and the Manage
1000mind PAPRIKA Yes Yes Yes Yes
[4][5][6]
s
In the processAhoona
of helping
WSM,
Utility
Nodecision-makers
No Yes Yes to rank, prioritize or choose from a
[11]

alternatives, DM
Altova Mesoftware
WSM No products
No Yes often
Yes include a variety of features and
[
citation ne
taTeam eded

tools; common examples

Analytica
MAUT,
No
include:
Yes No Yes
]

[4][5]
SMART
• Pairwise comparison AHP,
Criterium Yes Yes No No [4]

• Sensitivity analysis
DecisionPl SMART
us
PROMETH
• Group evaluation
D-Sight EE
, UTILITY (teamwork)
Yes Yes Yes Yes [4][5]

DecideIT MAUT Yes Yes Yes Yes [4][5]

• Web-Based implementation
Decision L AHP, ANP Yes Yes Yes Yes
[
citation ne
ens eded
]

Expert Cho AHP Yes Yes Yes Yes [4][5]

ice
Hiview3 SMART No Yes Yes No [4][5]

Evidential
Reasoning
Approach
, Available
Intelligent Yes Yes Yes [5]
Decision S Bayesian I on request
ystem nference
,
Dempster
–Shafer th
eory
Logical De ,AHP
Utility Yes Yes Yes No [4][5][6]
cisions
M-MACBE MACBETH Yes Yes Yes No [4]
TH
PriEsT AHP Yes Yes No No [12]

AHP,
Super Deci Yes Yes No Yes [13]
sions Analytic N
etwork Pr
ocess

6
Kripa Shanker
DECISION ANALYSIS -Softwa
SOFTWARE COMPARISON
A good summary of the capabilities of various software packages is available in the
Decision Analysis Software Survey conducted by the
Institute for Operations Research and the Management Sciences (INFORMS). The software packages listed
survey range from free to commercial or enterprise-level packages.

Software Supported MCDA Methods Pairwise Comparison Sensitivity Analysis Group Evaluation W

1000minds PAPRIKA Yes Yes Yes

Ahoona WSM, Utility No No Yes
Altova WSM No No Yes
MetaTeam
Analytica MAUT, SMART No Yes No
Criterium AHP, SMART Yes Yes No
DecisionPlus
D-Sight PROMETHEE, UTILITY Yes Yes Yes
DecideIT MAUT Yes Yes Yes
Decision Lens AHP, ANP Yes Yes Yes
Expert Choice AHP Yes Yes Yes
Hiview3 SMART No Yes Yes

Evidential Reasoning Approach, Availa

Intelligent Dec Bayesian Inference, Yes Yes Yes reque
ision System Dempster–Shafer theory, Utility

Logical Decisio AHP Yes Yes Yes

ns
M-MACBETH MACBETH Yes Yes Yes
PriEsT AHP Yes Yes No
Super Decisio AHP, Analytic Network Process Yes Yes No
ns

7
Kripa Shanker