@misc{10481/77168,
year = {2022},
month = {8},
url = {https://hdl.handle.net/10481/77168},
abstract = {Expert’s judgments have been crucial in the development of decision theory; however, what criterion to use in
the selection of experts remains an issue to address. Decision support techniques proposed to improve the quality
of expert judgment decision making consider a demonstrated inconsistency of the judgments expressed by an
expert as a criterion of exclusion in the decision-making process of such expert. Although consistency appears to
be a desirable condition to qualify as “expert”, little is known about the quality of the decisions made imposing
consistency as the expert qualifying condition. This paper proposes a simulation methodology, based on an
automaton programmed to make decisions in an intended but bounded rational way, to assess the cost-benefit of
different aspects of decision support techniques. Within this methodology, the imposition of the consistency
condition in the selection of experts is studied. In particular, the paper shows with a case study example that the
Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) decision support technique expected payoff is at most 5% higher when
implementing Saaty’s consistency criterion of the expert’s judgments than when the consistency criterion is not
considered.},
organization = {Spanish Government	ECO2017-86305-C4-3-R},
organization = {Gobierno de Aragon},
organization = {European Social Fund (ESF)},
organization = {Spanish Government	PID2019-103880RB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033},
publisher = {Elsevier},
keywords = {Analysis of decision support techniques},
keywords = {Inconsistency},
keywords = {Error},
keywords = {Intentional bounded rationality methodology},
title = {Intentional bounded rationality methodology to assess the quality of decision-making approaches with latent alternative performances},
doi = {10.1016/j.inffus.2022.08.019},
author = {Sáenz Royo, Carlos and Chiclana Parrilla, Francisco and Herrera Viedma, Enrique},
}