Intentional bounded rationality methodology to assess the quality of decision-making approaches with latent alternative performances
Metadata
Show full item recordEditorial
Elsevier
Materia
Analysis of decision support techniques Inconsistency Error Intentional bounded rationality methodology
Date
2022-08-20Referencia bibliográfica
Carlos Sáenz-Royo, Francisco Chiclana, Enrique Herrera-Viedma, Intentional bounded rationality methodology to assess the quality of decision-making approaches with latent alternative performances, Information Fusion, Volume 89, 2023, Pages 254-266, ISSN 1566-2535, [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2022.08.019]
Sponsorship
Spanish Government ECO2017-86305-C4-3-R; Gobierno de Aragon; European Social Fund (ESF); Spanish Government PID2019-103880RB-I00/AEI/10.13039/501100011033Abstract
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.