Civilian Response Corps Force Review: The Application of Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis to Prioritize Skills Required for Future Diplomatic Missions

Created by the State Department's Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization, the Civilian Response Corps (CRC) contains a diverse pool of qualified and ready‐to‐deploy civilian professionals that support conflict prevention and response efforts in countries or regions that are at risk of, are currently in, or are transitioning from conflict or civil strife. As such, it is vital to optimize the CRC's skill groupings to maximize adaptability and responsiveness to highly uncertain and trying political conditions and crises across the globe. The nature of the CRC value proposition is such that determining which skill set compositions deliver the greatest benefit requires a multi‐faceted perspective that looks at a number of attributes and factors, both tangible and intangible. To meet these needs, an organizational decision‐making approach utilizing multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) was applied to ensure that skill‐grouping allocations were determined in a logical and robust manner. The MCDA analysis allowed for a wide range of worldviews and perspectives, drawn from select members of academia and partner agencies of the CRC who provided their expert opinions on the expected demand for skill groupings commonly identified as most necessary in a civilian ‘surge’ capacity. These skills were assessed with reference to a values hierarchy of representative country scenarios, missions and sub‐missions identified by the Office of the Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization. Of particular interest was the use of the MCDA method to prioritize CRC skill groupings and to help inform the Department of State's understanding of the ‘ideal’ proportion and types of civilian skills for inclusion in the CRC. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Multicriteria Classification with Unknown Categories: A Clustering–Sorting Approach and an Application to Conflict Management

This work proposes an approach to cluster and sort a set of alternatives considering multi‐criteria categories with a partial order structure. It can be considered a heuristic approach because it does not attempt to derive an optimal partial order among all conceivable clusters of alternatives. Rather than this, it intends to be a simple approach that is transparent to the Decision Maker (DM) whose assistance is sought to help shaping the results. The approach proposed arises from the conjugation of traditional Clustering analysis and Multi‐criteria sorting tools. At the outset, the number of categories and their characteristics is unknown. First, we need to detect only the clusters themselves on the basis of a similarity measure independent of the preferences of the DM. Next, we detect potential partial order relations that might exist between them, according to the subjective preferences of the DM. Such preferences are elicited only after the DM has examined the clusters detected and deemed that these categories made sense. The new approach performs very well in a real‐world problem of management of intragroup conflicts and conflict handling strategies. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Attribute‐based differentiation of alternatives

An intermediate step is introduced to the dialogue decision process for decision analysis. Alternatives are refined after they have been generated within a strategy table but before they are subject to more detailed evaluation. Two or more judges create a subjective mapping from alternatives to attributes that will later be mapped to criteria. In strategy tables, each of the alternative strategies consists of a coherent set of choices made across several decisions that are to be coordinated. These strategic alternatives are modified so as to increase their differentiation in the attribute space, rather than in the decision space alone. When criteria weights are unknown, the best alternative from the modified set may be superior to the best alternative from the original set. Furthermore, analysis of the resulting alternatives may yield a better mapping of the value response surface for the action space, in the sense that this mapping leads to eventual construction of a higher value alternative. Results are reported for a consulting engagement incorporating the proposed step. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Mindsets,rationality and emotion in Multi‐criteria Decision Analysis

This paper discusses the paradigm of multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA), and relates it to other disciplines. It concludes that MCDA needs a larger, not smaller, emphasis on values and subjectivity to increase rationality in decision‐making. The paper bases the argument on a conciliation of ethics, philosophy, neuro‐psychology and management paradigms. It observes that the MCDA ‘mindset’ relates to consequentialism, as opposed to virtue ethics and rule based ethics. Virtues and rules play an important role in practical decision‐making, however. Findings in neuro‐psychology show that reliable decision‐making requires emotions. Elicitation of emotions is therefore required in MCDA value trade‐off processes. This leads to a concept of emotional rationality, which defines rationality as a four‐dimensional concept that includes well‐founded values and breaks radically with common notions of rationality. Virtues do not easily lend themselves to value trade‐off, but questions of virtue usually creates strong social emotions, as opposed to the feebler global emotions that may arise in connection conventional trade‐off of end values. The conclusion is that MCDA should not be shy of subjectivity and emotion, but instead put more emphasis on it to increase rationality. A part of this challenge is how to deal with questions of virtue in decision‐making. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Planning a reader-oriented strategy for a publishing company: a case study

Scientific research in the sector of press readability and specifically magazines is not particularly extensive. This paper suggests a framework for the development of strategic decisions based on reader satisfaction measurements. The methodology is illustrated through a real-world application, i.e. customer-oriented strategy planning for the leading monthly IT magazine in Greece. This study implements the MUSA (Multicriteria Satisfaction Analysis) method to evaluate reader satisfaction, in order to support the editor in making decisions while planning his editorial strategy. Reader satisfaction was analysed based on a tree containing seven main criteria and 32 sub-criteria. Readers proved to be very satisfied and non-demanding, which results in narrower margins for efficient improvement suggestions. However, the evaluation of the MUSA results led to putting forward suggestions that could support the editor in making amendment decisions. Some of these suggestions were successfully implemented within the scope of a new strategy. This revealed the need for two separate editions, an IT magazine for pupils and students as well as an IT magazine focused on women. The decision maker received suggestions on what these new publications' features should be, deriving from the study's quantitative results. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Variation of Preference Inconsistency When Applying Ratio and Interval Scale Pairwise Comparisons

Several studies on numerical rating in discrete choice problems address the tendency of inconsistencies in decision makers' measured preferences. This is partly due to true inconsistencies in preferences or the decision makers' uncertainty on what he or she really wants. This uncertainty may be reflected in the elicited preferences in different ways depending on the questions asked and methods used in deriving the preferences for alternatives. Some part of the inconsistency is due to only having a discrete set of possible judgments. This study examined the variation of preference inconsistency when applying different pairwise preference elicitation techniques in a five‐item discrete choice problem. The study data comprised preferences of five career alternatives elicited applying interval scale and numerically and verbally anchored ratio scale pairwise comparisons. Statistical regression technique was used to analyse the differences of inconsistencies between the tested methods. The resulting relative residual variances showed that the interval ratio scale comparison technique provided the greatest variation of inconsistencies between respondents, thus being the most sensitive to inconsistency in preferences. The numeric ratio scale comparison gave the most uniform preferences between the respondents. The verbal ratio scale comparison performed between the latter two when relative residual variances were considered. However, the verbal ratio scale comparison had weaker ability to differentiate the alternatives. The results indicated that the decision recommendation may not be sensitive to the selection between these preference elicitation methods in this kind of five‐item discrete choice problem. The numeric ratio scale comparison technique seemed to be the most suitable method to reveal the decision makers' true preferences. However, to confirm this result, more studying will be needed, with an attention paid to users' comprehension and learning in the course of the experiment. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Problem formulation for multi-criteria decision analysis: report of a workshop

This paper reports on a workshop on Problem Formulation in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis held at SPUDM97. The focus of the workshop was the problem formulation phase which occurs between the analyst meeting a person with a ‘mess’ and the time he or she begins to analyse a structured problem with several alternatives scored against several attributes or criteria. The objectives were: to share experience on procedures which might be transferable between the methodologies; to demonstrate different skills used by the analyst in structuring decision problems; and to catalyse a discussion on the problem formulation phase of an analysis. Three analysts, who generally approach problems using multiattribute methods, addressed the same problem. The problem used was constructed to be realistic to three decision makers, who had been trained in the issues of concern. There were two sessions. Each analyst was assigned a decision maker and formulated the problem independently in the first session, held in parallel. They were each observed by two observers and many of the audience at the workshop. The three formulations were presented along with the comments of the observers and discussed at a second plenary session. This paper reports the three formulations and observations, remarking on the ‘tricks of the trade’ employed by the analysts in formulating the problem. The analysts also describe their thinking and their aims in adopting their approach and style of interaction. More general remarks on the process of decision analysis are also offered. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On the Similarities of Some Multi‐Criteria Decision Analysis Methods

Since multiple criteria characterise many practical decision problems, the research field of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is flourishing. This paper compares the multi‐attribute decision making (MADM) methods, simple additive rating (SAR), simple additive weighting (SAW) as well as the outranking approach PROMETHEE and explains their similarities. We present a case study on industrial paint application and provide theoretical evidence that PROMETHEE can mimic other MADM algorithms. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

ACADEA—a decision support system for faculty performance reviews

ACADEA, a multi‐criteria decision support system for the performance review of individual faculty, is presented. Developed from the point of view of a department that is facing exogenously as well as self imposed objectives, the support system looks upon the aggregate performance of an academic department as the result of individual faculty member's multi‐criteria evaluations. Five objectives, research output, teaching output, external service, internal service and cost, are operationalized into criteria. The system is applied to a university department with 30 faculty members evaluated over a 3‐year period. The results identify promotional candidates and reveal underlying problems in managerial consistency, departmental sub‐groupings and the incentive structure. The outcomes of the support system are consistent with the position that equity in faculty governance does not necessarily imply equal loads on all tasks. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.