Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1. INTRODUCTION
With the advance of modern computing technology, there are more and more software packages
available oering to support decision analysis. In
OR/MS Today 2002 biennial survey 27 software
packages were listed; in the 2004 survey there were
45 packages (Maxwell, 2002, 2004). All the
packages are seemingly versatile, oer userfriendly graphical interfaces and more than
sucient power to tackle substantial problems.
With such choice, it is natural to ask what are the
dierences between the packages. Are some more
powerful, more intuitive or whatever than others?
In our case we are concerned with the t of
MCDM packages with the culture and form of the
decision process. Some decision analyses are
carried out on a desktop for a client, some in a
decision support room with a group of decision
makers present, and some o-line for an organization with the results being fed back via a report
or decision seminar. Belton and Hodgkin (1999)
remark similarly on dierent contexts of use and
their requirements implications for decision support software. Are some packages more suited for
*Correspondence to: Manchester Business School
(MBS), The University of Manchester, Booth Street
West, Manchester Ml5 6PB, UK.
E-mail: simon.french@mbs.ac.uk
y
E-mail: ling.xu@mbs.ac.uk
z
This study is based upon the second authors MBA
dissertation at Manchester Business School.
66
67
*
*
68
69
70
71
See www.banxia.com
stages of problem formulation and the development of a multi-attribute model (Belton et al.,
1997; Eden and Ackermann, 1998). There are nowclear methodological guidelines which help in
problem structuring.
4.2.2. Value elicitation. V.I.S.A can handle quantitative and qualitative attributes. Grades or scores
can be used to assess an alternative on a
qualitative attribute. Each of the grades has an
associated underlying score which is set at the
outset of the assessment. There are two interfaces
for entering the assessment data of an alternative
on a quantitative attribute, shown in Figure 4(a)
and (b), and one on a qualitative attribute, shown
in (c). The data can be entered using a mouse to
drag and drop an alternative along the thermometer in (a) or the bar corresponding to the
alternative in (b), or selected from a drop down list
of a pre-dened set of grades. They can also be
typed in directly into the alternative window: see
Figure 3. For qualitative attributes, data can be
entered only from the alternative window. The
interface for value function denition is very userfriendly and exible. It provides great control on
the shape of the value function. The value function
does not have to be monotonic.
Weighting can be elicited in two ways in
V.I.S.A: across tree and within family. Across tree
is a swing weighting method used to elicit a
cumulative or global weight for each bottom-level
attribute. All bottom-level attributes are considered from the tree view window. Weights can be
changed by dragging a red square along the thin
J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 13: 6580 (2005)
72
www.decisionarium.tkk.
J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 13: 6580 (2005)
73
74
use to explore issues such as cost benet compromises (see e.g. French et al., 1992).
4.4. Expert Choice
The rst version of Expert Choice6 was developed
by Professors Forman and Saaty in 1983. They
realized that the rate of adoption of AHP, the
decision analytic methodology developed by Saaty
(1980), would be greatly enhanced by the availability of user-friendly software. They were right in
their assessment and one of the great strengths
that the AHP community have had over the years
is the availability of excellent software. Thus
Expert Choice has a long history and a large user
community which have ensured that now it is a
very mature and well designed piece of software.
Now in addition to AHP, Expert Choice oers
support to a wider range of linear weighting
methods, including direct weighting and nonlinear attribute value functions.
4.4.1. Problem structuring. Expert Choice has two
dierent interfaces for structuring a value tree: the
TreeView pane and the ClusterView pane. In both
panes, attributes can be easily sorted, automatically organized and moved around into dierent
branches of the tree. It also has a feature which is
not seen in many other packages: the ProCon
pane. This pane is used to support the formation
of the value tree. Pros and Cons can be entered
into the ProCon pane at any location and sorted
automatically or moved around manually after
being added. Then the pros and cons can be
converted into attributes. The conversion is
manual. To convert, the ProCon pane and one
of the TreeView and ClusterView panes are
displayed side by side, the pros and cons can be
drag-dropped into TreeView or ClusterView pane
to become an attribute in the value tree. Users are
prompted to rename the Pro or Con into a proper
attribute name during the process. Finally, for
those of us susceptible to losing data in the highly
unstructured process of problem formulation,
Expert Choice has excellent data backup functionalities to prevent accidental data losses, such as
from program crash, which is an important feature
to corporate users.
www.expertchoice.com
www.logicaldecisions.com
J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 13: 6580 (2005)
75
but also a probability distribution. If an alternative has such uncertain attribute values, Monte
Carlo simulation is used in the evaluation. The
shape of value functions in Logical Decisions can
be linear, a default setting, piecewise linear, or
curved, but it has to be monotonic. Value
functions can be input through several interfaces,
according to the value function elicitation method
used, such as direct assessment, the bisection
method, and AHP. Compared with the other
packages, the shape of a value function is less easy
to control when using the direct method.
There are six methods for eliciting attribute
weights: Tradeos, Direct, Smart, Smarter, Pairwise and AHP. The Tradeos method is not seen
in any other packages. It asks the decision maker
how much she would sacrice on one attribute in
order to gain a certain amount on another. It then
calculates the weight ratio of the two attributes
from the tradeos and by taking into account the
value range of the two attributes. It captures the
spirit of the value trading approaches, AHP in
Logical Decisions is applied dierently to other
packages. Instead of considering a family of
attributes, it considers all bottom-level attributes
simultaneously, which makes the comparison
matrix very large and much less user-friendly.
In Logical Decisions, dierent decision makers
are able to have dierent sets of attribute weights
and dierent value functions. This is useful when
there are multiple stakeholders involved in a
decision problem. However, the current version
does not provide a synthesized group opinion, but
there is a full Logical Decisions for Group
package.
J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 13: 6580 (2005)
76
4.5.3. Sensitivity analysis. Logical Decisions provide similar types of graphs for sensitivity analysis
as in Expert Choice, but only one of the types is
interactive, which uses interactive bars to represent
weights on the left pane and alternative scores on
the right. The other types do not facilitate user
interactions to change weights.
5. COMPARISON AND DISCUSSION
Perhaps our most immediate conclusion from
exploring all ve packages}and a few others
besides}is that all provide excellent support for
the decision analytic process beginning with
problem formulation and continuing through to
evaluation and report writing. Much functionality
is common between the packages and there has
been convergence in terms of the methodologies
supported, most notably in the joint support of
AHP and MAVT analyses. Even HiView which
does not have any AHP functionality per se, now
supports pairwise comparisons in the form of the
Macbeth approach to elicitation. Only V.I.S.A
focuses solely on support for MAVT methodologies. And that perhaps is an unfair statement,
because Valerie Belton and her students have
experimented with many extensions to V.I.S.A,
including a fuzzy version (Koulouri and Belton,
1998). Nonetheless, there are distinctions between
the packages and their origins still shows through
in some of their functionality and interfaces. Let us
consider the t with the three cases of decision
processes identied in Section 2.
5.1. Case A: analysis conducted by the decision
makers themselves
If the decision maker is skilled in decision analysis,
each package provides substantial support, and
there is little to choose between them. For the
untrained decision maker, things are not so clear.
The methodology of decision analysis has a
sophistication that belies the simplicity of the
weighted sum of attribute scores model which lies
at the heart of decision analysis. It is too easy to
input numbers, obtain a ranking and adopt the
highest ranking alternative with only a perfunctory
exploration of the sensitivity of the ranking to the
inputs. Sensitivity analysis and Pareto plots,
indeed all the techniques of decision analysis
should be used to challenge thinking and catalyse
creativity (French, 2003; Phillips, 1984). Only
Web-Hipre via the decisionarium website provides
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
77
78
To be fair, we should remember that there is a groupenabled version which we have not examined.
J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 13: 6580 (2005)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to many people for discussions: we
mention Valerie Belton, Raimo Hamalainen,
Larry Phillips, Theo Stewart and Jian-Bo Yang;
and thank them along with many others. Referees
oered very helpful advice on an earlier version of
this paper. However, the interpretations we oer
are ours alone}as are the errors. Moreover, we
trust that we do not oend the developers of the
dierent packages by our reections on the
motivation and origins of the packages. The
packages evaluated were in some cases, evaluation
downloads provided on vendors websites.
REFERENCES
Acko RL. 1974. Redesigning the Future: A Systems
Approach to Societal Planning. Wiley: New York.
Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick J-C. 2000. Cardinal value
measurement with Macbeth. In Decision Making:
Recent Developments and Worldwide Applications,
Zanakis SH, Doukidis G, Zopounidis C (eds).
Kluwer: Dordrecht, 317329.
Barclay S. 1984. Hiview Software Package. Decision
Analysis Unit, London School of Economics.
Bazerman M. 2002. Managerial Decision Making. Wiley:
New York.
Belton V. 1984. The use of a simple multi-criteria model
to assist in selection from a short-list. Journal of the
Operational Research Society 36: 265274.
Belton V, Ackermann F, Shepherd I. 1997. Integrated
support from problem structuring through to alternative evaluation using COPE and VISA. Journal of
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6: 115130.
Copyright # 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
79
80