Search results

Environmental decision making involving multiple stakeholders can benefit from the use of a formal process to structure stakeholder interactions, leading to more successful outcomes than traditional discursive decision processes. There are many tools available to handle complex decision making. Here we illustrate the use of a multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) outranking tool (PROMETHEE) to facilitate decision making at the watershed scale, involving multiple stakeholders, multiple criteria, and multiple objectives. We compare various MCDA methods and their theoretical underpinnings, examining methods that most realistically model complex decision problems in ways that are understandable and transparent to stakeholders.

The purpose of this paper is to present a hybrid modelling that combines concepts and techniques for scenario building together with a Multi-criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) outranking approach. The paper presents a case to illustrate the proposed methodology.

The research method is a qualitative and quantitative mixture and it is presented as a study case. Bibliographic research is used to construct the theoretical framework. There are a number of studies that develop a sensibility analysis in MCDA modelling; however, none of them explore the robustness of the MCDA solution with use of scenarios variation.

The methodology allows the criteria that must be taken into account, according to the decision makers’ values and preferences. It is interesting to note that, depending on the scenario, different weights were applied for each criterion, and the performances of alternatives under each criterion has changed as well.

This need arises in decision problems that are susceptible to the influence of scenario variation.

This proposal was applied to a real case that has taken into account six alternatives, with a prospective analysis of three scenarios, evaluated by four criteria. The authors use prospective scenarios to choose the criterion weights and alternatives evaluation.

This study aims to focus on the application of a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method to compare results presented by the Integrated Goals System based on the 12th edition of the Integrated Public Safety Areas (IPSAs) Award, which achieved goals established for Strategic Crime Indicators for the state of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The main objective of this research was to limit the compensatory effects of classification criteria on IPSAs that have achieved goals established for crime indicators by applying the MCDA method.

The methodology was based on the application of MCDA. The MCDA method selected and used was ELECTRE III, being implemented by J-Electre software.

Compared to results of the current method, the results of the ELECTRE III method showed a 94.87 per cent change in ranking positions revealed via the SIM method. This finding denotes the elimination of compensatory effects of the criteria. As a consequence, it can be affirmed that the application of resources by IPSA managers to reduce the prevalence of a single strategic crime indicator is no longer a success factor for awarding in the established goal system.

As limitations, it is possible to indicate the time cut used to carry out the research. The research may be extended to other issues of the productivity award.

The methodology applied with the use of ELECTRE III revealed that the government could reduce the cost with the incentive program to reduce criminal indices.

As the MCDA method is based on a binary pairwise comparison system, the methodology imposes a change of attitude on local managers fighting crime to reduce crime indicators and to consequently build a local sense of safety in IPSAs.

This research fills a gap in the literature because there are few studies using the MCDA method in the field of public security. The value of the work lies in the creation of a method that gives the decision-maker, of the law enforcement agency, an alternative to improve the process of rewarding by productividad of the integrated areas of public security.

The cost-optimal analysis is not able to address the multi-dimensionality of the decision according to the new European objectives and International sustainable development goals in the field of the nearly-zero energy building (NZEB) design. The purpose of this paper is to study the role of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) for guiding energy investment decisions.

The paper explores the Preference ranking organization method for enrichment of evaluations II (PROMETHEE II) application to support the project of transforming a rural building into a NZEB. The evaluation provides an estimate of the effects of alternative energy efficiency measures, involving energy consumption, life cycle costs, carbon emissions, property value and indoor comfort criteria. The study performs a multi-actors analysis in order to understand how different consumers' point of views can influence the final choice of the best investment. Furthermore, a multi-site analysis explores the spatial variation of NZEB building appreciation in the real estate market.

The PROMETHEE II-based model ranks 16 alternative solutions for the NZEB according to energy, economic and extra-economic criteria. The multi-actors analysis highlights the configuration of the NZEB building that best meets the needs of different end-users, respecting the European directives and national standards. The multi-site analysis concludes that location does not change users' appreciation and not influence the output for the best solution.

The MCDA occurs as a support tool that helps to optimize the preliminary design phase of NZEB through the exploration of the optimal solution considering crucial criteria in the energy and environmental and real estate market rules.

Making appropriate decisions concerning the ongoing management of existing built facilities is an important activity for property and facilities managers. Such decisions comprise multiple criteria, and the relative importance of these criteria typically reflects the implicit preferences or biases of the decision maker(s). This paper seeks to apply a new property management 3D decision model known as iconCUR to investigate the impact of criterion weights on the decision to intervene.

A retrospective case study of a real project in Sydney (Australia) that underwent adaptive reuse transformation in 2008 is used to test the sensitivity of implied decision‐maker preferences in practice.

It is found that significant change to individual criterion weights relating to aspects of building condition, space utilization and triple bottom line reward has minimal influence on the derived spatial coordinates that underpin the 3D decision model and hence the recommended intervention strategy in the particular case studied.

It is further suggested that changes in criterion weights over time as expectations and situations may dictate can be accommodated without undermining the integrity of the decision‐making process.

The deployment of this type of approach, at least, documents the decision‐making process involved in important property management strategies and exposes the frequently implicit preferences of decision makers. These preferences are shown not to be as critical as might have been suspected. This may add further confidence to the use of MCDA in facilities management decisions.

Emergency situations may differ in many ways but they share some common characteristics, such as the sudden onset and the need to transparently evaluate various usually conflicting objectives. In nuclear power generation, however, emergency situations constitute a special challenge. The focus of this paper is to highlight the role of multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) in nuclear emergency and recovery management on the basis of a hypothetical case study.

Multi‐attribute value theory as one field of research within MCDA is introduced. Special emphasis is placed on the modelling of the decision makers' preferences which is a crucial part in any multi‐criteria analysis. A central aim is to facilitate the preference elicitation in group decision processes.

The management of emergency situations in nuclear power generation necessitates the consideration of technical, economic, environmental, socio‐psychological and political aspects. Furthermore, various stakeholder and expert groups with diverse background knowledge and different views, responsibilities and interests are involved in such a decision‐making process. MCDA can help to take into account various incommensurable aspects and the subjective preferences of the decision makers and thus contribute to transparency and traceability of decision‐making processes. Since the preference parameters are inherently afflicted with uncertainties, thorough sensitivity analyses are important to visualise the impact of the uncertainties in an understandable way.

A new approach to sensitivity analysis is proposed, allowing one to comprehensibly visualise and communicate the impact of the uncertainties associated with the subjective preference parameters on the results of the decision analysis.

Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel consumption is a big challenge on the view of global warming and climate changes caused by greenhouse gases as per recent scientific reports. This paper aims to identify the major challenges of green energy sources (GES) to the future power systems and suggests an appropriate GES based on the preference by the decision maker on the various issues to meet these challenges.

The proposed work presents a multi‐criteria decision analysis (MCDA) – the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to evaluate the GES – photovoltaic (PV), wind generator (WG), biomass (BM) and micro‐hydel (MH) and to find the appropriate selection in general, by evaluating its main operational characteristic. In this research, the choices of the green energy alternatives on the basis of various factors have been taken into consideration. MATLAB simulation of different criteria to ascertain their clear‐cut effects on GES selection under multiple uncertainties are presented.

Related articles appearing in the recently published (1995‐2010) works, based on green energy scope and practical implementations, and earlier approaches in the field of energy are gathered and analyzed so that the following questions can be answered: Which evaluating criteria are paid more attention to? Which source is the best GES? Which is the most critical factor in the green energy selection. This research not only provides the application of MCDA to evaluate the operation of the GES – PV, WG, BM and MH but also aids the researchers and decision makers in applying the approaches effectively.

This is the first analysis in the green energy selection which considers future uncertainties of the GES. Instead of focusing only on cost factor, the proposed work considers main uncertainties of the GES. The best GES will be decided based on the preference of the criterion chosen by the end‐user.

Strategic management plays a pivotal role in the growth and success of organizations, significantly impacting their business performance and competitive edge. In today’s globalized markets, strategic management is gaining prominence as a means to enhance company performance and distinctiveness. Within this landscape, the evaluation of organizational effectiveness takes on heightened significance, complemented by the emergence of strategic management frameworks designed to secure enduring competitive advantages for businesses.

One of the best known approaches to organizational resource assessment is the value, rarity, inimitability and organizational-oriented (VRIO) framework. However, this tool comes with inherent limitations that have hindered its advancement, primarily related to the need for less subjective means of identifying and assigning weights to resources and capabilities during the evaluation process. This study, therefore, endeavored to refine the VRIO framework, making it more transparent and empirically robust. To achieve this aim, the framework was combined with the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) method (i.e. a multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) method), and a real-life application was conducted.

The evaluation system created was tested, and the results demonstrate that the dual methodology used can increase the understanding of resource appraisal and lead to more informed and potentially better evaluations of resources and capabilities. The strengths and shortcomings of this new structured evaluation model are also analyzed.

The authors know of no prior work reporting the integrated use of VRIO and DEMATEL in this study context.

Identify the criteria/KPIs to support managers during human resource allocation based on knowledge demand, which serves as a decision support tool to help maintain organizational competitiveness.

Human resource allocation in a project management model, based on knowledge demand and using a multi‐criteria decision aiding method as an intervention instrument.

Three major areas of concern were identified. In all, 76 KPIs to explain concerns associated with the values of the manager, and develop cardinal and ordinal scales for each descriptor and integrate compensation rate. Further, he was allowed to implement and evaluate the current performance of the analyzed engineer, with 44 points on a cardinal scale, and provide a model with improved actions that raised his assessment to 55,67.

The Multi‐Criteria Decision Aiding‐Constructivist methodology (MCDA‐C) emerges as a traditional MCDA method to support decision makers in the contexts where they have a partial understanding and wish to increase their knowledge of the consequences of their values and preferences. In addition, these managers will also need to utilize time management, as people issues in the place of other functions have been highlighted in numerous published articles over how the management of human resource allocation can influence the competitive performances of an organization.

The purpose of this paper is to propose and test a multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) approach based on an additive value function (AVF) to select the most economically advantageous tender under European Union public procurement regulations.

A case study in which the AVF tender evaluation model is constructed by the procurement personnel and the results of the original, real-life public procurement evaluation model are compared to those discovered by the MCDA approach.

The AVF model captures the preferences of the procurement authority in a more reliable and transparent manner than commonly used evaluation models based on scoring formulas.

While commonly used in public procurement, relative scoring formulas can neither present the preferences of a procurement unit accurately nor do they enable bidders to draft bids according to these preferences. The proposed MCDA approach can achieve both.

The contribution of this paper is threefold. First, the successful construction of the AVF model with procurement personnel is introduced. Second, the model is used in an actual, real-life case. Third, a thoughtful comparison of features, structures and results of the AVF model and the evaluation model using scoring formulas is presented.