Skip to main content
Log in

Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation

  • Case Oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

This paper proposes a tool for multi-criteria decision aid to be referred to as a Reasoning Map. It is motivated by a desire to provide an integrated approach to problem structuring and evaluation, and in particular, to make the transition between these two processes a natural and seamless progression. The approach has two phases. In the first one, the building of a Reasoning Map supports problem structuring, capturing a decision maker's reasoning as a network of means and ends concepts. In the second phase, this map is enhanced, employing a user-defined qualitative scale to measure both performances of decision options and strengths of influence for each means–end link. This latter phase supports the decision maker in evaluating the positive and negative impacts of an action through synthesis of the qualitative information. A case study, which investigates the use of the method in practice, is also presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F and Belton V (1999) Mixing methods: Balancing equivocality with precision. Working Paper 99/4, Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK.

  • Ackermann F and Eden C (2004). Using causal mapping—individual and group, traditional and new. In: Pidd M. (ed). Systems Modelling—Theory and Practice. Wiley: Chichester, pp. 127–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Axelrod R (ed) (1976). Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites. Princeton University Press: Princeton.

  • Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Corrêa EC and Vansnick JC (1999). Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in a multi-criteria decision aid process. Eur J Opl Res 113: 315–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V (1985). The use of a simple multiple criteria model to assist in selection from a shortlist. J Opl Res Soc 36: 265–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Ackermann F and Shepherd I (1997). Integrated support from problem structuring through to alternative evaluation using COPE and V·I·S·A. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6: 115–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V and Stewart T (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer: Dordrecht.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C and Finn CB (2004). Visible Thinking: Unlocking Causal Mapping for Practical Business Results. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Budescu DV and Wallsten TS (1985). Consistency in interpretation of probabilistic phrases. Org Behav Hum Decis Process 36: 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buss AR (1978). Causes and reasons in attribute theory: A conceptual critique. J Pers Soc Psychol 36: 1311–1321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen L-S and Cheng H-S (2005). Selecting IS personnel use fuzzy GDSS based on metric distance method. Eur J Opl Res 160: 803–820.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cossette P and Audet M (1992). Mapping of an idiosyncratic schema. J Mngt Stud 29: 325–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Domingo-Ferrer J and Torra V (2003). Median based aggregation operators for prototype construction in ordinal scales. Int J Intell Syst 18: 633–655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Opl Res 159: 673–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C and Ackermann F (1998). Analysing and comparing idiographic causal maps. In: Eden C and Spender JC (eds). Managerial and Organizational Cognition. Sage: London, pp. 192–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ensslin L, Dutra A and Ensslin SR (2000a). MCDA: A constructivist approach to the management of human resources at a governmental agency. Intl Trans Op Res 7: 79–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ensslin L, Montibeller G and Lima MVA (2000b). Constructing and implementing a DSS to help evaluate perceived risk of accounts receivable. In: Haimes YY and Steuer RE (eds). Research and Practice in Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Springer: Berlin, pp. 248–259.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S and Ehrgott M (2005). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis—State of the Art Surveys. Springer: New York.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Godo L and Torra V (2000). On aggregation operators for ordinal qualitative information. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 8: 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin P and Wright G (2004). Decision Analysis for Management Judgement, 3rd edition. Wiley: Chichester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon SE and Gill RT (1992). Knowledge acquisition with question probes and conceptual graph structures. In: Lauer TW, Peacock EG and Graesser AC (eds). Questions and Information Systems. Lawrence Erlbaum: Hillsdale, pp. 29–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutman J (1982). A means–end chain model based on consumer categorization processes. J Marketing 46: 60–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckerman D and Shachter R (1995). Decision-theoretic foundations for causal reasoning. J Artif Intell Res 3: 405–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrera F and Herrera-Viedma E (2000). Linguistic decision analysis: Steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115: 67–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huff AS and Jenkins M (eds) (2002). Mapping Strategic Knowledge. Sage: London.

  • Huizingh EKRE and Vrolijk HCJ (1997). A comparison of verbal and numerical judgements in the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Org Behav Hum Decis Process 70: 237–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-making. Harvard University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kosko B (1986). Fuzzy cognitive maps. Int J Man-Machines Stud 25: 65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kosko B (1992). Neural Networks and Fuzzy Sets. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larichev OI (1992). Cognitive validity in design of decision-aiding techniques. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 1: 127–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marchant T (1999). Cognitive maps and fuzzy implications. Eur J Opl Res 114: 626–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkhofer MW (1990). Using influence diagrams in multi-attribute utility analysis—improving effectiveness through improving communication. In: Olivier RM and Smith JQ (eds). Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis. Wiley: Chichester, pp. 297–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J (1997). Multi-paradigm multimethodology. In: Mingers J and Gill A (eds). Multimethodology. Wiley: Chichester, pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G (2000). Reasoning maps for decision aiding. PhD Dissertation, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Department of Production Engineering, Brazil (in cooperation with the Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde, Scotland) (in Portuguese)..

  • Montibeller G and Belton V (2006). Causal maps and the evaluation of options—a review. J Opl Res Soc 57: 771–779.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Belton V and Lima MV (2006). Supporting factoring transactions in Brazil using reasoning maps: A language-based DSS for evaluating accounts receivable. Decis Support Syst, doi: 10.1016/j.dss.2004.11.011.

  • Nadkarni S and Shenoy PP (2001). A Bayesian network approach to making inferences in causal maps. Eur J Opl Res 128: 479–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nadkarni S and Shenoy PP (2004). A causal mapping approach to constructing Bayesian networks. Decis Support Syst 38: 259–281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J and Mingers J (eds) (2001). Rational Analysis for a Problematic World Revisited. Wiley: Chichester.

  • Roy B (1993). Decision science or decision-aid science? Eur J Opl Res 66: 184–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schon DA (1984). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. Basic Books: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1995). The construction of preference. Am Psychol 50: 364–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spyridakos A, Siskos Y, Yannacopoulos D and Skouris A (1991). Multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations. Eur J Opl Res 130: 357–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sterman JD (2000). Business Dynamics. Irwin McGraw-Hill: Boston.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson SR and Buede DM (1987). Decision Synthesis. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellman MP (1994). Inference in cognitive maps. Math Comput Simulation 36: 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1995). An approach to ordinal decision making. Int J Approx Reason 12: 237–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yager RR (1998). Fusion of ordinal information using weighted median aggregation. Int J Approx Reason 18: 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang W, Chen S and Bezdek JC (1989). Pool2: A generic system for cognitive map development and decision analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet 19: 31–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was developed when the first author was associated with the Department of Management Science, University of Strathclyde. The initial phase of this research was supported by a grant from the Capes foundation.We are thankful to Carlos Bana e Costa, for the insightful idea that sparkled this research; to the HR consultant Cristianne Sá Bez, who devoted time and effort in the case study, and to two anonymous referees for their comments on our draft.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to G Montibeller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Montibeller, G., Belton, V., Ackermann, F. et al. Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. J Oper Res Soc 59, 575–589 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602347

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602347

Keywords

Navigation