RBU: A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making

Mounir El Asmar, W. Lotfallah, W. Loh, Awad Hanna

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Decision-making in fields such as politics, engineering and healthcare, shapes the world and how it evolves. Both public and private organizations face challenges when making decisions. Two examples occurred with the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 2007 and the U.S. Department of Energy in 2008. Losing bidders for a bridge-rebuilding contract and a liquid-waste cleanup project, respectively, protested the agencies' awards on the basis of evaluation methods and selection criteria. Multi-evaluator multi-criterion (MEMC) decision making can be controversial if bias or uncertainty find their way into the final decision. In a previous study, the authors of this paper developed a model that reduces the effect of uncertainty resulting from an evaluator's insufficient expertise in a particular criterion. This paper builds on the previous study by also correcting for potential favoritism or bias. It presents a more comprehensive mathematical model that supports MEMC decisions and protects decision-makers from criticism. The methodology includes: (1) proposing a probabilistic model and its assumptions; (2) developing an iterative algorithm; (3) testing the algorithm and analyzing its convergence; and (4) revising the model based on the results. Tests of the model show it performs better than the simple average method on 100% of the simulations.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationCongress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings
Pages73-80
Number of pages8
DOIs
StatePublished - 2012
Externally publishedYes
Event2012 ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering - Clearwater Beach, FL, United States
Duration: Jun 17 2012Jun 20 2012

Other

Other2012 ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering
CountryUnited States
CityClearwater Beach, FL
Period6/17/126/20/12

Fingerprint

Decision making
Mathematical models
Liquids
Testing
Uncertainty
Statistical Models

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Civil and Structural Engineering
  • Computer Science Applications

Cite this

El Asmar, M., Lotfallah, W., Loh, W., & Hanna, A. (2012). RBU: A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making. In Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings (pp. 73-80) https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412343.0010

RBU : A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making. / El Asmar, Mounir; Lotfallah, W.; Loh, W.; Hanna, Awad.

Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings. 2012. p. 73-80.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

El Asmar, M, Lotfallah, W, Loh, W & Hanna, A 2012, RBU: A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making. in Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings. pp. 73-80, 2012 ASCE International Conference on Computing in Civil Engineering, Clearwater Beach, FL, United States, 6/17/12. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412343.0010
El Asmar M, Lotfallah W, Loh W, Hanna A. RBU: A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making. In Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings. 2012. p. 73-80 https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412343.0010
El Asmar, Mounir ; Lotfallah, W. ; Loh, W. ; Hanna, Awad. / RBU : A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making. Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings. 2012. pp. 73-80
@inproceedings{6ffe8cc20b004ed0bdd720f803da12db,
title = "RBU: A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making",
abstract = "Decision-making in fields such as politics, engineering and healthcare, shapes the world and how it evolves. Both public and private organizations face challenges when making decisions. Two examples occurred with the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 2007 and the U.S. Department of Energy in 2008. Losing bidders for a bridge-rebuilding contract and a liquid-waste cleanup project, respectively, protested the agencies' awards on the basis of evaluation methods and selection criteria. Multi-evaluator multi-criterion (MEMC) decision making can be controversial if bias or uncertainty find their way into the final decision. In a previous study, the authors of this paper developed a model that reduces the effect of uncertainty resulting from an evaluator's insufficient expertise in a particular criterion. This paper builds on the previous study by also correcting for potential favoritism or bias. It presents a more comprehensive mathematical model that supports MEMC decisions and protects decision-makers from criticism. The methodology includes: (1) proposing a probabilistic model and its assumptions; (2) developing an iterative algorithm; (3) testing the algorithm and analyzing its convergence; and (4) revising the model based on the results. Tests of the model show it performs better than the simple average method on 100{\%} of the simulations.",
author = "{El Asmar}, Mounir and W. Lotfallah and W. Loh and Awad Hanna",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1061/9780784412343.0010",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780784412343",
pages = "73--80",
booktitle = "Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - RBU

T2 - A model for reducing bias and uncertainty in multi-evaluator multi-criterion decision making

AU - El Asmar, Mounir

AU - Lotfallah, W.

AU - Loh, W.

AU - Hanna, Awad

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - Decision-making in fields such as politics, engineering and healthcare, shapes the world and how it evolves. Both public and private organizations face challenges when making decisions. Two examples occurred with the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 2007 and the U.S. Department of Energy in 2008. Losing bidders for a bridge-rebuilding contract and a liquid-waste cleanup project, respectively, protested the agencies' awards on the basis of evaluation methods and selection criteria. Multi-evaluator multi-criterion (MEMC) decision making can be controversial if bias or uncertainty find their way into the final decision. In a previous study, the authors of this paper developed a model that reduces the effect of uncertainty resulting from an evaluator's insufficient expertise in a particular criterion. This paper builds on the previous study by also correcting for potential favoritism or bias. It presents a more comprehensive mathematical model that supports MEMC decisions and protects decision-makers from criticism. The methodology includes: (1) proposing a probabilistic model and its assumptions; (2) developing an iterative algorithm; (3) testing the algorithm and analyzing its convergence; and (4) revising the model based on the results. Tests of the model show it performs better than the simple average method on 100% of the simulations.

AB - Decision-making in fields such as politics, engineering and healthcare, shapes the world and how it evolves. Both public and private organizations face challenges when making decisions. Two examples occurred with the Minnesota Department of Transportation in 2007 and the U.S. Department of Energy in 2008. Losing bidders for a bridge-rebuilding contract and a liquid-waste cleanup project, respectively, protested the agencies' awards on the basis of evaluation methods and selection criteria. Multi-evaluator multi-criterion (MEMC) decision making can be controversial if bias or uncertainty find their way into the final decision. In a previous study, the authors of this paper developed a model that reduces the effect of uncertainty resulting from an evaluator's insufficient expertise in a particular criterion. This paper builds on the previous study by also correcting for potential favoritism or bias. It presents a more comprehensive mathematical model that supports MEMC decisions and protects decision-makers from criticism. The methodology includes: (1) proposing a probabilistic model and its assumptions; (2) developing an iterative algorithm; (3) testing the algorithm and analyzing its convergence; and (4) revising the model based on the results. Tests of the model show it performs better than the simple average method on 100% of the simulations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888374426&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84888374426&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1061/9780784412343.0010

DO - 10.1061/9780784412343.0010

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:84888374426

SN - 9780784412343

SP - 73

EP - 80

BT - Congress on Computing in Civil Engineering, Proceedings

ER -