상세정보

axiomatic results should be at the heart of such a science. Through them, we should be able to enlighten and scientifically assist decision-making processes especially by: - making that wh ich is objective stand out more c1early from that which is less objective; - separating robust from fragile conc1usions; - dissipating certain forms of misunderstanding in communication; - avoiding the pitfall of illusory reasoning; - emphasizing, once they are understood, incontrovertible results. The difficulties I encountered at the begining of my career as an operations researcher, and later as a consultant, made me realize that there were some limitations on objectivity in decision-aiding. In my opinion, five major aspects must be taken into consideration: 1) The borderline (or frontier) between what is and what is not feasible is often fuzzy. Moreover, this borderline is frequently modified in light of what is found from the study itself. 2) In many real-world problems, the "decision maker D" does not really exist as a person truly able to make adecision. Usually, several people (actors or stakeholders) take part in the decision process, and it is important not to confuse the one who ratifies adecision with the so-called decision maker in the decision ai ding process. This decision maker is in fact the person or the set of persons for whom or in the name of whom decision aiding effort is provided.

axiomatic results should be at the heart of such a science. Through them, we should be able to enlighten and scientifically assist decision-making processes especially by: - making that wh ich is objective stand out more c1early from that which is less objective; - separating robust from fragile conc1usions; - dissipating certain forms of misunderstanding in communication; - avoiding the pitfall of illusory reasoning; - emphasizing, once they are understood, incontrovertible results. The difficulties I encountered at the begining of my career as an operations researcher, and later as a consultant, made me realize that there were some limitations on objectivity in decision-aiding. In my opinion, five major aspects must be taken into consideration: 1) The borderline (or frontier) between what is and what is not feasible is often fuzzy. Moreover, this borderline is frequently modified in light of what is found from the study itself. 2) In many real-world problems, the "decision maker D" does not really exist as a person truly able to make adecision. Usually, several people (actors or stakeholders) take part in the decision process, and it is important not to confuse the one who ratifies adecision with the so-called decision maker in the decision ai ding process. This decision maker is in fact the person or the set of persons for whom or in the name of whom decision aiding effort is provided.

정보제공 :

Reader's Guide. Foreword to the English-Language Edition. Introductory: How to Aid Whom with What Types of Decision. 1. Decision Problems and Processes. 2. Decision Aiding: Major Actors and the Role of Models. 3. Reference Examples. 4. Phases and Options of an Approach to Decision Aiding (General Ideas of the Methodology). Level I: How to Determine What is Possible and in What Terms to Formulate a Problem. 5. Actions and Decision Aiding. 6. Problematics as Guides in Decision Aiding. Level II: How to Determine Preferences and on What Bases. 7. Preference, Indifference, Incomparability: Binary Relations and Basic Structures. 8. Comparing Actions and Modeling Consequences. 9. Comparing Actions and Developing Criteria. Levels III and IV: How to Proceed from Multiple Criteria to Comprehensive Preferences and Develop Recommendations. 10. Coherent Criterion Family and Decision Aiding in the Description Problematic. 11. Modeling Comprehensive Preferences: Three Operational Approaches for Progressing Beyond the Description Problematic. 12. Specific Difficulties in Choice, Sorting, and Ranking Problematics. Bibliography. Index.

정보제공 :