Abstract
We consider the multiattribute design problem (MADP) which contains a considerable number of alternatives, resulting from the combination of a limited number of discrete levels of several quantitative and/or qualitative attributes. In order to solve such problems, the preferences of individual decision makers have to be measured. Though a considerable number of methods is available from different ...
Abstract
We consider the multiattribute design problem (MADP) which contains a considerable number of alternatives, resulting from the combination of a limited number of discrete levels of several quantitative and/or qualitative attributes. In order to solve such problems, the preferences of individual decision makers have to be measured. Though a considerable number of methods is available from different research areas, only a subset is applicable to MADP.
In this paper, we report on an empirical study which considered the problem of designing a university and involved more than 300 respondents. Because of this large-scale design, we performed a paper-and-pencil investigation and selected methods which could concisely be applied in such a setting: the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the conjoint analysis (CA).
The results show that both methods give useful models of the respondents' preferences. However, inspecting the utility functions determined in detail reveals considerable discrepancies between them. Most of the measures used for comparison indicate AHP to be the better choice for the special decision situation considered. In order to get a more general recommendation, we categorize different types of MADP and discuss the applicability of AHP and CA.
Altmetric