Intentional bounded rationality methodology to assess the quality of decision-making approaches with latent alternative performances

Abstract

Expert's judgments have been crucial in the development of decision theory; however, what criterion to use in the selection of experts remains an issue to address. Decision support techniques proposed to improve the quality of expert judgment decision making consider a demonstrated inconsistency of the judgments expressed by an expert as a criterion of exclusion in the decision-making process of such expert. Although consistency appears to be a desirable condition to qualify as “expert”, little is known about the quality of the decisions made imposing consistency as the expert qualifying condition. This paper proposes a simulation methodology, based on an automaton programmed to make decisions in an intended but bounded rational way, to assess the cost-benefit of different aspects of decision support techniques. Within this methodology, the imposition of the consistency condition in the selection of experts is studied. In particular, the paper shows with a case study example that the Analytical hierarchy process (AHP) decision support technique expected payoff is at most 5% higher when implementing Saaty's consistency criterion of the expert's judgments than when the consistency criterion is not considered.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 28 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.