Standard

A Method of Reaching Consensus with the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) methodology. / Huang, He; Macharis, Cathy; De Smet, Yves; Doan Nguyen, Anh Vu.

2019. 165 Abstract from 25th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Istanbul, Turkey.

Research output: Unpublished contribution to conferenceUnpublished abstract

Harvard

Huang, H, Macharis, C, De Smet, Y & Doan Nguyen, AV 2019, 'A Method of Reaching Consensus with the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) methodology', 25th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Istanbul, Turkey, 17/06/19 - 21/06/19 pp. 165.

APA

Huang, H., Macharis, C., De Smet, Y., & Doan Nguyen, A. V. (2019). A Method of Reaching Consensus with the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) methodology. 165. Abstract from 25th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Istanbul, Turkey.

Vancouver

Huang H, Macharis C, De Smet Y, Doan Nguyen AV. A Method of Reaching Consensus with the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) methodology. 2019. Abstract from 25th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Istanbul, Turkey.

Author

Huang, He ; Macharis, Cathy ; De Smet, Yves ; Doan Nguyen, Anh Vu. / A Method of Reaching Consensus with the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) methodology. Abstract from 25th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Istanbul, Turkey.1 p.

BibTeX

@conference{758da37f4fbb4bcb800a92ea4441263a,
title = "A Method of Reaching Consensus with the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) methodology",
abstract = "The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) is a methodology which allows for the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in the process of evaluation and decision making. It is important in particular the field of transport project appraisal, as many projects fail to be implemented because of lack of support from one or more key stakeholders. In contrast to many multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, multiple stakeholders can use different criteria trees in MAMCA (with their own preferences). The steps of the classic MCDA process include: definition of problems, alternatives and criteria, analysis of alternatives, determination and analysis of scores, and the drawing of conclusions. Unlike classic MCDA, MAMCA involves stakeholders after defining the alternatives. The stakeholder analysis is conducted, stakeholders are identified and the criteria tree for each of them can be constructed. In this way, MAMCA explicitly takes into account their own objectives. In the end, the advantages and disadvantages of each of the proposed scenarios are presented and possible consensus scenarios are discussed. Yet in some cases, it is challenging to reach a consensus based on MAMCA results. In this contribution, we propose a way to help facilitators and stakeholders to find a consensus utilizing the PROMETHEE method in MAMCA. Doan and De Smet recently developed an alternative weight sensitivity analysis for PROMETHEE based on mixed integer linear programming (MILP). MILP avoids altering all the weights and reduces the distance from the original weights compared to classic weight stability intervals (WSI) (which can find the minimum weight modification to change other alternatives to be ranked first). It can be applied in the MAMCA methodology to offer a consensus between different stakeholders by taking the inverse optimization point of view. The MILP-MAMCA method allows computing two possible indicators R1 and R2 (with two different ways to deal with the maximum weight modification), which indicate the distance among all stakeholders for each alternative to reach the consensus. We apply this new approach on two MAMCA project cases. Then we examine how to integrate this model into the existing MAMCA methodology and visualize the results with the MAMCA software.",
keywords = "MAMCA, MILP, decision methods, weight sensitivity analysis, consensus",
author = "He Huang and Cathy Macharis and {De Smet}, Yves and {Doan Nguyen}, {Anh Vu}",
year = "2019",
month = "6",
day = "21",
language = "English",
pages = "165",
note = "25th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, MCDM 2019 ; Conference date: 17-06-2019 Through 21-06-2019",
url = "https://mcdm2019.org/",

}

RIS

TY - CONF

T1 - A Method of Reaching Consensus with the Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) methodology

AU - Huang, He

AU - Macharis, Cathy

AU - De Smet, Yves

AU - Doan Nguyen, Anh Vu

PY - 2019/6/21

Y1 - 2019/6/21

N2 - The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) is a methodology which allows for the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in the process of evaluation and decision making. It is important in particular the field of transport project appraisal, as many projects fail to be implemented because of lack of support from one or more key stakeholders. In contrast to many multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, multiple stakeholders can use different criteria trees in MAMCA (with their own preferences). The steps of the classic MCDA process include: definition of problems, alternatives and criteria, analysis of alternatives, determination and analysis of scores, and the drawing of conclusions. Unlike classic MCDA, MAMCA involves stakeholders after defining the alternatives. The stakeholder analysis is conducted, stakeholders are identified and the criteria tree for each of them can be constructed. In this way, MAMCA explicitly takes into account their own objectives. In the end, the advantages and disadvantages of each of the proposed scenarios are presented and possible consensus scenarios are discussed. Yet in some cases, it is challenging to reach a consensus based on MAMCA results. In this contribution, we propose a way to help facilitators and stakeholders to find a consensus utilizing the PROMETHEE method in MAMCA. Doan and De Smet recently developed an alternative weight sensitivity analysis for PROMETHEE based on mixed integer linear programming (MILP). MILP avoids altering all the weights and reduces the distance from the original weights compared to classic weight stability intervals (WSI) (which can find the minimum weight modification to change other alternatives to be ranked first). It can be applied in the MAMCA methodology to offer a consensus between different stakeholders by taking the inverse optimization point of view. The MILP-MAMCA method allows computing two possible indicators R1 and R2 (with two different ways to deal with the maximum weight modification), which indicate the distance among all stakeholders for each alternative to reach the consensus. We apply this new approach on two MAMCA project cases. Then we examine how to integrate this model into the existing MAMCA methodology and visualize the results with the MAMCA software.

AB - The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) is a methodology which allows for the inclusion of multiple stakeholders in the process of evaluation and decision making. It is important in particular the field of transport project appraisal, as many projects fail to be implemented because of lack of support from one or more key stakeholders. In contrast to many multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods, multiple stakeholders can use different criteria trees in MAMCA (with their own preferences). The steps of the classic MCDA process include: definition of problems, alternatives and criteria, analysis of alternatives, determination and analysis of scores, and the drawing of conclusions. Unlike classic MCDA, MAMCA involves stakeholders after defining the alternatives. The stakeholder analysis is conducted, stakeholders are identified and the criteria tree for each of them can be constructed. In this way, MAMCA explicitly takes into account their own objectives. In the end, the advantages and disadvantages of each of the proposed scenarios are presented and possible consensus scenarios are discussed. Yet in some cases, it is challenging to reach a consensus based on MAMCA results. In this contribution, we propose a way to help facilitators and stakeholders to find a consensus utilizing the PROMETHEE method in MAMCA. Doan and De Smet recently developed an alternative weight sensitivity analysis for PROMETHEE based on mixed integer linear programming (MILP). MILP avoids altering all the weights and reduces the distance from the original weights compared to classic weight stability intervals (WSI) (which can find the minimum weight modification to change other alternatives to be ranked first). It can be applied in the MAMCA methodology to offer a consensus between different stakeholders by taking the inverse optimization point of view. The MILP-MAMCA method allows computing two possible indicators R1 and R2 (with two different ways to deal with the maximum weight modification), which indicate the distance among all stakeholders for each alternative to reach the consensus. We apply this new approach on two MAMCA project cases. Then we examine how to integrate this model into the existing MAMCA methodology and visualize the results with the MAMCA software.

KW - MAMCA

KW - MILP

KW - decision methods

KW - weight sensitivity analysis

KW - consensus

M3 - Unpublished abstract

SP - 165

ER -

ID: 46049273