Ag Decision Maker, December 2015, Vol. 20, no. 2

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, January 2016, Vol. 20, no. 3

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, March 2016, Vol. 20, no. 5

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, April 2016, Vol. 20, no. 6

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, May 2016, Vol. 20, no. 7

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

The influence of decision-maker effort and case complexity on appealed rulings subject to multi-categorical selection

This study extends the standard econometric treatment of appellate court outcomes by 1) considering the role of decision-maker effort and case complexity, and 2) adopting a multi-categorical selection process of appealed cases. We find evidence of appellate courts being affected by both the effort made by first-stage decision makers and case complexity. This illustrates the value of widening the narrowly defined focus on heterogeneity in individual-specific preferences that characterises many applied studies on legal decision-making. Further, the majority of appealed cases represent non-random sub-samples and the multi-categorical selection process appears to offer advantages over the more commonly used dichotomous selection models.

Technology for students with disabilities : a decision maker's resource guide /

Shipping list no.: 97-0343-P.

Pairwise comparison matrices and the error-free property of the decision maker

Pairwise comparison is a popular assessment method either for deriving criteria-weights or for evaluating alternatives according to a given criterion. In real-world applications consistency of the comparisons rarely happens: intransitivity can occur. The aim of the paper is to discuss the relationship between the consistency of the decision maker—described with the error-free property—and the consistency of the pairwise comparison matrix (PCM). The concept of error-free matrix is used to demonstrate that consistency of the PCM is not a sufficient condition of the error-free property of the decision maker. Informed and uninformed decision makers are defined. In the first stage of an assessment method a consistent or near-consistent matrix should be achieved: detecting, measuring and improving consistency are part of any procedure with both types of decision makers. In the second stage additional information are needed to reveal the decision maker’s real preferences. Interactive questioning procedures are recommended to reach that goal.

Consistency of the decision-maker in pair-wise comparisons

Most authors assume that the natural behaviour of the decision-maker is being inconsistent. This paper investigates the main sources of inconsistency and analyses methods for reducing or eliminating inconsistency. Decision support systems can contain interactive modules for that purpose. In a system with consistency control, there are three stages. First, consistency should be checked: a consistency measure is needed. Secondly, approval or rejection has to be decided: a threshold value of inconsistency measure is needed. Finally, if inconsistency is ‘high’, corrections have to be made: an inconsistency reducing method is needed. This paper reviews the difficulties in all stages. An entirely different approach is to elaborate a decision support system in order to force the decision-maker to give consistent values in each step of answering pair-wise comparison questions. An interactive questioning procedure resulting in consistent (sub) matrices has been demonstrated.

Ag Decision Maker, June 2016, Vol. 20, no. 8

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, July 2016, Vol. 20, no. 9

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, August 2016, Vol. 20, no. 10

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, September 2016, Vol. 20, no. 11

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture

Ag Decision Maker, October 2016, Vol. 20, no. 12

A Business Newsletter for Agriculture