Talk:Decision-making software

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Listing available Decision-Making Software in the article[edit]

I notice that the list of software was deleted on 14 July. It seems to me that the article is now considerably less informative. Surely, given the article is about such software, then listing actual examples of software that are available is useful? As the article stands now (sans examples), it is very vague. What do others think? I am happy to admit that one of the softwares listed, 1000Minds, is one that I am involved with. Paulwizard (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

We should only link to software that has some sort of notability established through third party, reliable sources. As the list previously stood, the only software with those sources was Analytica. Rather than leave only one entry, I removed them all. If there are third party sources available for more of them, I could support putting back a more discriminate list. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, Mr Ollie, I think you are off track here. There is no doubt that many of the softwares in the table other than Analytica pass the notability test (other editors, please see Wikipedia:Notability for criteria). Strong examples of software (that I have no potential conflict of interest with) include "Expert Choice" (http://www.expertchoice.com/) and "Decision Lens" (http://www.decisionlens.com/), to name the most significant two. These two examples were founded by Dr Thomas L. Saaty, the inventor of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, which is one of the most cited and widely-used methods for multi-criteria decision analysis. There are other examples too, including 1000Minds (http://www.1000minds.com/) (that I'm involved with, as acknowledged above) that implements the PAPRIKA method. For an international survey of decision-making software (that includes the above-mentioned softwares, and others in the removed table) please see “Decision analysis software survey”, OR/MS Today Oct 2010 [1]122.59.0.113 (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
122.59.0.113 (talk) 11:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The OR/MS article you cite seems to be an indiscriminate listing of products, so I don't see that building a case for notability. - MrOllie (talk) 14:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The article appears in the industry magazine of the Institute of Operations Research & Management Science (INFORMS), which has something like 14,000 paid-up members. The survey is conducted every 2 years or so 'from scratch' and the results are continually updated. It's highly unlikely that any software would appear there that weren't legitimate (i.e. as such an informed readership would detect and complain about any fraud). Granted, though, there are no citations to third party sources. However, using Google Scholar for "Expert Choice", "Decision Lens" and "1000Minds" (to return to the three named examples mentioned earlier) reveals many refereed journal articles describing studies using these respective softwares. Likely this is the case for many (granted, probably not all) of the softwares in the table in dispute in the Wikipedia article.Paulwizard (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As suggested by MrOllie (talk/Archive_3#Decision_making_software_article), I used Google Scholar, with help from Web of Science, to search for each of the named software on the removed list to identify “significant coverage” in peer-reviewed journal articles that is “independent of the subject”, as per the Wikipedia:Notability guideline. Given that the guidelines say that “multiple sources are generally expected”, I collected four journal articles for each of the named software below (for most of them, there were many more than four articles to choose from). I skim read each article to ensure that the article’s coverage of the software is “significant” (as per the Notability guideline). I did not include conference proceedings or books, and I gave precedence to the most recently published peer-reviewed journal articles. Arguably, this is a stringent test of notability.

These software all ‘passed’ this test of notability: 1000Minds, Analytica, Criterium DecisionPlus, DecideIT, Decision Lab, Decision Lens, Expert Choice, Hiview3, Logical Decisions, TreeAge Pro.

For each of these software, the four articles are listed below. (I can send PDFs of articles if anyone has trouble accessing them.) I propose that the list containing these software be reinstated in the decision making software article.

These software did not ‘pass’ this test of notability: Criteria Decision Maker Mobile App, D-Sight, Decision Manager, DPL Syncopation, ERGO, Kessera Random Decisions, Let Simon Decide, MakeItRational, MindDecider, RPM-Decisions, SelectPro, Vanguard Studio.

Some of these, such as D-Sight, DPL Syncopation, MindDecider, RPM-Decisions, had perhaps one peer-reviewed journal article and/or working papers or conference proceedings, but generally they were far ‘less notable’ than the software listed below.

1000Minds

Smith, K and Fennessy, P (2011), “The use of conjoint analysis to determine the relative importance of specific traits as selection criteria for the improvement of perennial pasture species in Australia”, Crop & Pasture Science, 62: 355-65.

Fitzgerald, A, De Coster, C, McMillan, S, et al. (2011), “Relative urgency for referral from primary care to rheumatologists: The priority referral score”, Arthritis Care & Research, 63: 231-39.

Taylor, W, Singh, JA, Saag, KG, et al. (2011), “Bringing it all together: A novel approach to the development of response criteria for chronic gout clinical trials” The Journal of Rheumatology, 38: 1467-70.

Neogi, T, Aletaha D, Silman AJ, et al. (2010), “The 2010 American College of Rheumatology / European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report”, Arthritis & Rheumatism, 62: 2582-91.

Analytica

Bassona, L, and Petriea, JG (2007), “An integrated approach for the consideration of uncertainty in decision making supported by Life Cycle Assessment”, Environmental Modelling & Software, 22: 167-76.

Von Winterfeldt, D, Eppel, T, Adams, J, Neutra, R and DelPizzo, R (2004), “Managing potential health risks from electric powerlines: a decision analysis caught in controversy”, Risk Analysis, 24: 1487-1502.

Bu, D, Pan, E, Walker, J, et al. (2007), Benefits of Information Technology – enabled diabetes management”, Diabetes Care, 30: 1137-42.

Norris, G and Yost, P (2001), “A transparent, interactive software environment for communicating life‐cycle assessment results: An application to residential windows”, Journal of Industrial Ecology, 5, 15-28.

Criterium DecisionPlus

Esawi, A and Farag, M (2007), “Carbon nanotube reinforced composites: Potential and current challenges”, Materials and Design, 28: 2394-401.

Yatsalo, B, Kiker, G, Kim, J, et al. (2007), “Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies”, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3: 223-33.

Strager, M and Rosenberger, R (2006), “Incorporating stakeholder preferences for land conservation: Weights and measures in spatial MCA“, Ecological Economics 58: 79-92.

Rauscher, H, Lloyd, F, Loftisa, D and Tweryb, M (2000), “A practical decision-analysis process for forest ecosystem management”, Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 27: 195-226.

DecideIT

Björkqvist, O, Idefeldt, J and Larsson, A (2010), “Risk assessment of new pricing strategies in the district heating market: A case study at Sundsvall Energi AB”, Energy Policy, 38: 2171-8.

Buchholz, T, Rametsteiner, E, Volk, T and Luzadis, V (2009), “Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments”, Energy Policy, 37: 484-95.

Danielson, M (2009), “Sensitivity analyses in interval decision modelling”, Engineering Letters, 17 (page numbers not available).

Danielson, M, Ekenberg,L, Ekengren, et al. (2008 ), “Decision process support for participatory democracy”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 15: 15-30.

Decision Lab

Buchholz, T, Rametsteiner, E, Volk, T and Luzadis, V (2009), “Multi Criteria Analysis for bioenergy systems assessments”, Energy Policy, 37: 484-95.

Yatsalo, B, Kiker, G, Kim, J, et al. (2007), “Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies”, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3: 223-33.

Albadvia, A, Chaharsooghia, SK and Esfahanipour, A (2007), “Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE”, European Journal of Operational Research, 177: 673-83.

Dağdeviren, M (2008), “Decision making in equipment selection: an integrated approach with AHP and PROMETHEE”, Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 19: 397-406.

Decision Lens

Begicevic, N, Divjak, B and Hunjak, T (2011), “AHP-based group decision making using keypads”, International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 3: 443-58.

Cicone, D, Udaeta, MEM, Grimoni, JAB, Galvao, LCR (2008), “Functionality of the approach of hierarchical analysis in the full cost accounting in the IRP of a metropolitan airport”, Energy Policy, 36: 991-98.

Cheever, MA, Allison, JP, Ferris, AS, et al. (2009), “The prioritization of cancer antigens: A National Cancer Institute Pilot Project for the Acceleration of Translational Research”, Clinical Cancer Research, 15: 5323-37

Mu, E and Butler, BS (2009), “The Assessment of Organizational Mindfulness Processes for the Effective Assimilation of IT Innovations“, Journal of Decision Systems, 18: 27-51.

Expert Choice

Chan, F and Chan, HK (2010), “An AHP model for selection of suppliers in the fast changing fashion market,” International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 51: 1195-1207.

Malmasi, S, Jozi, SA, Monavari, SM, et al. (2010), “Ecological Impact Analysis on Mahshahr Petrochemical Industries using Analytic Hierarchy Process method”, International Journal of Environmental Research, 4: 725-34.

Pazek, K, Rozman, C, Bavec, F, et al. (2010), “A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis framework tool for the selection of farm business models on organic mountain farms”, Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 34: 778-99.

Yatsalo, B, Kiker, G, Kim, J, et al. (2007), “Application of Multicriteria Decision Analysis tools to two contaminated sediment case studies”, Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3: 223-33.

Hiview3

Rodrigues, A, Pinheiro, PR, Rodrigues, MM, et al. (2010), “Applying a multicriteria model for selection of test use cases: a use of experience”, International Journal of Social and Humanistic Computing, 1: 246-60.

Carnero, MC (2009), “Evaluating a maintenance department in a service company”, International Journal of Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 3: 230-37.

Muwuluke, JZ and Ngirane-Katashaya, G (2007), “Institutional sustainability of sanitation systems in peri-urban areas – A Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) assessment“, Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2: 391-400.

French, S and Xu, D-L (2005), “Comparison study of multi-attribute decision analytic software”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 13: 65-80.

Logical Decisions

Honoré, PA, Fos, PJ, Smith, T, et al. (2010), “Decision science: A scientific approach to enhance public health budgeting“, Journal of Public Health Management & Practice, 16: 98-103.

Moffett, A, Dyer, JS and Sarkar, S (2006), “Integrating biodiversity representation with multiple criteria in North-Central Namibia using non-dominated alternatives and a modified Analytic Hierarchy Process“, Biological Conservation, 129: 181-91.

French, S and Xu, D-L (2005), “Comparison study of Multi-Attribute Decision Analytic software”, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 13: 65-80.

Cipollini, KA, Maruyama, AL and Zimmerman, CL (2005), “Planning for restoration: A Decision Analysis approach to prioritization”, Restoration Ecology, 13: 460-70.

TreeAge Pro

Kelly, AG and Holloway, RG (2010), “Health state preferences and decision-making after malignant middle cerebral artery infarctions”, Neurology, 75: 682-87.

Gur, I and Schneeweiss, R (2009), “Head lice treatments and school policies in the US in an era of emerging resistance. A cost-effectiveness analysis”, Pharmacoeconomics, 27 : 725-34.

Bensalah, K, Pearle, M and Lotan, Y (2008), “Cost-effectiveness of medical expulsive therapy using alpha-blockers for the treatment of distal ureteral stones”, European Urology, 53: 411-19.

Alogan, GB, Elele, T, Hayran, M, et al. (2008), “A decision-analytic model for early stage breast cancer: Lumpectomy vs mastectomy”, Neoplasma, 55: 222-28.

Paulwizard (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Based on the above discussion, I believe that D-Sight has now gained enough notability to be added to the list. Below are four references:

D-Sight

Harrison E. Mutikanga, Saroj K. Sharma, Kalanithy Vairavamoorthy (2011), "Multi-criteria Decision Analysis: A Strategic Planning Tool for Water Loss Management", Water Resources Management, Volume 25, Number 14, 3947-3969

Antonio Vanderley Herrero Sola, Caroline Maria de Miranda Mota ,João Luiz Kovaleski (2011), "A model for improving energy efficiency in industrial motor system using multicriteria analysis", Energy Policy, Volume 39, Issue 6, 3645-3654

Laurence Turcksin,Annalia Bernardini, Cathy Macharis (2011), "A combined AHP-PROMETHEE approach for selecting the most appropriate policy scenario to stimulate a clean vehicle fleet", Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 20, 2011, 954-965

Josef Jablonský (2009), "Software Support for Multiple Criteria Decision Making Problems", Management Information Systems, Vol. 4, No. 2, 029-034

85.227.166.147 (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to Criterium DecisionPlus (CDP) table entry
Many thanks for the article and gathering the references above. My name is Philip Murphy and I designed Criterium DecisionPlus back in 1993 and which I help maintain through today. A number of colleagues at the research institute where I now work brought the article to my attention as it listed Criterium DecisionPlus as supporting neither pairwise comparison nor risk management. As they had just finished using the pairwise comparison functionality in federal project they were surprised. Likewise from its first release in 1993, CDP includs values functions, implements Simple Multi Attribute Rating Technique -- Ward Edward's simplified MAUT -- and also has uncertainty propagation. So I edited the table, added SMART as a method, and answered "yes" to pairwise and risk. I hope that is acceptable, both in terms of accuracy and given my relationship with the product, which is still still supported by the company I founded, InfoHarvest, and for which I'm still the nominal CEO. PJKMurphy (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Revisions to resolve tagged criticisms at top of article[edit]

As alerted at the head of the article: “This article has multiple issues” (3 issues listed). I have tried to resolve the three issues by: adding citations to reliable sources (thereby resolving the 1st and 2nd issues); and re-writing some of the lists in prose (rather than embedded lists) and expanding on the article’s main points (thereby resolving the 3rd issue). What do others think? Paulwizard (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the {{no footnotes}} tag, as it definitely has footnotes now.

So far as {{refimprove}} and {{laundry}} go, I think they're both referring to the same problem: the table of products. Only one of the products included can actually be considered notable; there's no explanation why some have an external links (against WP:MOS) and some don't, etc. IMO, the article would be greatly improved simply be removing the table; however, I'm not an expert on the subject and haven't done the research, so I'm not going to do it myself. I think that if the table was gone, though, it would be fine to remove the last two tags. DoriTalkContribs 06:18, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Dori. I am not sure if you noticed, but in the section directly above is a collection of references for most of the products (some products have been added since I compiled the list of references).Paulwizard (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Sorry to jump in. I concur with Dori; removing the unsourced or unclearly sourced list would alleviate the concerns noted by the last two tags. If the list is important, then perhaps cleaning up the list and being clear about inclusion criteria. The easiest criteria, as noted, is to establish notability in articles specific to the software and keep the list clear of entries without such articles. Another option is to provide a specific and very reliable source for what is notable in the field; it looks like you may be indicating the Buckshaw survey as one such source. In that case, make the source specific in that section (add it in the section intro), remove the random links to vendor pitch pages, and ensure the items in the list match the source (including the comparison fields). Kuru (talk) 03:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Kuru, for your advice, which I will do my best to follow (others are welcome to help of course). Paulwizard (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is well referenced now so I'll remove the refimprove tag. Franzo (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Recommend delete section: No original research[edit]

Wikipedia has (IIRC) a policy against including original research, which IMO would include list of software and comparisons of such software. This is quite different from any discussion of the notability of the software, nor is it an argument against any of the comparisons or analyses made. Were this research published in a recognized source, then I think it would be possible to point to it, saying, e.g., that such-and -such a source made on such-and-such a date comparisons. Rick lightburn (talk) 22:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NOR or WP:Primary Rick lightburn (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

That there are references to the publishers of the software is unimportant. Wikipedia should be pointing at reviews and comparisons of software. Rick lightburn (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rick. What about reference #4 and #5 at the head of the table? These are software reviews and comparisons.Paulwizard (talk) 09:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. From the discussions above, I think there are a number of alternatives we could try. Likely the best would be to write the articles for the notable entries. Another would be to incorporate the references mentioned in the discussions above into the list, provided we have consensus that they do demonstrate notability. No matter how it's done, the links to the software companies' websites are inappropriate, and the list would need to clearly identify which entries are notable so it could be easily maintained when there are attempts to add non-notable entries. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Just to check ... Ronz, are you suggesting that a possible (your "best") solution is to write one article for each software (provided the software is notable, verifiable etc)?; in other words, potentially a dozen new articles (e.g. the dozen notable softwares detailed above)? Paulwizard (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes. It is a lot of work, but it would resolve all the problems. WP:WTAF has wide consensus when it comes to lists of software and similar lists. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks Ronz. I am quite inexperienced (but learning); so if I may, let me pick your brains... How to start such a project of writing a dozen such articles? Simply, do people just start and contribute to any ones that they know about? (From memory, there were a couple on the list that already had their own articles.) Or should someone try and write them all (in order to 'do justice' to the complete list - of notable software, of course). Anyone else out there interested in contributing? Paulwizard (talk) 21:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:CREATE goes into all the details on creating articles.
If easily accessible sources are offered that clearly demonstrate notability, then it's easy in that it will be unlikely that anyone will contest the new article. Create a WP:STUB article with such sources, link the article into other articles, and other editors will take notice and help out. --Ronz (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

DMS Comparison is part of the Wiki[edit]

Dear Rick and other editors,

The objective of Wikipedia is to give the right information for the people seeking it. When I started searching for decision-making software I wanted to see the type of software available. That is the purpose of the wiki, to give information on what it is and what is available.

The notability of the software is not up to you to decide, but the users. Analytica, Decision Lens and ExpertChoice have more than 10 years of business, relevant customers and AHP is a solid and known methodology. Along with it I can also speak of PROMETHEE as a very known methodology in the MCDA community, being D-Sight the main provider of such based software.

You can actually several academic papers on D-Sight, Decision Lens, ExpertChoice and please understand that you are not the judge of what makes a software notable to be present on this list. If it's making business and it's based on a MCDA metholodgy has the right to be here and its up to the reader to use it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugosbento (talkcontribs) 14:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, please see the many references to academic articles above. Paulwizard (talk) 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Way forward on list of Decision Making Software[edit]

I think we're ready and able to improve this page now. We have clear direction from the discussion between Rick, Ronz and Paulwizard above, and it is consistent with MrOllie's "I could support putting back a more discriminate list." As Ronz says, this is going to be a lot of work, so if anyone feels like we're missing something, please say so now!

Let's proceed as follows:

  1. Decide which software packages are likely to satisfy the notability criteria.
  2. Create a stub for each of these, if we are satisfied about its notability. (See WP:CREATE for more guidance.)
  3. Decide on the appropriate columns for a new list based on similar lists in Wikipedia for guidance.
  4. Create the new list of decision-making software here with links to the stubs.
  5. Continue to improve the quality of the articles on each software package, and the usefulness of this decision-making software article.

With respect to 1, let's start with Paulwizard's referenced list of software above.

With respect to 3, I suggest we start simply with the columns from the earlier table. I'll re-code it as a proper wikitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Franzo (talkcontribs) 22:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems a fair and good proposal. Do you need any help with anything on that matter? Hugo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugosbento (talkcontribs) 08:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll put up a table and stubs for most of those in Paulwizard's list in the next few days and then let's all improve them. Franzo (talk) 22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. I had another look for multiple peer-reviewed journal articles (demonstrating notability) for each software in the table (currently deleted): I cannot find references for "AIRM Online" – no articles on Scholar but see http://polydecision.com/site/airm-publications (but most linked articles there are broken); "Decision Lab" software does not appear to be available nowadays(?); and "TreeAge Pro" is not decision-making software per se (rather it's for decision tree and Markov modelling - fundamentally different from decision-making). Hence, IMO, notable software in the table = 1000Minds, Analytica, Criterium DecisionPlus, DecideIT, Decision Lens, D-Sight, Expert Choice, Hiview3, Logical Decisions. What do others think? Paulwizard (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Table and stubs created: please review, talk and expand! Franzo (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Columns: I think we need to address the columns and data in the table before we can satisfactorily remove the cleanup-laundry tag. The McGinley survey referenced can be used to verify most of the data points, however it provides no support for the Risk Management or Time Analysis columns and it has no data for Decision Lens or Criterium Decision Plus. I think we should discuss what the most appropriate columns are for readers of this article. Meanwhile, I think we should delete the Time Analysis and Risk Management columns and look to other material to support the data for Decision Lens and Criterium Decision Plus. Any other suggestions? Franzo (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Removed the Time Analysis and Risk Manageent columns as discussed above. Added references for software packages where the table row data is supported by the McGinley ORMS survey. Noted references required for other rows. Removed cleanup-list tag from top of page. I believe we could still improve the table based on the OR/MS survey, but it is complicated by the lack of information on some packages and the recent two additions to the list: MakeItRational and Altova MetaTeam. Franzo (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Page notice - editing the table[edit]

I have requested a page notice to help people with editing the table, as follows:

ATTENTION! Please only add entries to the table that are links to Wikipedia articles or stubs about notable decision-making software. Entries that are external links, redlinks, non-notable software, or sites or articles that are not about decision-making software are likely to be removed. If you are considering writing an article or stub, please read write the article first (WP:WTAF).

Please keep entries in alphabetical order and please add a reference that cites the facts/claims of the changed row (see WP:REFB).

If you are unsure of the best way to proceed, please use the talk page. Franzo (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

This page is a misleading mess.[edit]

The page is called "Decision-making software". Apparently, this is a type of decision support system - but no explanation of what distinguishes this type of DSS from other DSS is given. The software discussed are all "computer-based information systems that supports business or organizational decision-making activities" as defined on the DSS page. Therefore, there is no specific need for this page to exist on its own, unless it is to be a comprehensive list of notable DSS software specifically.

Perhaps this page is about a specific class of software that actually claims to "make" decisions though (hence Decision-"Making" Software), rather than just support decision making. Actually, when you read the article you discover that it contains odd disclaimers and that it is actually just about decision support like DSS.

Then, the page claims to talk in general about decision making/support software... but only discusses one class of decision support software, based on Multi-critieria decision analysis/making, and only lists software that use that approach.

The table provided is not a comparative table of decision-making software (that term hasn't even been defined). It is a table of MCDA software - which is something different. The pair-wise comparison column, for example, may not be relevant to other types of decision-making/support software.

So what is this page about?

This page should either be retitled: "Multi-criteria Decision Analysis Software", reworked completely, or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.46.216.121 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed[edit]

I think you're right about the decision support system reference in the opening line; I will remove this and add decision support system to the See Also section. The page title is still appropriate as this is the common term used for this kind of software.Franzo (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2014 (UTC)