Robust weighted aggregation of expert opinions in futures studies

Author:

Marozzi Marco,Bolzan Mario,Di Zio SimoneORCID

Abstract

AbstractExpert judgments are widespread in many fields, and the way in which they are collected and the procedure by which they are aggregated are considered crucial steps. From a statistical perspective, expert judgments are subjective data and must be gathered and treated as carefully and scientifically as possible. In the elicitation phase, a multitude of experts is preferable to a single expert, and techniques based on anonymity and iterations, such as Delphi, offer many advantages in terms of reducing distortions, which are mainly related to cognitive biases. There are two approaches to the aggregation of the judgments given by a panel of experts, referred to as behavioural (implying an interaction between the experts) and mathematical (involving non-interacting participants and the aggregation of the judgments using a mathematical formula). Both have advantages and disadvantages, and with the mathematical approach, the main problem concerns the subjective choice of an appropriate formula for both normalization and aggregation. We propose a new method for aggregating and processing subjective data collected using the Delphi method, with the aim of obtaining robust rankings of the outputs. This method makes it possible to normalize and aggregate the opinions of a panel of experts, while modelling different sources of uncertainty. We use an uncertainty analysis approach that allows the contemporaneous use of different aggregation and normalization functions, so that the result does not depend on the choice of a specific mathematical formula, thereby solving the problem of choice. Furthermore, we can also model the uncertainty related to the weighting system, which reflects the different expertise of the participants as well as expert opinion accuracy. By combining the Delphi method with the robust ranking procedure, we offer a new protocol covering the elicitation, the aggregation and the processing of subjective data used in the construction of Delphi-based future scenarios. The method is very flexible and can be applied to the aggregation and processing of any subjective judgments, i.e. also those outside the context of futures studies. Finally, we show the validity, reproducibility and potential of the method through its application with regard to the future of Italian families.

Funder

Università degli Studi G. D'Annunzio Chieti Pescara

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Management Science and Operations Research,General Decision Sciences

Reference43 articles.

1. Ambrosini, E., Rosina, A. (2009). Non è un Paese per giovani. L'anomalia italiana: una generazione senza voce. Marsilio, Venezia.

2. Ayyub, B. M. (2001). Elicitation of Expert Opinions for Uncertainty and Risks. CRC Press.

3. Benini, A., Chataigner, P., Noumri, N., Parham, N., Sweeney, J., Tax, L. (2017). The Use of Expert Judgment in Humanitarian Analysis – Theory, Methods, Applications. Geneva, Assessment Capacities Project – ACAPS.

4. Bishop, P., Hines, A., & Collins, T. (2007). The current state of scenario development: An overview of techniques. Foresight, 9(1), 5–25.

5. Bojke, L., Soares, M. O., Claxton, K., Colson, A., Fox, A., Jackson, C., Jankovic, D., Morton, A., Sharples, L. D., & Taylor, A. (2021). Developing a reference protocol for structured expert elicitation in health-care decision-making: A mixed-methods study. Health Technology Assessment, 25(37), 1–124.

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3