Important announcement

Dear visitor,

Please note that this OpenCourseWare platform will be replaced at the end of 2026 by a new platform (under the same url ocw.tudelft.nl).

Courses and their contents that are currently available the platform will partly be migrated. URL’s for this content will change and content might be unavailable for some time. In addition, some courses will not be available anymore.

If you are linking to specific courses on this platform (for instance for your students), please take timely measures to avoid problems with access. Possible actions are:

  • Download the materials to your local platform (laptop, server)
  • For educators only (including TU Delft lecturers): Contact us at ocw@tudelft.nl and inform us what course you are using in what context (institute, program, period of use, number of students). We will research (in collaboration with the authors of the course) and decide if we will migrate the course, and if yes, can supply you with a new url.

Thank you.

3.8.2 Expert selection

Course subject(s) Module 3. Performance-based weights and the Decision Maker

So removing an expert can change the remaining experts’ information score and therefore their performance-based weights.

The next question that you might ask yourself is whether there will consequently be an effect on the performance of the DMs?

Let’s see!

After Expert A have been removed, the information scores of Expert B and Expert C have changed. The changes can be found in the table below.

Calibration score Information score
Expert B 0.608 0.220
Expert C 0.327 0.971

The updated performance-based weights are 0.3 (for Expert B) and 0.7 (for Expert C).

These weights are somewhat different from the initial performance-based weights 6.56E-005 (Expert A), 0.43 (Expert B) and 0.57 (Expert C).

Let’s see if the updated weights will lead to differences in the two decision makers.

The updated performance-based weights lead to the following assessments for the Performance-based Decision Maker (PWDM) and the Equal Weight Decision Maker (EWDM).

Question Realization Expert B

5% 50% 95%

Expert C

5% 50% 95%

PWDM

5% 50% 95%

EWDM

5% 50% 95%

1 24 20 23 34 20  25  28 20  24.68  32.31 20  24.38  33.15
2 11 8 10 11 10  13  15 8.33  11.71  14.92 8.15  10.75  14.82
3 68 60 70 90 65  67  70 61.24  67.34  86.28 60.61  67.69  88.24
4 47 20 35 45 42  44  46 23.03  43.3  45.98 21.39  42.5  45.96
5 31 30 35 40 32  33  35 30.61  33.29  39.1 30.31  33.57  39.58

As a comparison, here are the initial assessments obtained for the two decision makers.

Question Realization Expert A

5% 50% 95%

Expert B

5% 50% 95%

Expert C

5% 50% 95%

PWDM

5% 50% 95%

EWDM

5% 50% 95%

1 24 2 5 7 20 23 34 20 25 28 19.97 24.48 33.11 2.55 21.77 32.39
2 11 12 13 15 8 10 11 10 13 15 8.19 10.91 14.86 8.31 12.23 14.91
3 68 87 89 92 60 70 90 65 67 70 60.75 67.56 87.94 61.43 71.08 91.61
4 47 48 50 52 20 35 45 42 44 46 21.02 42.8 45.97 2.55 34.28 45.78
5 31 2 5 8 30 35 40 32 33 35 30.29 33.47 39.82 30.66 35.34 51.63
Creative Commons License
Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Introduction to Structured Expert Judgment by TU Delft OpenCourseWare is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Based on a work at https://online-learning.tudelft.nl/courses/decision-making-under-uncertainty-introduction-to-structured-expert-judgment//.
Back to top
[sg_popup id=6]