Marco Cinelli

Prof. Marco Cinelli

Institute of Computing Science, Poznan University of Technology, Piotrowo 2, 60-965 Poznań, Poland
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

14Years (2013-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
1 November 2014 in Ecological Indicators
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Marco CinelliMarco Cinelli
Marco Cinelli
SCStuart R. Coles
Stuart R. Coles
KKKerry Kirwan
Kerry Kirwan
Sustainability assessments require the management of a wide variety of information types, parameters and uncertainties. Multi criteria decision analysis (MCDA) has been regarded as a suitable set of methods to perform sustainability evaluations as a result of its flexibility and the possibility of facilitating the dialogue between stakeholders, analysts and scientists. However, it has been reported that researchers do not usually properly define the reasons for choosing a certain MCDA method instead of another. Familiarity and affinity with a certain approach seem to be the drivers for the choice of a certain procedure. This review paper presents the performance of five MCDA methods (i.e. MAUT, AHP, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE and DRSA) in respect to ten crucial criteria that sustainability assessments tools should satisfy, among which are a life cycle perspective, thresholds and uncertainty management, software support and ease of use. The review shows that MAUT and AHP are fairly simple to understand and have good software support, but they are cognitively demanding for the decision makers, and can only embrace a weak sustainability perspective as trade-offs are the norm. Mixed information and uncertainty can be managed by all the methods, while robust results can only be obtained with MAUT. ELECTRE, PROMETHEE and DRSA are non-compensatory approaches which consent to use a strong sustainability concept, accept a variety of thresholds, but suffer from rank reversal. DRSA is less demanding in terms of preference elicitation, is very easy to understand and provides a straightforward set of decision rules expressed in the form of elementary “if … then …” conditions. Dedicated software is available for all the approaches with a medium to wide range of results capability representation. DRSA emerges as the easiest method, followed by AHP, PROMETHEE and MAUT, while ELECTRE is regarded as fairly difficult. Overall, the analysis has shown that most of the requirements are satisfied by the MCDA methods (although to different extents) with the exclusion of management of mixed data types and adoption of life cycle perspective which are covered by all the considered approaches

1 October 2020 in Omega
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Marco CinelliMarco Cinelli
Marco Cinelli
MKMiłosz Kadziński
Miłosz Kadziński
MGMichael Gonzalez
Michael Gonzalez
RSRoman Słowiński
Roman Słowiński
Decision making is a complex task that involves a multitude of perspectives, constraints, and variables. Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) is a process that has been used for several decades to support decision making. It includes a series of steps that systematically help Decision Maker(s) (DM(s)) and stakeholders in structuring a decision making problem, identifying their preferences, and building a decision recommendation consistent with those preferences. Over the last decades, many studies have demonstrated the conduct of the MCDA process and how to select an MCDA method. Until now, there has not been a review of these studies, nor a proposal of a unified and comprehensive high-level representation of the MCDA process characteristics (i.e., features), which is the goal of this paper. We introduce a review of the research that defines how to conduct the MCDA process, compares MCDA methods, and presents Decision Support Systems (DSSs) to recommend a relevant MCDA method or a subset of methods. We then synthesize this research into a taxonomy of characteristics of the MCDA process, grouped into three main phases, (i) problem formulation, (ii) construction of the decision recommendation, and (iii) qualitative features and technical support. Each of these phases includes a subset of the 10 characteristics that helps the analyst implementing the MCDA process, while also being aware of the implication of these choices at each step. By showing how decision making can be split into manageable and justifiable steps, we reduce the risk of overwhelming the analyst, as well as the DMs/stakeholders during the MCDA process. A questioning strategy is also proposed to demonstrate how to apply the taxonomy to map MCDA methods and select the most relevant one(s) using real case studies. Additionally, we show how the DSSs for MCDA method recommendation can be grouped into three main clusters. This proposal can enhance a traceable and categorizable development of such systems.

20 January 2022 in European Journal of Operational Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
Marco CinelliMarco Cinelli
Marco Cinelli
Milosz KadzinskiMilosz Kadzinski
Milosz Kadzinski
GMGrzegorz Miebs
Grzegorz Miebs
MGMichael Gonzalez
Michael Gonzalez
RSRoman Słowiński
Roman Słowiński

3 June 2019 in Sustainable and Resilient Infrastructure
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PGPatrick Gasser
Patrick Gasser
PLPeter Lustenberger
Peter Lustenberger
Marco CinelliMarco Cinelli
Marco Cinelli
WKWansub Kim
Wansub Kim
MSMatteo Spada
Matteo Spada
TSTian Yin Sun
Tian Yin Sun
Energy systems are regularly subject to major disruptions affecting economic activities, operation of infrastructure and the society as a whole. Resilience assessment comprises the pre-event oriented classical risk assessment as a central element, but it goes beyond that because it also includes and evaluates post-event strategies to improve the functioning of the system during its future operation. First, an overview of resilience definitions used across various scientific disciplines is presented, followed by an in-depth analysis of resilience assessment and quantification for energy systems. The relevant literature is classified by approach and according to four key functions of resilience: resist, restabilize, rebuild, and reconfigure. Findings show that irrespective of the research field, a resilient system always operates with an aim to minimize the potential consequences resulting from a disruptive event and to efficiently recover from a potential system performance loss.

9 February 2015 in Green Chemistry
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Marco CinelliMarco Cinelli
Marco Cinelli
SCStuart R. Coles
Stuart R. Coles
MNMallikarjuna Nadagouda
Mallikarjuna Nadagouda
JBJerzy Błaszczyński
Jerzy Błaszczyński
RSRoman Słowiński
Roman Słowiński
KKKerry Emmett Arthur Kirwan
Kerry Emmett Arthur Kirwan
The assessment of the implementation of green chemistry principles in the syntheses of nanomaterials is a complex decision-making problem that necessitates the integration of several evaluation criteria. Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding (MCDA) provides support for such a challenge. One of its methods – Dominance-based Rough Set Approach (DRSA) – was used in this research to develop a model for the green chemistry-based classification of silver nanoparticle synthesis protocols into preference-ordered performance classes. DRSA allowed integration of knowledge from both peer-reviewed literature and experts (decision makers, DMs) in the field, resulting in a model composed of decision rules that are logical statements in the form: “if conditions, then decision”. The approach provides the basis for the design of rules for the greener synthesis of silver nanoparticles. Decision rules are supported by synthesis protocols that enforce the principles of green chemistry to various extents, resulting in robust recommendations for the development and assessment of silver nanoparticle synthesis that perform at one of five pre-determined levels. The DRSA-based approach is transparent and structured and can be easily updated. New perspectives and criteria could be added into the model if relevant data were available and domain-specific experts could collaborate through the MCDA procedure.

16 July 2020 in Environment Systems and Decisions
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Marco CinelliMarco Cinelli
Marco Cinelli
MSMatteo Spada
Matteo Spada
WKWansub Kim
Wansub Kim
YZYiwen Zhang
Yiwen Zhang
Peter BurgherrPeter Burgherr
Peter Burgherr
A web-based software, called MCDA Index Tool (https://www.mcdaindex.net/), is presented in this paper. It allows developing indices and ranking alternatives, based on multiple combinations of normalization methods and aggregation functions. Given the steadily increasing importance of accounting for multiple preferences of the decision-makers and assessing the robustness of the decision recommendations, this tool is a timely instrument that can be used primarily by non-multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) experts to dynamically shape and evaluate their indices. The MCDA Index Tool allows the user to (i) input a dataset directly from spreadsheets with alternatives and indicators performance, (ii) build multiple indices by choosing several normalization methods and aggregation functions, and (iii) visualize and compare the indices’ scores and rankings to assess the robustness of the results. A novel perspective on uncertainty and sensitivity analysis of preference models offers operational solutions to assess the influence of different strategies to develop indices and visualize their results. A case study for the assessment of the energy security and sustainability implications of different global energy scenarios is used to illustrate the application of the MCDA Index Tool. Analysts have now access to an index development tool that supports constructive and dynamic evaluation of the stability of rankings driven by a single score while including multiple decision-makers’ and stakeholders’ preferences.