ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020102

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020103

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractZAPROS, a method to support rank ordering tasks using ordinal input from decision makers, is discussed and compared with a preference cone technique and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). It provides a means to identify inconsistencies in ordinal decision tasks, yielding verification and explanation of results for partial ordering of a large set of alternatives. The results indicate that ZAPROS provides no less accuracy in task solution, while having some advantages from a behavioural point of view. Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of the methods under consideration in accordance with differences in task characteristics is carried out.

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020104

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThe problem considered here involves the selection of an alternative by a group of decision makers in a context that involves the aggregating of votes from a preferential ballot. A popular approach for solving such problems is the well‐known weighting problem formulation. However, with such a formulation two issues become of critical importance: (a) the weights should reflect the decision‐making group's belief on the importance of each rank position and (b) the weights should accord each alternative a fair (if not its best) assessment. Many researchers have studied this problem and proposed various solution strategies. None of these strategies, however, appears to have adequately addressed both issues. The objective of this research is to develop a group decision‐making model that solves the problem in a manner that adequately addresses the two critical issues identified, as well as allows for sensitivity analysis and is fairly robust with respect to the various paradoxes identified in voting sy

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020105

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

摘要:

AbstractThis paper attempts to analyse in a critical way some essential aspects of the multiple‐criteria decision aid (MCDA) methodology using modern epistemological instruments. Particular attention is paid to the problem of information precision and uncertainty and to the distinction considered essential between the concepts of choice and decision. Since it is maintained that the respect of subjectivity in decision aid is of fundamental importance, an analysis follows of the main approaches by which MCDA methods attempt to take the subjective component of the decision maker into account, indicating some characteristics which may be desirable in an MCDA model for this purpos

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020106

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020107

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020108

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020109

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY

ISSN:1057-9214    

DOI:10.1002/mcda.4020020101

出版商:John Wiley&Sons, Ltd.    

年代:1993

数据来源: WILEY