Prospects of MCDA

Part of the Applied Optimization book series (APOP, volume 29)


The last chapter of a book usually contains the loose ends, the odd bits and pieces that have been left out of consideration in the previous chapters. So far, we have written so much about past experiences that it is time now to turn to the future of MCDA. What are its prospects, from the author’s viewpoint, and what can be said about the desirable properties of the MCDA tools for decision support?


Decision Maker Criterion Weight Advisory Council Individual Decision Maker Distribute Decision Making 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References to Chapter 12

  1. 1.
    Janssen, R., and Herwijnen, M., “Definite, a System to Support Decisions on a FINITE Set of Alternatives”. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lanford, H.W., “Technological Forecasting Methodologies, a Synthesis”. American Management Association, 1972.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    LaPlante, A., “Nineties Style Brainstorming”. Technology Supplement of Forbes Magazine, October 25, 44–61, 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lootsma, F.A., “Alternative Optimization Strategies for Large-Scale Production Allocation Problems”. European Journal of Operational Research 75, 13–40, 1994.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lootsma, FA., “MCDA, a New Technology”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 5, 245–246, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lootsma, F.A., “The Expected Future of MCDA”. To appear in the Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olson, D., “Decision Aids for Selection Problems”. Springer Series in Operations Research, New York, 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Olson, D., Fliedner, G., and Currie, K., “Comparison of the REMBRANDT System with the AHP”. European Journal of Operational Research 82, 522–539, 1995.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wenneras, W., and Wold, A., “Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review”. Nature 387, 341–343, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    White, B.L., “The Technology Assessment Process”. Quorum, New York, 1988.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Personalised recommendations