Smart, Direct Rating

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


The Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART, Von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986) is a method for Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) whereby we evaluate a finite number of decision alternatives under a finite number of performance criteria. The purpose of the analysis is to rank the alternatives in a subjective order of preference and, if possible, to rate the overall performance of the alternatives via the proper assignment of numerical grades. In this chapter we present SMART in its deterministic form, regardless of the vagueness of human preferential judgement. As a vehicle for discussion we use the example which is frequently employed to illustrate the applications of MCDA: the evaluation and the selection of cars.


Decision Maker Criterion Weight Final Grade Qualitative Criterion Geometric Sequence 
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 2

  1. 1.
    Birnbaum, M.H., “Controversies in Psychological Measurement”. In B. Wegener (ed), “Social Attitudes and Psycho-Physical Measurement”. Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1982, 401–485.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bruce, V., and Green, P.R., “Visual Perception, Physiology, Psychology, and Ecology”. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hove, UK, 1990.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gennip, C.G.E. van, Hulshof, J.A.M., and Lootsma, F.A., “A Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Diseases in a Study for Public-Health Planning”. European Journal of Operational Research 99, 236–240, 1997.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hinloopen, E., and Nijkamp, P., “Qualitative Multiple Criteria Choice Analysis”. Quality & Quantity 24, 37–56, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hinloopen, E., Nijkamp, P., and Rietveld, P., “Qualitative Discrete Multiple Criteria Choice Models in Regional Planning”. Regional Science and Urban Economics 13, 77–102, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Honert, R.C. van den, and Lootsma, F.A., “Assessing the Quality of Negotiated Proposals using the REMBRANDT System”. To appear in the European Journal of Operational Research, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Janssen, R., and Herwijnen, M., “DEFINITE, a System to Support Decisions on a FINITE Set of Alternatives”. Kluwer, Dordrecht/Boston/London, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Keeney, R.L., and Nair, K., “Evaluating Potential Nuclear Power Plant Sites in the Pacific North-West using Decision Analysis”. In D.E. Bell, R.L. Keeney, and H. Raiffa (eds.), “Conflicting Objectives in Decisions”. IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, Chapter 14, 1977.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lootsma, F.A., “Scale Sensitivity in a Multiplicative Variant of the AHP and SMART”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2, 87–110, 1993.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lootsma, F.A., “A Model for the Relative Importance of the Criteria in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART”. European Journal of Operational Research 94, 467–476, 1996.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lootsma, F.A., “Fuzzy Logic for Planning and Decision Making”. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, 1997.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marks, L.E., “Sensory Processes, the New Psycho-Physics”. Academic Press, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michon, J.A., Eijkman, E.G.J., and Klerk, L.F.W. de (eds), “Handboek der Psychonomie”. Van Loghum Slaterus, Deventer, The Netherlands, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mousseau, V., “Problèmes Liés à I’Evaluation de l’Importance Relative des Critères en Aide Multicritère à la Décision”. Thèse, LAMSADE, Université de Paris-Dauphine, 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P., and Voogd, H., “Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical Planning”. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 18.
    Roberts, F.S., “Measurement Theory”. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1979.MATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 19.
    Rosch, E., “Principles of Categorization”. In E. Rosch and B. Lloyds (eds.), “Cognition and Categorization”. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1978, pp. 27–48.Google Scholar
  18. 20.
    Roy, B., and Bouyssou, D., “Comparison of Two Decision Aid Models Applied to a Nuclear Power Plant Siting Example”. Cahier 47, LAMSADE, Université de Paris-Dauphine, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. 21.
    Roy, B., et Bouyssou, D., “Aide Multicritère à la Décision: Méthodes et Cas”. Economica, Collection Gestion, Paris, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 22.
    Russo, J.E., and Schoemaker, P.J.H., “Decision Traps”. Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
  21. 23.
    Saaty, T.L., “The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation”. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.MATHGoogle Scholar
  22. 24.
    Stevens, S.S., “On the Psycho-Physical Law”. Psychological Review 64, 153–181, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 25.
    Stevens, S.S., and Hallowell Davis, M.D., “Hearing, its Psychology and Physiology”. American Institute of Physics, New York, 1983.Google Scholar
  24. 26.
    Torgerson, W.S., “Distances and Ratios in Psycho-Physical Scaling”. Acta Psychologica XIX, 201–205, 1961.Google Scholar
  25. 27.
    Veit, C.T., “Ratio and Subtractive Processes in Psycho-Physical Judgement”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Genral 107, 81–107, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 28.
    Vincke, Ph., “L’Aide Multicritère à la Décision”. Editions de l’Université Libre de Bruxelles, Belgique, 1989.MATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 29.
    Voogd, H., “Multicriteria Evaluation with Mixed Qualitative and Quantitative Data”. Environment and Planning 8, 221–236, 1982.Google Scholar
  28. 30.
    Walker, W., Abrahamse, A., Bolten, J., Kahan, J.P., Riet, O. van de, Kok, M., and Braber, M. den, “A Policy Analysis of Dutch River Dike Improvements: Trading Off Safety, Cost, and Environmental Impacts”. Operations Research 42, 823–836, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 31.
    Winterfeldt, D. von, and Edwards, W., “Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1986.Google Scholar
  30. 32.
    Zwicker, E., “Psychoakustik”. Springer, Berlin, 1982.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Personalised recommendations