The ELECTRE Systems
The ELECTRE systems are central to the French school in MCDA where a complete or incomplete rank order of the alternatives is built up via outranking relations under the individual criteria. In the pairwise comparison step the outranking relation between two alternatives under a given criterion is established by inspection of the difference between the physical or monetary values expressing the performance of the respective alternatives. The key question is to find certain discrimination thresholds to categorize the differences. The indifference, preference, and veto thresholds in ELECTRE III constitute the basis for two fuzzy concepts: the degree of concordance (the degree of agreement or harmony with the statement that the first alternative in the pair is at least as good as the second), and the degree of discordance (the degree of disagreement with the above statement). A so-called distillation procedure will eventually produce a not necessarily complete rank order of the alternatives. The French school is based upon the idea of constructivism which implies that a coherent system of preferences and values is not necessarily present in the decision maker’s mind at the beginning of the decision process. It may be constructed, however, by the decision maker and the analyst together in the course of the process. We will show that the elicitation of the discrimination thresholds can be simplified considerably when the performance of the alternatives is expressed in SMART grades, and we will extensively discuss the idea of constructivism at the end of this chapter.
KeywordsFuzzy Logic Rank Order ELECTRE System Discrimination Threshold Strict Preference
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References to Chapter 6
- 4.Hofstede, G., “Culture’s Consequences, International Differences in Work-Related Values”. Sage Publications, London, 1984.Google Scholar
- 5.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
- 6.Lootsma, FA, and Schuyt, H., “The Multiplicative AHP, SMART, and ELECTRE in a Common Context”. To appear in the Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 1997.Google Scholar
- 7.Mintzberg, H., “Power in and around Organizations”. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 07632, 1983.Google Scholar
- 10.Roy, B., “Méthodologie Multicritère d’Aide à la Décision”. Economica, Collection Gestion, Paris, 1985.Google Scholar
- 11.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
- 13.Roy, B., and Vanderpooten, D., “The European School of MCDA: Emergence, Basic Features and Current Works”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 5, 22–37. In the same volume there is a comment by F. A. Lootsma (37–38) and a response by B. Roy and D. Vanderpooten (165–166).Google Scholar
- 14.H. Trompenaars, F., “Riding the Waves of Culture, Understanding Cultural Diversity in Business”. Brealey, London, 1993.Google Scholar
- 15.Winterfeldt, D. von, and Edwards, W., “Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research”. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1986.Google Scholar