Abstract
Weight elicitation methods in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) are often cognitively demanding, require too much precision and too much time and effort. Some of the issues may be remedied by connecting elicitation methods to an inference engine facilitating a quick and easy method for decision-makers to use weaker input statements, yet being able to utilize these statements in a method for decision evaluation. One important class of such methods ranks the criteria and converts the resulting ranking into numerical so called surrogate weights. We analyse the relevance of these methods and discuss how robust they are as candidates for modelling decision-makers and analysing multi-criteria decision problems under the perspectives of several stakeholders.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In this paper the full features of the large variety of elicitation techniques will not be discussed. For more exhaustive discussion refer to [6].
- 2.
For various cognitive and methodological aspects of imprecision in decision making, see e.g., [3] and others by the same authors.
- 3.
Kendall’s tau was also computed and it does not deviate from the other findings in the tables. Thus, it is not shown in the tables.
References
Barron, F.H.: Selecting a best multiattribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights. Acta Psychol. 80(1–3), 91–103 (1992)
Barron, F., Barrett, B.: Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manag. Sci. 42(11), 1515–1523 (1996)
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A.: Distribution of belief in decision trees. Int. J. Approx. Reason. 46(2), 387–407 (2007)
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: The CAR method for using preference strength in multi-criteria decision making. Group Decis. Negot. 25, 775–797 (2015)
Figueira, J., Roy, B.: Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 139, 317–326 (2002)
Riabacke, M., Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L.: State-of-the-art in prescriptive weight elicitation. Adv. Decis. Sci. Article ID 276584, p. 24 (2012). doi:10.1155/2012/276584
Simos, J.: L’evaluation environnementale: Un processus cognitif neegociee. Theese de doctorat, DGF-EPFL, Lausanne (1990)
Stillwell, W., Seaver, D., Edwards, W.: A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 28(1), 62–77 (1981)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L. (2017). Trade-Offs for Ordinal Ranking Methods in Multi-criteria Decisions. In: Bajwa, D., Koeszegi, S., Vetschera, R. (eds) Group Decision and Negotiation. Theory, Empirical Evidence, and Application. GDN 2016. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 274. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52624-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52624-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52623-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52624-9
eBook Packages: Business and ManagementBusiness and Management (R0)