In the perspective of decision aid, modelling activity (process) has substantially two roles: firstly in helping to comprehend, by mastering the various possible actions and by the reflections it gives to preexisting preferences, and secondly in contributing to the formation and evolution of the preferences of the decision maker(s) (DM) on stage so as to make acceptable or discover possibilities which were previously refused or not considered.


Multicriteria Decision Weak Order Multiple Criterion Decision Concordance Test Distillation Procedure 
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.


  1. Bona, B., Giorgi, N., Minini, U., Orlando, E. and Ostanello, A., ‘An application of a multicriteria method to a diagnosis of public services in homogeneous areas of a town’, (in Italian), Part I and Part II, Quaderni di Lavoro, no. 2,3, Politecnico di Torino, Gruppo R.O., 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Hansen, P., Anciaux, M. and Vincke, P., ‘Quasi-kernels of outranking relations’, in: Thiriez, H. and Zionts, S. (eds), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, No. 30, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976, pp. 53–62.Google Scholar
  3. Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., ‘How we can use the notion of semi-orders to build outranking relations in multicriteria decision making’, ir.: Wendt, D. and Vlek, C. (eds), Utility, Subjective Probability and Decision Making, Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
  4. Jacquet-Lagrèze, E. and Siskos, J., Méthode de Décision Multicritère, Editions Hommes et Techniques, Boulogne-Billancourt, 1983.Google Scholar
  5. Montgolfier, P. de and Bertier, P., Approche Multicritère des Problèmes de Décision, Editions Hommes et Techniques, Suresnes, 1978.Google Scholar
  6. Moscarola, J. and Roy, B., ‘Procédure automatique d’examen de dossiers fondée sur un classement trichotomique en présence de critères multiples’, RAIRO Recherche Opérationnelle, 22 (2), 1977.Google Scholar
  7. Roy, B., ‘Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples, (Le méthode ELECTRE)’, RIRO, 2, no. 8, 1968, pp. 57–75.Google Scholar
  8. Roy, B., ‘La méthode ELECTRE II’, METRA, Direction Scientifique, Note de Travail, No. 142, 1971.Google Scholar
  9. Roy, B., ‘How outranking relation helps multiple criteria decision making’, in: Cochrane, J.L. and Zeleny, M. (eds), Multiple Criteria Decision Making, University of South Carolina Press, SC, 1973, pp. 179–201.Google Scholar
  10. Roy, B., ‘Critères multiples et modélisation des préférences: l’apport des relations de surclassement’, Revue d’Economie Politique, 84, (1), 1974, pp. 1–44.Google Scholar
  11. Roy, B., ‘Vers une méthodologie générale d’aide à la décision’, Revue METRA, XIV, (3), 1975.Google Scholar
  12. Roy, B.,‘Partial preference analysis and decision-aid: the fuzzy outranking concept’, in: Bell, D., Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H. (eds), Conflicting Objectives in Decision, Wiley, New York, 1977, pp. 40–74.Google Scholar
  13. Roy, B., ‘ELECTRE III: un algorithme de classement fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critères multiples’, Cahiers Centre Etudes Recherche Opérationnelle, 20, (1), 1979, pp. 3–24.Google Scholar
  14. Roy, B., ‘Extension of the dominance concept: theoretical background and application’, Communication to the 12th Meeting of the EURO Working Group ‘Multicriteria Decision Aid’, Bochum, October 1980.Google Scholar
  15. Roy, B. and Bertier, P., ‘La méthode ELECTRE II, une application au media-planning’, in: Ross, M. (ed), OR’72, North-Holland Publ. Co., Amsterdam, 1973, pp. 291–302.Google Scholar
  16. Roy, B. and Hugonnard, J.C., ‘Ranking of suburban line extension projects on the Paris Metro System by a multicriteria method’, Transport Research, 16A, (4), 1982, pp. 301–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roy, B. and Vincke, Ph., ‘Systèmes relationnels de préférences en présence de critères multiples avec seuils’, Cahiers Centre Etude Recherche Opérationnelle, 22 (1), 1980a.Google Scholar
  18. Roy, B. and Vincke, Ph., ‘Pseudo-critères et systèmes relationnels de préférence: nouveaux concepts et nouveaux résultats en vue de l’aide à la décision’, Cahiers du LAMSADE, Université de Paris Dauphine, No. 28, 1980b.Google Scholar
  19. Roy, B. and Vincke, Ph., ‘Multicriteria analysis: survey and new directions’, European Journal of Operational Research, 8, 1981, pp. 207–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Siskos, J., ‘Comment modéliser les préférences au moyen de fonctions d’utilité additives’, RAIRO Recherche Opérationnelle, 14, 1980, pp. 53–82.Google Scholar
  21. Siskos, J., ‘A way to deal with fuzzy preferences in multi-criteria decision problems’, European Journal of Operational Research, 10, 1982, pp. 314–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vincke, Ph., ‘Quasi-kernels to minimum weakness in a graph’, Discrete Mathematics, 20, (2), 1977.Google Scholar
  23. Zadeh, L.A., Fu, K.S., Tanaka, K. and Shimura, M., Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications to Cognitive and Decision Processes, Academic Press, New York, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1985

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ostanello

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations