Abstract
Traditional decision theory has assumed that the decision maker’s objective is uni-dimensional, e.g. his personal utility or the profit of his firm. In real life, however, the assumption of a uni-dimensional objective is not a very realistic one. Today the decision makers in firms and agencies have to consider not only one but several objectives, e.g. profit, pollution, relations to labor unions, risk etc. A similar problem is controlling the implementation of a decision. Here the problem is to know (evaluate) the goal attainment of the implemented alternative/s. This situation is simpler as there is no uncertainty about the outcomes. The number of alternatives to evaluate is also smaller.
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
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Einhorn, H.J. (1970), The use of nonlinear, noncompensatory models in decision making, Psychological Bulletin Vol. 73, No. 3, pp. 221–30.
Goldberg, L.R., (1971), Five models on clinical judgment: An empirical comparison
between linear and nonlinear representations of the human inference process.Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance, 6, pp. 458–79.
Huber, G.P. (1974), Multi-attribute utility models: A review of field and field-like studies,Management Science 20, No. 10, pp. 1393–1402.
Keeney, R. L. (1969), Multi-dimensional utility functions: Theory, assessment and application,Technical Report 43Operations Research Center, MIT.
Keeney, R.L. (1973), A decision analysis with multiple objectives: The Mexico City Airport,The Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science4, Spring, pp. 101–17.
MacCrimmon, K.R. (1973). An overview of multiple objective decision making, from Cochrane J.L. and Zeleny, M. (Eds.),Multiple Criteria Decision MakingUniversity of South Carolina press, Columbia, S.C.
Miller, G.A. (1956), The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information, Psychological Review 2, Vol. 63, pp. 81–97.
Miller, III,J.R. (1970), Professional Decision-Making Praeger Publishers, New York. Nunnally, J.C. (1967), Psychometric Theory McGraw-Hill, New York.
Näslund, B. (1975), The importance of goal analysis in strategic planning, EFI Working Paper 6025 Stockholm
Raiffa, H. (1969), Preferences for Multi-attributed Alternatives RM-5868-DOT RC, RAND, Santa Monica, Ca.
Slovic, P. and Lichenstein, S., (1971), Comparisons of Bayesian and regression approaches to the study of information processing in judgment, Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 6, pp. 649–744.
Tell, B. (1973), A yodel for performance evaluation in the Swedish Air Force, Stockholm School of Economics, Working Paper 1973–12–20.
Tell, B. (1975), An experimental study of four multiple-criteria evaluation methods, EFI-Working Paper 6028 Stockholm
Tre Konsulter AB (1972), Metoder och modeller för värdering av system - särskilt materielorienterade system inom arméförband, Rapport 2303.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1976 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Tell, B. (1976). A Comparative Study of Four Multiple-Criteria Methods. In: Thiriez, H., Zionts, S. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 130. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-87563-2_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-87563-2_13
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-07794-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-87563-2
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive