Multiple criteria ranking decision support

• Autorzy: Chmielewski M. , Kaliszewski I.
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

We propose a methodology to support decisions on how to construct rankings of objects which account for decision makers' preferences. As it is not always so that objects to be ranked are known upfront, the methodology is focused on constructing ranking algorithms rather than rankings themselves. The methodology builds on Multiple Criteria Decision Making paradigms. To operationalize it we provide a consistent interactive framework which allows the decision maker to express his preferences with respect to objects directly, with respect to the criteria selection process (multiple criteria model building), and with respect to attributes resulting from the selected criteria. The methodology is illustrated by a numerical example of municipality rankings.

Słowa kluczowe

EN

multiple criteria ranking; interactive multiple criteria decision making; holistic preferences; atomistic preferences; model building

• Wydawca: Systems Research Institute, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Czasopismo: Control and Cybernetics
• Rocznik: 2011
• Tom: Vol. 40, no 4
• Strony: 1161--1187
• Opis fizyczny: Bibliogr. 24 poz.

Twórcy

autor

Chmielewski M.

autor

Kaliszewski I.

• The National Bank of Poland ul. Świętokrzyska 11/21, 00-919 Warsaw, Poland,

Bibliografia

• Bell, D.E. (1982) Regret in Decision Making under Uncertainty. Operations Research, 30, 961-981.
• Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B. (1986) How to Select and How to Rank Projects: The Promethee Method. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 228-238.
• Chmielewski, M. (2008) Extrapolations of Partial Orders in the Problem of Object Ranking. PhD Thesis (in Polish), Systems Research Institute, Warsaw.
• Chmielewski, M., Kaliszewski, I. (2008) Multiple Criteria Ranking Decision Support. Systems Research Institute Report, RB/2/2008, Warsaw.
• Dell, R.F., Karwan, M.H. (1990) An Interactive MCDM Weight Space Reduction Method Utilizing a Tchebycheff Utility Function. Naval Research Logistics, 37, 263-277.
• Ehrgott, M., (2005) Multicriteria Optimization. Springer.
• Fedrizzi, M., Giove, S. (2007) Incomplete Pairwise Comparison and Consistency Optimization. European Journal of Operational Research, 183, 303-313.
• Greco, S., Mousseau, V., Słowinski, R. (2007) Ordinal Regression Revisited: Multiple Criteria Ranking Using a Set of Additive Value Functions. European Journal of Operational Research, 181, 1030-1044.
• Jacquet-Lagrèze, E., Siskos, Y. (1982) Assessing a Set of Additive Utility Functions for Multicriteria Decision Making: The UTA Method. European Journal of Operational Research, 10, 151-164.
• Janis, I., Mann, L. (1977) Decision Making. The Free Press, New York.
• Kaliszewski, I. (1987) A modified Weighted Tchebycheff Metric for Multiple Objective Programming. Computers and Operations Research, 14, 315-323.
• Kaliszewski, I. (2006) Soft Computing for Complex Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Springer.
• Lomes, G., Sugden, R. (1982) Regret Theory: an Alternative Theory of Rational Choice under Uncertainty. Economic Journal, 92, 805-824.
• Luce, R.D., Raiffa, H. (1957) Games and Decisions. New York, Wiley.
• Miettinen, K.M. (1999) Nonlinear Multiobjective Optimization. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
• Roy, B. (1990) The Outranking Approach and the Foundations of ELECTRE Methods. In: C.A. Bana e Costa, ed., Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Springer Verlag, Heidelberg, 115-184.
• Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
• Savage, L.J. (1951) The Theory of Statistical Decision. Journal of American Statistical Association, 46, 55-67.
• Simon, H.A. (1977) The New Science of Management Decision. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.
• Skulimowski, A.M.J. (1996) Decision Support Systems Based on Reference Sets. AGH Publishers, Kraków.
• Wierzbicki,A.P. (1999) Reference Point Approaches. In: T.Gal, Th. Stewart, Th. Hanne, eds., Multicriteria Decision Making - Advances in MCDM: Models, Algorithms, Theory and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 9.1-9.39.
• Zangwill, W.I., Kantor, P.B. (1988) Toward a Theory of Continuous Improvement and the Learning Curve. Management Science, 44, 910-920.
• Zeelenberg, M. (1999) Anticipated Regret, Expected Feedback, and Behavioral DecisionMaking. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 93-106.
• Zionts, S., Wallenius, J. (1983) An Interactive Multiple Objective Linear Programming Method for a Class of Underlying Nonlinear Utility Functions. Management Science, 29, 519-529.