Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation 4/2016

08.12.2015

The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making

verfasst von: Mats Danielson, Love Ekenberg

Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Ausgabe 4/2016

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) methods have been around for quite some time. However, the elicitation of preference information in MCDA processes, and in particular the lack of practical means supporting it, is still a significant problem in real-life applications of MCDA. There is obviously a need for methods that neither require formal decision analysis knowledge, nor are too cognitively demanding by forcing people to express unrealistic precision or to state more than they are able to. We suggest a method, the CAR method, which is more accessible than our earlier approaches in the field while trying to balance between the need for simplicity and the requirement of accuracy. CAR takes primarily ordinal knowledge into account, but, still recognizing that there is sometimes a quite substantial information loss involved in ordinality, we have conservatively extended a pure ordinal scale approach with the possibility to supply more information. Thus, the main idea here is not to suggest a method or tool with a very large or complex expressibility, but rather to investigate one that should be sufficient in most situations, and in particular better, at least in some respects, than some hitherto popular ones from the SMART family as well as AHP, which we demonstrate in a set of simulation studies as well as a large end-user study.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Fußnoten
1
We will henceforth, unless otherwise stated, presume that decision problems are modelled as simplexes \(S_{w}\) generated by \(w_{1}> w_{2}> \cdots > w_{N}, \Sigma w_{i}=1, \hbox { and } 0=w_{i}\).
 
2
To be more precise, a strict ordering is not required since ties are allowed.
 
3
In Danielson et al. (2014a) and Danielson and Ekenberg (2014b), ordinal weights are introduced that are more robust than other surrogate weights, in particular. Using steps 1–3 above, cardinal weights can analogously be obtained. This is explained in detail in Danielson and Ekenberg (2015) where the performance of a set of cardinal weights are compared to ordinal weights.
 
4
Sometimes there is a limit to the individual numbers but not a limit to the sum of the numbers.
 
5
For various cognitive and methodological aspects of imprecision in decision making (see, e.g., Danielson et al. 2007, 2014).
 
6
A second success measure we used is the matching of the three highest ranked alternatives (“podium”), the number of times the three highest evaluated alternatives using a particular method all coincide with the true three highest alternatives. A third set generated is the matching of all ranked alternatives (“overall”), the number of times all evaluated alternatives using a particular method coincide with the true ranking of the alternatives. The two latter sets correlated strongly with the first and are not shown in this paper. Instead, we show the Kendall’s tau measure of overall performance.
 
7
SMART is represented by the improved SMARTER version by Edwards and Barron (1994).
 
8
AHP weights were derived by forming quotients \(\hbox {w}_{i}/\hbox {w}_{j}\) and rounding to the nearest odd integer. Also allowing even integers in between yielded no significantly better results.
 
9
The subjects had 2–4 years of university studies with no or little mathematical background. Thus, their level of education corresponds to an average decision making manager in many organisations.
 
Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Aguayo EA, Mateos A, Jiménez-Martín A (2014) A new dominance intensity method to deal with ordinal information about a DM’s preferences within MAVT. Knowl Based Syst 69:159–169CrossRef Aguayo EA, Mateos A, Jiménez-Martín A (2014) A new dominance intensity method to deal with ordinal information about a DM’s preferences within MAVT. Knowl Based Syst 69:159–169CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ahn BS, Park KS (2008) Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights. Comput Oper Res 35(5):1660–1670CrossRef Ahn BS, Park KS (2008) Comparing methods for multiattribute decision making with ordinal weights. Comput Oper Res 35(5):1660–1670CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Arbel A, Vargas LG (1993) Preference simulation and preference programming: robustness issues in priority derivation. Eur J Oper Res 69:200–209CrossRef Arbel A, Vargas LG (1993) Preference simulation and preference programming: robustness issues in priority derivation. Eur J Oper Res 69:200–209CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick JC (1999) The MACBETH approach: basic ideas, software, and an application. In: Meskens N, Roubens M (eds) Advances in decision analysis, vol 4., Mathematical modelling: theory and applicationsKluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 131–157CrossRef Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick JC (1999) The MACBETH approach: basic ideas, software, and an application. In: Meskens N, Roubens M (eds) Advances in decision analysis, vol 4., Mathematical modelling: theory and applicationsKluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 131–157CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bana e Costa CA, Correa EC, De Corte JM, Vansnick JC (2002) Facilitating bid evaluation in public call for tenders: a socio-technical approach. Omega 30:227–242CrossRef Bana e Costa CA, Correa EC, De Corte JM, Vansnick JC (2002) Facilitating bid evaluation in public call for tenders: a socio-technical approach. Omega 30:227–242CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Barron FH (1992) Selecting a best multiattribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights. Acta Psychol 80(1–3):91–103CrossRef Barron FH (1992) Selecting a best multiattribute alternative with partial information about attribute weights. Acta Psychol 80(1–3):91–103CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Barron F, Barrett B (1996a) The efficacy of SMARTER: simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychol 93(1–3):23–36CrossRef Barron F, Barrett B (1996a) The efficacy of SMARTER: simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychol 93(1–3):23–36CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Barron F, Barrett B (1996b) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manag Sci 42(11):1515–1523CrossRef Barron F, Barrett B (1996b) Decision quality using ranked attribute weights. Manag Sci 42(11):1515–1523CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Belton V, Gear T (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3):228–230CrossRef Belton V, Gear T (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3):228–230CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRef Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Bisdorff R, Dias LC, Meyer P, Mousseau V, Pirlot M (eds) (2015) Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria: case studies. Springer, Berlin Bisdorff R, Dias LC, Meyer P, Mousseau V, Pirlot M (eds) (2015) Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria: case studies. Springer, Berlin
Zurück zum Zitat Brans JP, Vincke PH (1985) A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method. Manag Sci 31:647–656CrossRef Brans JP, Vincke PH (1985) A preference ranking organization method: the PROMETHEE method. Manag Sci 31:647–656CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Butler J, Jia J, Dyer J (1997) Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models. Eur J Oper Res 103:531–546CrossRef Butler J, Jia J, Dyer J (1997) Simulation techniques for the sensitivity analysis of multi-criteria decision models. Eur J Oper Res 103:531–546CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Cook W, Kress M (1996) An extreme-point approach for obtaining weighted ratings in qualitative multicriteria decision making. Naval Res Logist 43:519–531CrossRef Cook W, Kress M (1996) An extreme-point approach for obtaining weighted ratings in qualitative multicriteria decision making. Naval Res Logist 43:519–531CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L (1998) A framework for analysing decisions under risk. Eur J Oper Res 104(3):474–484CrossRef Danielson M, Ekenberg L (1998) A framework for analysing decisions under risk. Eur J Oper Res 104(3):474–484CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2007) Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. Eur J Oper Res 181(2):808–816CrossRef Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2007) Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. Eur J Oper Res 181(2):808–816CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L, He Y (2014a) Augmenting ordinal methods for attribute weight approximations. Decis Anal 11(1):21–26CrossRef Danielson M, Ekenberg L, He Y (2014a) Augmenting ordinal methods for attribute weight approximations. Decis Anal 11(1):21–26CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2014b) Rank ordering methods for multi-criteria decisions. In: Proceedings of 14th group decision and negotiation—GDN 2014, Springer Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2014b) Rank ordering methods for multi-criteria decisions. In: Proceedings of 14th group decision and negotiation—GDN 2014, Springer
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2015) Using surrogate weights for handling preference strength in multi-criteria decisions. In: Proceedings of 15th group decision and negotiation—GDN 2015, Springer Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2015) Using surrogate weights for handling preference strength in multi-criteria decisions. In: Proceedings of 15th group decision and negotiation—GDN 2015, Springer
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Johansson J, Larsson A (2003) The DecideIT decision tool. In: Bernard J-M, Seidenfeld T, Zaffalon M (eds) Proceedings of ISIPTA’03, pp 204–217, Carleton Scientific Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Johansson J, Larsson A (2003) The DecideIT decision tool. In: Bernard J-M, Seidenfeld T, Zaffalon M (eds) Proceedings of ISIPTA’03, pp 204–217, Carleton Scientific
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Larsson A (2007) Distribution of belief in decision trees. Int J Approx Reason 46(2):387–407CrossRef Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Larsson A (2007) Distribution of belief in decision trees. Int J Approx Reason 46(2):387–407CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Riabacke A (2009) A prescriptive approach to elicitation of decision data. J Stat Theory Pract 3(1):157–168CrossRef Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Riabacke A (2009) A prescriptive approach to elicitation of decision data. J Stat Theory Pract 3(1):157–168CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Larsson A, Riabacke M (2014) Weighting under ambiguous preferences and imprecise differences in a cardinal rank ordering process. Int J Comput Intell Syst 7(1):105–112CrossRef Danielson M, Ekenberg L, Larsson A, Riabacke M (2014) Weighting under ambiguous preferences and imprecise differences in a cardinal rank ordering process. Int J Comput Intell Syst 7(1):105–112CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Devroye L (1986) Non-uniform random variate generation. Springer, BerlinCrossRef Devroye L (1986) Non-uniform random variate generation. Springer, BerlinCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2000) Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 51(9):1070–1082CrossRef Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2000) Additive aggregation with variable interdependent parameters: the VIP analysis software. J Oper Res Soc 51(9):1070–1082CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ekenberg L, Boman M, Danielson M (1995) A tool for coordinating autonomous agents with conflicting goals. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on multi-agent systems ICMAS ’95, pp 89–93, AAAI/MIT Press Ekenberg L, Boman M, Danielson M (1995) A tool for coordinating autonomous agents with conflicting goals. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on multi-agent systems ICMAS ’95, pp 89–93, AAAI/MIT Press
Zurück zum Zitat Ekenberg L, Boman M, Linneroth-Bayer J (2001a) General risk constraints. J Risk Res 4(1):31–47CrossRef Ekenberg L, Boman M, Linneroth-Bayer J (2001a) General risk constraints. J Risk Res 4(1):31–47CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ekenberg L, Thorbiörnson J (2001) Second-order decision analysis. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 9(1):13–38CrossRef Ekenberg L, Thorbiörnson J (2001) Second-order decision analysis. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 9(1):13–38CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ekenberg L, Thorbiörnson J, Baidya T (2005) Value differences using second order distributions. Int J Approx Reason 38(1):81–97CrossRef Ekenberg L, Thorbiörnson J, Baidya T (2005) Value differences using second order distributions. Int J Approx Reason 38(1):81–97CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Edwards W (1971) Social utilities. In: Engineering economist, summer symposium series, vol 6, pp 119–129 Edwards W (1971) Social utilities. In: Engineering economist, summer symposium series, vol 6, pp 119–129
Zurück zum Zitat Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7(5):326–340CrossRef Edwards W (1977) How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 7(5):326–340CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Edwards W, Barron F (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–325CrossRef Edwards W, Barron F (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60:306–325CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Figueira J, Roy B (2002) Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur J Oper Res 139:317–326CrossRef Figueira J, Roy B (2002) Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. Eur J Oper Res 139:317–326CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ginevicius R (2009) A new determining method for the criteria weights in multicriteria evaluation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making 10(6):1067–1095CrossRef Ginevicius R (2009) A new determining method for the criteria weights in multicriteria evaluation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making 10(6):1067–1095CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jia J, Fischer GW, Dyer J (1998) Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: a simulation study. J Behav Decis Making 11(2):85–105CrossRef Jia J, Fischer GW, Dyer J (1998) Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: a simulation study. J Behav Decis Making 11(2):85–105CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Jiménez A, Ríos-Insua S, Mateos A (2006) A generic multi-attribute analysis system. Comput Oper Res 33:1081–1101CrossRef Jiménez A, Ríos-Insua S, Mateos A (2006) A generic multi-attribute analysis system. Comput Oper Res 33:1081–1101CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Katsikopoulos K, Fasolo B (2006) New tools for decision analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 36(5):960–967CrossRef Katsikopoulos K, Fasolo B (2006) New tools for decision analysis. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 36(5):960–967CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York Keeney R, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York
Zurück zum Zitat Kirkwood CW (1997) strategic decision making: multiobjective decision making with spreadsheets. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont Kirkwood CW (1997) strategic decision making: multiobjective decision making with spreadsheets. Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont
Zurück zum Zitat Krovak J (1987) Ranking alternatives-comparison of different methods based on binary comparison matrices. Eur J Oper Res 32:86–95CrossRef Krovak J (1987) Ranking alternatives-comparison of different methods based on binary comparison matrices. Eur J Oper Res 32:86–95CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Larsson A, Johansson J, Ekenberg L, Danielson M (2005) Decision analysis with multiple objectives in a framework for evaluating imprecision. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 13(5):495–509CrossRef Larsson A, Johansson J, Ekenberg L, Danielson M (2005) Decision analysis with multiple objectives in a framework for evaluating imprecision. Int J Uncertain Fuzziness Knowl Based Syst 13(5):495–509CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Larsson A, Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2014) Cardinal and rank ordering of criteria—addressing prescription within weight elicitation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making. doi:10.1142/S021962201450059X Larsson A, Riabacke M, Danielson M, Ekenberg L (2014) Cardinal and rank ordering of criteria—addressing prescription within weight elicitation. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making. doi:10.​1142/​S021962201450059​X
Zurück zum Zitat Mateos A, Jiménez-Martín A, Aguayo EA, Sabio P (2014) Dominance intensity measuring methods in MCDM with ordinal relations regarding weights. Knowl Based Syst 70:26–32CrossRef Mateos A, Jiménez-Martín A, Aguayo EA, Sabio P (2014) Dominance intensity measuring methods in MCDM with ordinal relations regarding weights. Knowl Based Syst 70:26–32CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Milnor J (1954) Games against nature. In: Thrall RM, Coombs CH, Davies RL (eds) Decision processes. Wiley Milnor J (1954) Games against nature. In: Thrall RM, Coombs CH, Davies RL (eds) Decision processes. Wiley
Zurück zum Zitat Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen R (2005) A preference programming approach to make the even swaps method even easier. Decis Anal 2:110–123CrossRef Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen R (2005) A preference programming approach to make the even swaps method even easier. Decis Anal 2:110–123CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen R, Salo A (2005) Decision support by interval SMART/SWING—incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods. Decis Sci 36(2):317–339CrossRef Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen R, Salo A (2005) Decision support by interval SMART/SWING—incorporating imprecision in the SMART and SWING methods. Decis Sci 36(2):317–339CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Park KS (2004) Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 34(5):601–614CrossRef Park KS (2004) Mathematical programming models for characterizing dominance and potential optimality when multicriteria alternative values and weights are simultaneously incomplete. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 34(5):601–614CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Puerto J, Mármol AM, Monroy L, Fernández FR (2000) Decision criteria with partial information. Int Trans Oper Res 7:51–65CrossRef Puerto J, Mármol AM, Monroy L, Fernández FR (2000) Decision criteria with partial information. Int Trans Oper Res 7:51–65CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Rao JS, Sobel M (1980) Incomplete Dirichlet integrals with applications to ordered uniform spacing. J Multivar Anal 10:603–610CrossRef Rao JS, Sobel M (1980) Incomplete Dirichlet integrals with applications to ordered uniform spacing. J Multivar Anal 10:603–610CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Roberts R, Goodwin P (2002) Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 11:291–303CrossRef Roberts R, Goodwin P (2002) Weight approximations in multi-attribute decision models. J Multi Criteria Decis Anal 11:291–303CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). La Revue d’Informatique et de Recherche Opérationelle 8:57–75 Roy B (1968) Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples (la méthode ELECTRE). La Revue d’Informatique et de Recherche Opérationelle 8:57–75
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281CrossRef Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15:234–281CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York
Zurück zum Zitat Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (2001) Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)–elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 31:533–545CrossRef Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (2001) Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)–elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 31:533–545CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sarabando P, Dias L (2009) Multi-attribute choice with ordinal information: a comparison of different decision rules. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 39:545–554CrossRef Sarabando P, Dias L (2009) Multi-attribute choice with ordinal information: a comparison of different decision rules. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A 39:545–554CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Sarabando P, Dias L (2010) Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values. Comput Oper Res 37:2239–2247CrossRef Sarabando P, Dias L (2010) Simple procedures of choice in multicriteria problems without precise information about the alternatives’ values. Comput Oper Res 37:2239–2247CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Steuer RE (1984) Sausage blending using multiple objective linear programming. Manag Sci 30(11):1376–1384CrossRef Steuer RE (1984) Sausage blending using multiple objective linear programming. Manag Sci 30(11):1376–1384CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Stewart TJ (1993) Use of piecewise linear value functions in interactive multicriteria decision support: a Monte Carlo study. Manag Sci 39(11):1369–1381CrossRef Stewart TJ (1993) Use of piecewise linear value functions in interactive multicriteria decision support: a Monte Carlo study. Manag Sci 39(11):1369–1381CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Stillwell W, Seaver D, Edwards W (1981) A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organ Behav Hum Perform 28(1):62–77CrossRef Stillwell W, Seaver D, Edwards W (1981) A comparison of weight approximation techniques in multiattribute utility decision making. Organ Behav Hum Perform 28(1):62–77CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioural research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioural research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zurück zum Zitat Winkler RL, Hays WL (1985) Statistics: probability, inference and decision, Holt. Rinehart & Winston, New York Winkler RL, Hays WL (1985) Statistics: probability, inference and decision, Holt. Rinehart & Winston, New York
Metadaten
Titel
The CAR Method for Using Preference Strength in Multi-criteria Decision Making
verfasst von
Mats Danielson
Love Ekenberg
Publikationsdatum
08.12.2015
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Group Decision and Negotiation / Ausgabe 4/2016
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-015-9460-8

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2016

Group Decision and Negotiation 4/2016 Zur Ausgabe