Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stepwise multi-criteria evaluation

  • Published:
Quality and Quantity Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we show that quantitative methods for multi-criteria evaluation have three serious shortcomings. First, the addition of an alternative which has bad criterion scores may distort the comparison between other alternatives. Second, the addition of a criterion which does not differentiate between alternatives may distort the comparison between alternatives. Third, when a ranking of alternatives is derived from a multi-criteria evaluation, it suggests complete transitivity. It is shown that intransitivity may occur.

Therefore a stepwise procedure is recommended. It involves the removal of all criteria which do not or hardly differentiate between the alternatives and a pairwise evaluation of alternatives.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benayoun, R., Roy, B. and Sussman, N. (1966). Manual de reference du programme electre. Note de Synthese et Formation. No. 25. Paris: SEMA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, G. and Besson, M. L. (1971). Douze méthodes d'analyse multi critère. Revue Francaise d'Informatique et de Recherche Operationelle 5: 19–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombs, C. H. (1983). Psychology and Mathematics. Michigan: Michigan University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, J. C. (1972). An ordinal method of evaluation. Urban Studies 9: 179–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet-Lagrèze (1969). L'aggregation des opinions individuelles. Informatique en Science Humaines. No. 4. pp. 8–24.

  • Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade Offs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D. et al. (1959). Individual Choice Behaviour. A Theoretical Analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massam, B. H. (1988). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Oxford: Pergamon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paelinck, J. H. P. (1976). Qualitative Multiple Criteria Analysis. Papers for the Regional Science Association. New York: Seminar Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RARO/VWA (1986). Vestigingsplaatsen voor Kerncentrales. Tweede kamer, 18830, No. 43–44.

  • Roy, B. (1971). Problems and methods with multiple objective functions. Mathematical Programing 1: 239–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlager, K. (1968). The rank based expected value method of plan evaluation. Highway Research Record 238: 153–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voogd, H. (1981). Multi Criteria Analysis with Mixed Qualitative-Quantitative Data. Delft University Press Planological Memorandum, pp. 81–86.

  • Voogd, H. (1983). Multi Criteria Evaluation for Urban and Regional Planning. London: Pion Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yellot, J. I.Jr. (1977). The relationship between Luce's choice axiom, Thurstone's theory of comparative judgement and the double exponential distribution. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15: 109–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yoon-Ro, Lee and Stam, A. (1985). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. New York: Plenum Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Free University, Amsterdam

    Michiel S. De Vries

Authors
  1. Michiel S. De Vries
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

De Vries, M.S. Stepwise multi-criteria evaluation. Qual Quant 26, 61–76 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177998

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00177998

Keywords

Search

Navigation