Advertisement

Weighting Criteria for Use within ELECTRE

  • Martin Rogers
  • Michael Bruen
  • Lucien-Yves Maystre
Chapter

Abstract

The assignment of importance weightings to each criterion is a crucial step in the application of all versions of the ELECTRE model with the exception of ELECTRE IV. Because it is a non-compensatory decision-aid model, the interpretation of weights is different than for a compensatory system such as MAUT (Keeney and Raiffa, 1976), where they amount to being substitution rates, allowing differences in preferences, as they relate to different criteria, to be expressed on the same scale. Within ELECTRE, the ‘weights’ used are not constants of scale, but are simply a measure of the relative importance of the criteria involved. Vincke (1992) likens the weighting of a criterion, in this instance, to the number of votes given to a candidate in a voting procedure, with the final tally indicating the relative importance of each criterion ‘candidate’.

Keywords

Decision Maker Decision Support Importance Weighting Criterion Weighting Personal Construct 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bannister, D. and Francella, F. (1986) Inquiring Man: The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Croom Helm, U.K.Google Scholar
  2. Bannister, D. and Mair, J.M. (1968) The Evaluation of Personal Constructs. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  3. Canter, L. (1995) Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Chuechman, C.W. and Ackhoff, R. (1954) `An Approximate Measure of Value’. Operations Research, 2, 172–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Diop, O (1988) Contribution a l’etude de la gestion des dechets solides de Dakar: analyse systemique et aide a la decision. Thesis No.757, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne.Google Scholar
  6. Environmental Protection Agency(1995) Advice Notes on Current Practice in the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. Environmental Publications, Dublin.Google Scholar
  7. Foreman, E. H. (1990) `Multi-Criteria Decision Making and The Analytic Hierarchy Process’. Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid (ed. C Bana e Costa), pp 295–318. Springer Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
  8. Francella, F. and Bannister, D. (1977) A Manual of Repertory Grid Technique. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  9. Hinkle, D. (1965) The Change of Personal Constructs from the Viewpoint of a Theory of Construct Implications. Ph.D. Dissertation, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  10. Hokkanen, J. and Salminen, S. (1994) `Choice of a Solid Waste Management System by Using the ELECTRE III Method’. Applying MCDA for Decision to Environmental Management. (Ed. M. Paruccini), Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland..Google Scholar
  11. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs.: Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  12. Kelly, G.A. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs, Volumes 1 and 2. Norton, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Maystre, L., Pictet, J., and Simos,J. (1994) Methodes Multicriteres ELECTRE. Description, conseils pratiques et cas d’application a la gestion environmentale. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  14. Mousseau, V. (1989) La Notion d’importance relative des criteres. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universite Paris DauphineGoogle Scholar
  15. Mousseau, V. (1995) Eliciting information concerning the relative importance of criteria. Advances in Multicriteria analysis (Pardalos, Y., Siskos, C. and Zopounidi, C. (eds.)), pp1743. Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  16. Roy, B. (1993) Methodologie Multicritere d’aide a la Decision: Methodes et Cas. Collection Gestion, Economica, Paris.Google Scholar
  17. Roy, B. and Figueira, J. (1998) `Determination Des Poids Des Criteres Dans Les Methodes De Type ELECTRE Avec La Technique De Simos Revisee’, Universite Paris-Dauphine, Document de Lamsade 109.Google Scholar
  18. Saaty, T. L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mc. Graw Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  19. Saaty, T. L. (1987) Rank Generation, Preservation and Reversal in the Analytic Hierarchy Decision Process. Decision Sciencies, Vol. 18, No. 2.Google Scholar
  20. Simos, J. (1990) Evaluer L’Impact sur L’Environment Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne.Google Scholar
  21. Vincke, P (1992) Multicriteria Decision Aid. Wiley, Chichester, U.K.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Rogers
  • Michael Bruen
  • Lucien-Yves Maystre

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations