Comparison of MCDA Paradigms

  • D. L. Olson
  • A. I. Mechitov
  • H. Moshkovich
Part of the Mathematical Modelling: Theory and Applications book series (MMTA, volume 4)


The underlying concepts of MAUT, SMART, AHP, preference cones, ZAPROS, and outranking methods are compared. Learning systems are considered. The learning view is that decision makers initially do not fully understand all of the criteria that are important. Therefore, rather than uncovering an underlying utility function, what must be uncovered are the full ramifications involved in selecting one alternative over another. This paradigm can involve an evolutionary problem, where criteria can be added or discarded during the analysis. Methods are also reviewed with respect to their psychological validity in generating input data. Past experiments conducted by the authors are reviewed, with conclusions drawn relative to subject comfort in using each method. Subjects typically make errors, in that they have inconsistent ratings of scores across systems, and will occasionally have reversal of relative importance of criteria across systems. This emphasizes the need to be careful of input in decision models, and strengthens the argument for more robust input information. Furthermore, systems based on the same model have been found to yield different results for some. In a study exposing both US and Russian students were compared. Each group found it more comfortable to use systems developed within their own culture.

The concept that seems most attractive is that the analysis needs to focus on the decision maker learning about tradeoffs. A major problem with utility based and outranking methods is that decision makers might consider a wide variety of criteria, but both practicality and mathematics show that only a relatively small set of criteria are really going to matter. Learning methods allow decision makers to focus on these critical criteria and their tradeoffs.


Decision Maker Analytic Hierarchy Process Logical Decision MCDM Method Multiattribute Utility 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barzilai, J., Cook, W., and Golanyi, B. (1987) Consistent Weights for Judgements Matrices of the Relative Importance for Alternatives. Operations Research Letters 6: 3, 131–134.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Belton, V. and Gear, T. (1983) On a Short-Coming of Saaty’s Method of Analytic Hierarchies, Omega 11:3, 228–230.Google Scholar
  3. Brans, J.P. and Vincke, P. (1985) A Preference Ranking Organization Method: The PROMETHEE Method. Management Science 31, 647–656.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. De Keyser, Wim and Peeters, P. (1996) A Note on the Use of PROMETHEE Multicriteria Methods, European Journal of Operational Research 89, 457–461.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyer, J. S. (1990) Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science 36:3, 249–258.Google Scholar
  6. Dyer, J.S. and Sarin, R.K. (1979)Measurable Value Functions. Operations Research 27, 810–822.Google Scholar
  7. Edwards, W., and Barron, F.H. (1994) SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement., Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60, 306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  9. Korhonen, P. (1988) A Visual Reference Direction Approach to Solving Discrete Multiple Criteria Problems. European Journal of Operational Research 34:2, 1988, 152–159.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. Korhonen, P., Wallenius, J., and Zionts, S. (1984) Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem Using Convex Cones. Management Science 30:11, 1336–1345.Google Scholar
  11. Larichev, O.I., and Moshkovich, H.M. (1991) ZAPROS: A Method and System for Ordering Multiattribute Alternatives on the Base of a Decision-Maker’s Preferences. All-Union Research Institute for Systems Studies, Moscow.Google Scholar
  12. Larichev, O.I., and Moshkovich, H.M. (1995) ZAPROS-LM: A Method and System for Rank-Ordering of Multiattribute Alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research 82, 503–521.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Larichev, O.I., Olson, D.L., Moshkovich, H.M., and Mechitov, A.I. (1995) Numeric vs. Cardinal Measurements in Multiattribute Decision Making: (How Exact is Enough?), Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 64, 9–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lootsma, F A (1993) Scale Sensitivity in a Multiplicative Variant of the AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 2, 87–110.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Loin, V., Stewart, T.J., and Zionts, S. (1992) An Aspiration-Level Interactive Model for Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Computers and Operations Research 19:7, 671–681.Google Scholar
  16. Olson, D.L., Moshkovich, H.M., Schellenberger, R., and Mechitov, A.I. (1996) Consistency and Accuracy in Decision Aids: Experiments with Four Multiattribute Systems, Decision Sciences 26, 723–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Roy, B. (1968) Classement et choix en presence de critères multiples. RIRO 8, 57–75.Google Scholar
  18. Roy, B., and Mousseau, V. (1996) A Theoretical Framework for Analysing the Notion of Relative Importance of Criteria. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 5, 145–159.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roy, B., and Vanderpooten, D. (1996) Response to F.A. Lootsma’s Comments on our Paper The European School of MCDA: Emergence, Basic Features and Current Works Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 5, 165–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill International, New York.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Saaty, T.L. (1986) Axiomatic Foundations of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Science 32:7, 841–855.Google Scholar
  22. Vanderpooten, D. (1990) The Interactive Approach in MCDA: A Technical Framework and Some Basic Conceptions. Mathematical and Computer Modelling 12, 1213–1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Watson, S. R. and Freeling, A. N. S. (1982) Assessing Attribute Weights, Omega 10:9, 582–583Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. L. Olson
    • 1
  • A. I. Mechitov
    • 2
  • H. Moshkovich
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Business AnalysisTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.College of BusinessUniversity of West AlabamaLivingstonUSA

Personalised recommendations