No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

In a decision aiding context, knowing the preferences of the Decision Maker (DM) and determining weights of criteria are very hard questions. Several methods can be used to give an appropriate value to the weights of criteria. J. Simos proposed a very simple procedure, using a set of cards, allowing to determine indirectly numerical values for weights. The purpose of this paper is first to explain why the above method needs to be revised, and second, the revised version we propose. This new version takes into account a new kind of information from the DM and changes certain computing rules of the former method. A software has been implemented based on the revised Simos' procedure whose main features are presented in this paper. The new method has been applied to different real-life cases (public transportation problems, water resources problems, environment problems, etc); it proved to be successful.

In the first part of this paper, we describe the main features of real-world problems for which the outranking approach is appropriate and we present the concept of outranking relations. The second part is devoted to basic ideas and concepts used for building outranking relations. The definition of such outranking relations is given for the main ELECTRE methods in Part 3. The final part of the paper is devoted to some practical considerations.

We present main characteristics of ELECTRE (ELimination Et Choix Traduisant la REalité ‐ ELimination and Choice Expressing the REality) family methods, designed for multiple criteria decision aiding. These methods use as a preference model an outranking relation on the set of actions—it is constructed in result of concordance and nondiscordance tests involving a specific input preference information. After a brief description of the constructivist conception in which the ELECTRE methods are inserted, we present the main features of these methods. We discuss such characteristic features as the possibility of taking into account positive and negative reasons in the modelling of preferences, without requiring commensurable performance scales; the use of discriminating thresholds for taking into account the imperfect knowledge of data; the absence of systematic compensation between ‘gains’ and ‘losses’. The main weaknesses are also presented. Then, some aspects related to new developments are outlined. These are related to some new methodological developments, new procedures, axiomatic analysis, software tools and several other aspects. This paper is an updated version of a chapter published by the authors under the title ‘Electre Methods: Main Features and Recent Developments’ in C. Zopounidis and P. Pardalos (Editors): Handbook of Multicriteria Analysis, Springer, Berlin 2010, pp. 51–89. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

We formulate some questions that may help an analyst to choose a multicriteria decision aiding method well adapted to the decision context. These questions take into account several aspects of the decision process and of the cooperation between the analyst and the decision maker. We present these questions in a hierarchical order, from the most general and crucial, through other pertinent questions concerning the multicriteria aggregation, to the secondary ones. The initial question is what type of results the method is expected to bring. The next questions concern requirements on preference scales, acquisition of preference information, handling of imperfect knowledge, acceptance of compensation among criteria, and existence of interaction among criteria. The last questions are about intelligibility, axiomatic characterization, and weaknesses of the considered methods. To illustrate these questions, we introduce twelve representative and realistic decision contexts.