Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos' procedure

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.

Hydropower, social priorities and the rural–urban development divide: The case of large dams in Cambodia

“…This prioritisation process can range from simple ranking in order of importance to more systematic procedures, such as the "pairwise ranking" (Pretty et al, 1995), which was used in this study. Similar techniques, mostly used in multicriteria decision analysis, allow participants to express the relative importance of different items, usually called criteria, through the calculation of weights (Figueira and Roy, 2002;Fontana et al, 2011;Saaty, 1980;Simos, 1990a,b).…”

“…To facilitate comparisons among different stakeholder rankings we used a preference ranking method called the "Revised Simos" procedure (Figueira and Roy, 2002), which allows identification of peoples" priorities according to a set of multidimensional criteria and obtaining quantitative and ordinal weights. The procedure has been applied to different contexts, including environmental management issues (Madlener et al 2007, Kowalski et al 2009, Garmendia and Gamboa 2012.…”

Integrating knowledge exchange and the assessment of dryland management alternatives – A learning-centered participatory approach

“…The facilitator of the meeting first presents the consolidated list of indicators, providing a brief description of each indicator, based on the various descriptions given by the stakeholders during the previous (Step 2) interviews. Second, stakeholder priorities regarding the assessment indicators (and implicit criteria) are elicited through the ''Pack of Cards'' or revised Simos procedure (Figueira and Roy, 2002), a method designed to elicit weights for outranking Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) approaches. It is a simple method that facilitates the ranking of criteria in different levels and then indirectly determines the weights for those levels.…”

“…The decision to conduct two meetings, each in a different town (Ayora or Enguera) was made in order to minimize geographical constraints to participation. Using the Revised Simos' procedure (Figueira and Roy, 2002), each participant stakeholder expressed his/her perspectives on the relative importance of each criteria. After a group discussion on the individual perspectives and overall results obtained, each stakeholder had the opportunity to revise the prioritization (ordering of indicator cards) made.…”

A Participatory Approach for Assessing Alternative Climate Change Adaptation Responses to Cope with Flooding Risk in the Upper Brahmaputra and Danube River Basins

“…The criterion weights provide the information about the relative relevance to be given to the criteria, within the set of nine selected (three per sustainability Domain), in order to identify the most promising responses to cope with the issue of flooding under the pressure of CC. The criteria weighting procedure was based on the method proposed by Simos (1990) and revised by Figueira and Roy (2002). The method utilizes two sets of cards provided to each participant.…”