2003
DOI: 10.5784/5-1-484
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recent developemts in multiple criteria decision making

Abstract: Problems involving more than one criterion abound. To help in the solution of such problems, a field of management science and operations research known as multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) has emerged to help solve such problems. In this paper we discuss some recent developments in this important field.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2003
2003
2003
2003

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 7 publications
(7 reference statements)
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The strength of the AHP in this context, which transcends the technical criticisms of some of its aspects, is its appeal to decision makers, who have little or no experience of OR, as a natural way of incorporating the different iJ!Commensurate, and often conflicting, criteria into the decision model and of establishing tradeoffs between them. Doubtless a number of other discrete alternative multiple criteria decision making approaches (possibly less controversial than the AIIP) could have been used for these problems (see, for example, Zionts and Lofti [23]). What is important is that the approach be easily used and understood by wildlife managers, and the results readily checked against their intuitive feelings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The strength of the AHP in this context, which transcends the technical criticisms of some of its aspects, is its appeal to decision makers, who have little or no experience of OR, as a natural way of incorporating the different iJ!Commensurate, and often conflicting, criteria into the decision model and of establishing tradeoffs between them. Doubtless a number of other discrete alternative multiple criteria decision making approaches (possibly less controversial than the AIIP) could have been used for these problems (see, for example, Zionts and Lofti [23]). What is important is that the approach be easily used and understood by wildlife managers, and the results readily checked against their intuitive feelings.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%