The efficacy of SMARTER — Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Extended to Ranking

Barron, F. Hutton; Barrett, Bruce E.

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(96)00010-8

Cited by 148 publications

(103 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, the DM was asked to sort the criteria according to the relative importance of going from the worst to the best level of their corresponding attributes, resulting in a criteria ranking list. Then, using the Order of Centroid formula (ROC) [21], each rank position was transformed into a number that represents the weight associated with the criterion of that position. Finally, the Table 1: Steps followed for building and applying the decision model presented here.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As MAVT uses partial value functions to measure the level of accomplishment of each relevant performance criterion, it must be followed by a ranking method to aggregate these partial results. For this purpose, we build a Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique with Exploiting Ranks (SMARTER) model, which burdens the Decision Maker (DM) with less cognitive weight than other MAVT methods, without compromising the solution quality [21,22].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Application of Multi‐Attribute Value Theory to Improve Cargo Delivery Planning in Disaster Aftermath

Cavalcanti

Mendes

Yoshizaki

2017

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although many Operational Research models have been applied to disaster response operations, few researchers aim at revealing Decision Makers' goals or measuring their trade-offs. This article uses a holistic Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method to elucidate what objectives to pursue and to create appropriate strategies for planning vital items delivery to victims. We propose a framework for applying a Multi-Attribute Value Theory technique and test it with a humanitarian Decision Maker. The resulting mathematical model can be used to evaluate guidelines that make on-field decisions easier, improving (or at least not compromising) their outcomes. Our contribution to the MCDA field includes the documentation of an alternative generation methodology.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Application of Multi‐Attribute Value Theory to Improve Cargo Delivery Planning in Disaster Aftermath

Cavalcanti

Mendes

Yoshizaki

2017

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Typical examples include the multi-attribute utility theory (Keeney and Raiffa 1976), the Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique (SMART) (Edwards 1977) and its refined versions SMARTS (SMART using Swings) (Edwards and Barron 1994) and SMARTER (SMART Extended to Ranking) (Barron and Barrett 1996), the surrogate weighting methods, the direct rating methods, either Bottom-up Direct Rating (BDR) or Top-down Direct Rating (TDR), the Point Allocation (PA) method (Roberts and Goodwin 2002), and the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty 1980). All these methods have been regarded as effective in some contexts but criticized in others.…”

Section: Data Collection and Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Establishing and Weighting Decision Criteria for Building System Selection in Housing Construction

Pan

Dainty

Gibb

2012

J. Constr. Eng. Manage.

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: PAN, W., DAINTY, A. and GIBB, A., 2012. Establishing and weighting decision criteria for building system selection in housing construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and AbstractA lack of value-based decision criteria leads to an inability to effectively compare prefabrication and offsite production with conventional construction, which inhibits the realization of benefits of offsite approaches. This paper develops value-based decision criteria and quantifies their relative importance, for assessing building technologies systematically. The research employed a multi-methodological strategy within a broad case-study based design, with six large housebuilding organizations in the UK. These companies together accounted for over a tenth of new-build homes completions in the UK.Over fifty criteria were developed, grouped under cost, time, quality, health and safety, sustainability, process, procurement, and regulatory and statutory acceptance. Cost was ranked most important, which, coupled with time and quality, predominated technology selection in these companies. Sustainability, process and procurement were weighed lower, while health and safety and regulatory and statutory acceptance were deemed compulsory, hence offering no trade-off opportunity. A lack of incorporating innovative sustainable technology into corporate strategy is observed. The developed criteria and the systematic process should help housebuilding organizations manage technological innovation and hopefully achieve more informed corporate decisions.

show abstract

“…Many papers have discussed problematic elements of the elicitation process, such as cognitive demand, cf., e.g., [3,4], difficulties in judging and expressing precise input, cf., e.g., [5,6], biases, and inconsistencies that arise, cf., e.g., [7,8]. A systematic mistake in practical applications is the absence of adequate (or the employment of inadequate) weight elicitation techniques [9].…”

Section: Weight Elicitation Within Mcdamentioning

confidence: 99%

Employing Cardinal Rank Ordering of Criteria in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Riabacke¹,

Danielson²,

Larsson³

et al. 2012

Uncertainty Modeling in Knowledge Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The elicitation of preference information in multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) processes and the lack of practical means supporting it is a significant problem in real-life applications of MCDA. The issues at hand are problematical in a multitude of ways, but some of these issues may be remedied by accepting weaker input statements from decision-makers than what is most commonly needed, yet being able to utilize these statements for decision evaluation. In this paper, we propose a fast and practically useful weight elicitation method, which builds on the ideas of rank-order methods, but in addition take imprecise cardinal information into account.

show abstract

The efficacy of SMARTER — Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique Extended to Ranking

Cited by 148 publications

References 10 publications

Application of Multi‐Attribute Value Theory to Improve Cargo Delivery Planning in Disaster Aftermath

Application of Multi‐Attribute Value Theory to Improve Cargo Delivery Planning in Disaster Aftermath

Establishing and Weighting Decision Criteria for Building System Selection in Housing Construction

Employing Cardinal Rank Ordering of Criteria in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About