IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v130y2001i2p246-262.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods

Author

Listed:
  • Beuthe, Michel
  • Scannella, Giuseppe

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Beuthe, Michel & Scannella, Giuseppe, 2001. "Comparative analysis of UTA multicriteria methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 246-262, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:130:y:2001:i:2:p:246-262
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(00)00042-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jacquet-Lagreze, E. & Siskos, J., 1982. "Assessing a set of additive utility functions for multicriteria decision-making, the UTA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 151-164, June.
    2. Despontin, Marc & Lehert, Filippe & Roubens, Marc, 1986. "Multi-attribute decision making by consumers associations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 194-201, February.
    3. V. Srinivasan & Allan Shocker, 1973. "Linear programming techniques for multidimensional analysis of preferences," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 38(3), pages 337-369, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    2. Kadziński, Miłosz & Wójcik, Michał & Ciomek, Krzysztof, 2022. "Review and experimental comparison of ranking and choice procedures for constructing a univocal recommendation in a preference disaggregation setting," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    3. Grigoroudis, Evangelos & Noel, Laurent & Galariotis, Emilios & Zopounidis, Constantin, 2021. "An ordinal regression approach for analyzing consumer preferences in the art market," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 290(2), pages 718-733.
    4. Zopounidis, Constantin & Doumpos, Michael, 2002. "Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 138(2), pages 229-246, April.
    5. Grigoroudis, E. & Siskos, Y., 2002. "Preference disaggregation for measuring and analysing customer satisfaction: The MUSA method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 143(1), pages 148-170, November.
    6. Dias, Luis C. & Dias, Joana & Ventura, Tiago & Rocha, Humberto & Ferreira, Brígida & Khouri, Leila & Lopes, Maria do Carmo, 2022. "Learning target-based preferences through additive models: An application in radiotherapy treatment planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 302(1), pages 270-279.
    7. Jacquet-Lagreze, Eric & Siskos, Yannis, 2001. "Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 233-245, April.
    8. Oral, Muhittin & Kettani, Ossama & Cinar, Unver, 2001. "Project evaluation and selection in a network of collaboration: A consensual disaggregation multi-criterion approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 332-346, April.
    9. Kim, Soung Hie & Ahn, Byeong Seok, 1999. "Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 498-507, August.
    10. Theodoros Evgeniou & Constantinos Boussios & Giorgos Zacharia, 2005. "Generalized Robust Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(3), pages 415-429, May.
    11. Spyridakos, A. & Siskos, Y. & Yannacopoulos, D. & Skouris, A., 2001. "Multicriteria job evaluation for large organizations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 375-387, April.
    12. Deparis, Stéphane & Mousseau, Vincent & Öztürk, Meltem & Huron, Caroline, 2015. "The effect of bi-criteria conflict on matching-elicited preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 951-959.
    13. Mark Davison, 1988. "A reformulation of the general Euclidean model for the external analysis of preference data," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 53(3), pages 305-320, September.
    14. Olivier Toubia & Duncan I. Simester & John R. Hauser & Ely Dahan, 2003. "Fast Polyhedral Adaptive Conjoint Estimation," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(3), pages 273-303.
    15. Mishra, Sanjay & Umesh, U. N., 2005. "Determining the quality of conjoint analysis results using violation of a priori signs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 301-311, March.
    16. Kim, Soung Hie & Han, Chang Hee, 2000. "Establishing dominance between alternatives with incomplete information in a hierarchically structured attribute tree," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 122(1), pages 79-90, April.
    17. Heins, W. & Roling, M. W. M., 1995. "Application of multiattribute theory in a safety monitor for the planning of maintenance jobs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 270-280, October.
    18. Papapostolou, Aikaterini & Karakosta, Charikleia & Nikas, Alexandros & Psarras, John, 2017. "Exploring opportunities and risks for RES-E deployment under Cooperation Mechanisms between EU and Western Balkans: A multi-criteria assessment," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 519-530.
    19. Ma, Li-Ching, 2012. "Screening alternatives graphically by an extended case-based distance approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 96-103, January.
    20. B. P. S. Murthi & Sumit Sarkar, 2003. "The Role of the Management Sciences in Research on Personalization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(10), pages 1344-1362, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:130:y:2001:i:2:p:246-262. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.