IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v98y1997i1p85-97.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Corner, J. L.
  • Buchanan, J. T.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Corner, J. L. & Buchanan, J. T., 1997. "Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 85-97, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:98:y:1997:i:1:p:85-97
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0377-2217(95)00326-6
    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. Buchanan, J. T. & Daellenbach, H. G., 1987. "A comparative evaluation of interactive solution methods for multiple objective decision models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 353-359, June.
    2. Stanley Zionts & Jyrki Wallenius, 1983. "An Interactive Multiple Objective Linear Programming Method for a Class of Underlying Nonlinear Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(5), pages 519-529, May.
    3. Kimbrough, Steven O. & Weber, Martin, 1994. "An empirical comparison of utility assessment programs," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 75(3), pages 617-633, June.
    4. Paul J. H. Schoemaker & C. Carter Waid, 1982. "An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determining Weights in Additive Utility Models," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(2), pages 182-196, February.
    5. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bell, Michelle L. & Hobbs, Benjamin F. & Ellis, Hugh, 2003. "The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 289-316, December.
    2. Jaroslav Myšiak, 2006. "Consistency of the Results of Different MCA Methods: A Critical Review," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 24(2), pages 257-277, April.
    3. Behnam Malakooti, 2015. "Double Helix Value Functions, Ordinal/Cardinal Approach, Additive Utility Functions, Multiple Criteria, Decision Paradigm, Process, and Types (Z Theory I)," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 14(06), pages 1353-1400, November.
    4. Buchanan, John & Gardiner, Lorraine, 2003. "A comparison of two reference point methods in multiple objective mathematical programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 149(1), pages 17-34, August.
    5. Lu Chen & Kaisa Miettinen & Bin Xin & Vesa Ojalehto, 2023. "Comparing reference point based interactive multiobjective optimization methods without a human decision maker," Journal of Global Optimization, Springer, vol. 85(3), pages 757-788, March.
    6. Valentina Nino & David Claudio & Christie Schiel & Brendan Bellows, 2020. "Coupling Wearable Devices and Decision Theory in the United States Emergency Department Triage Process: A Narrative Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-23, December.
    7. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.

    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. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    2. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    3. Corrado Zoppi, 2014. "Does Landscape Protection Really Matter? An Assessment Based on Multicriteria Analysis," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(1 Suppl.), pages 47-69.
    4. Athanassopoulos, Antreas D., 1995. "Goal programming & data envelopment analysis (GoDEA) for target-based multi-level planning: Allocating central grants to the Greek local authorities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 535-550, December.
    5. Carmone, Frank J. & Kara, Ali & Zanakis, Stelios H., 1997. "A Monte Carlo investigation of incomplete pairwise comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(3), pages 538-553, November.
    6. Gomez-Limon, J.A. & Atance, I., 2004. "Identification of public objectives related to agricultural sector support," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 26(8-9), pages 1045-1071, December.
    7. S-K Lai & L D Hopkins, 1995. "Can Decisionmakers Express Multiattribute Preferences Using AHP and MUT? An Experiment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 22(1), pages 21-34, February.
    8. Aksoy, Yasemin & Butler, Timothy W. & Minor, Elliott D., 1996. "Comparative studies in interactive multiple objective mathematical programming," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 408-422, March.
    9. Rios-Insua, Sixto & Mateos, Alfonso, 1998. "The utility efficient set and its interactive reduction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 581-593, March.
    10. S-K Lai & L D Hopkins, 1989. "The Meanings of Trade-Offs in Multiattribute Evaluation Methods: A Comparison," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 16(2), pages 155-170, June.
    11. Bowen, William M., 1995. "A Thurstonian comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and probabilistic multidimensional scaling through application to the nuclear waste site selection decision," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 151-163, June.
    12. Sun, Minghe, 2005. "Some issues in measuring and reporting solution quality of interactive multiple objective programming procedures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 162(2), pages 468-483, April.
    13. José A. Gómez-Limón & Ignacio Atance, 2004. "Identification of Public Objectives Related to Agricultural Sector Support," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/57, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    14. Jaszkiewicz, Andrzej & Slowinski, Roman, 1999. "The `Light Beam Search' approach - an overview of methodology and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 113(2), pages 300-314, March.
    15. Marttunen, Mika & Belton, Valerie & Lienert, Judit, 2018. "Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 178-194.
    16. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    17. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    18. Vivi Nastase, 2006. "Concession Curve Analysis for Inspire Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 185-193, March.
    19. Greco, Salvatore, 1997. "A new PCCA method: IDRA," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(3), pages 587-601, May.
    20. Jay Simon, 2020. "Weight Approximation for Spatial Outcomes," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-18, July.

    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:98:y:1997:i:1:p:85-97. 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.