IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v36y1989i4p359-372.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Identifying and ranking a most preferred subset of alternatives in the presence of multiple criteria

Author

Listed:
  • M. Murat Köksalan

Abstract

In this article an interactive method is developed to identify and rank a most preferred subset, T, of alternatives assuming that the decision maker has an implicit quasiconcave nondecreasing utility function. The method requires the decision maker to compare pairs of selected alternatives. Based on the responses of the decision maker, convex cones are constructed to eliminate alternatives that are proved to be inferior to alternatives in set T. The method aims at keeping the number of pairwise comparisons small. Computational experience with the method indicates that the required number of pairwise comparisons to form set T is usually small. However, the number of pairwise comparisons needed to confirm that this set is best may be large.

Suggested Citation

  • M. Murat Köksalan, 1989. "Identifying and ranking a most preferred subset of alternatives in the presence of multiple criteria," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 359-372, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:36:y:1989:i:4:p:359-372
    DOI: 10.1002/1520-6750(198908)36:43.0.CO;2-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6750(198908)36:43.0.CO;2-9
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/1520-6750(198908)36:43.0.CO;2-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1984. "Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem using Convex Cones," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1336-1345, November.
    2. Green, Paul E & Srinivasan, V, 1978. "Conjoint Analysis in Consumer Research: Issues and Outlook," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 5(2), pages 103-123, Se.
    3. Siskos, J., 1982. "A way to deal with fuzzy preferences in multi-criteria decision problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 314-324, 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. Koksalan, Murat & Ulu, Canan, 2003. "An interactive approach for placing alternatives in preference classes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 429-439, January.
    2. Canan Ulu & Murat Köksalan, 2001. "An interactive procedure for selecting acceptable alternatives in the presence of multiple criteria," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(7), pages 592-606, October.

    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. Koksalan, Murat & Ulu, Canan, 2003. "An interactive approach for placing alternatives in preference classes," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 144(2), pages 429-439, January.
    2. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    3. Canan Ulu & Murat Köksalan, 2001. "An interactive procedure for selecting acceptable alternatives in the presence of multiple criteria," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(7), pages 592-606, October.
    4. Winfried Steiner & Harald Hruschka, 2002. "A Probabilistic One-Step Approach to the Optimal Product Line Design Problem Using Conjoint and Cost Data," Review of Marketing Science Working Papers 1-4-1003, Berkeley Electronic Press.
    5. Merja Halme & Kari Linden & Kimmo Kääriä, 2009. "Patients’ Preferences for Generic and Branded Over-the-Counter Medicines," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 2(4), pages 243-255, December.
    6. Dufhues, T. & Buchenrieder, G., 2004. "Der Beitrag der Conjoint Analyse zur nachfrageorintierten Entwicklung des ländlichen Finanzsektors in Vietnam," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 39.
    7. Martinovici, A., 2019. "Revealing attention - how eye movements predict brand choice and moment of choice," Other publications TiSEM 7dca38a5-9f78-4aee-bd81-c, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    8. James Agarwal & Wayne DeSarbo & Naresh K. Malhotra & Vithala Rao, 2015. "An Interdisciplinary Review of Research in Conjoint Analysis: Recent Developments and Directions for Future Research," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 2(1), pages 19-40, March.
    9. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    10. Mahesh Balan U & Saji K. Mathew, 2021. "Personalize, Summarize or Let them Read? A Study on Online Word of Mouth Strategies and Consumer Decision Process," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 627-647, June.
    11. Thomas L. Saaty, 2013. "The Modern Science of Multicriteria Decision Making and Its Practical Applications: The AHP/ANP Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 61(5), pages 1101-1118, October.
    12. Shin, Jungwoo & Hwang, Won-Sik, 2017. "Consumer preference and willingness to pay for a renewable fuel standard (RFS) policy: Focusing on ex-ante market analysis and segmentation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 32-40.
    13. Haaijer, Marinus E., 1996. "Predictions in conjoint choice experiments : the x-factor probit model," Research Report 96B22, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    14. Ha, Jinkyung, 2018. "Consumer valuation of Fintech: The case of Mobile Payment in Korea," 22nd ITS Biennial Conference, Seoul 2018. Beyond the boundaries: Challenges for business, policy and society 190341, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    15. P. A. Ferrari & S. Salini, 2008. "Measuring Service Quality: The Opinion of Europeans about Utilities," Working Papers 2008.36, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei.
    16. Steinhorst, M.P. & Bahrs, E., 2013. "Renditansprüche im Kontext gleichmäßiger Rückflüsse – Ergebnisse eines Experiments mit Stakeholdern des Agribusiness," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    17. Yavuz Taşcıoğlu & Mevlüt Gül & Metin Göksel Akpınar & Bahri Karlı & Bektaş Kadakoğlu & Bekir Sıtkı Şirikçi & Musa Acar & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "Optimum Support Policy Component for the Development of Agricultural Production: Potato Producer," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-13, April.
    18. Luisa Menapace & Gregory Colson & Carola Grebitus & Maria Facendola, 2011. "Consumers' preferences for geographical origin labels: evidence from the Canadian olive oil market," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 38(2), pages 193-212, June.
    19. Srinivasan, V. Seenu & Netzer, Oded, 2007. "Adaptive Self-Explication of Multi-attribute Preferences," Research Papers 1979, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    20. Fusco, Elisa, 2023. "Potential improvements approach in composite indicators construction: The Multi-directional Benefit of the Doubt model," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).

    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:wly:navres:v:36:y:1989:i:4:p:359-372. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    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.