IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v43y1996i5p613-627.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Zachary F. Lansdowne

Abstract

Given multiple criteria and multiple alternatives, the goal is to aggregate the criteria information and obtain an overall ranking of alternatives. An ordinal ranking method requires only that the rank order of the alternatives be known for each criterion. We compare and illustrate the ordinal ranking methods devised by Borda, Bernardo, Cook and Seiford, Köhler, and Arrow and Raynaud. We show whether each method places the Condorcet winner (if it exists) in first place, ranks the alternatives according to the Condorcet order (if it exists), and satisfies two principles of sequential independence. We also consider the application of these methods to cost and operational effectiveness analyses (COEAs). © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Suggested Citation

  • Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:43:y:1996:i:5:p:613-627
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199608)43:53.0.CO;2-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199608)43:53.0.CO;2-8
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199608)43:53.0.CO;2-8?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. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Van Newenhizen, Jill, 1992. "The Borda Method Is Most Likely to Respect the Condorcet Principle," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 2(1), pages 69-83, January.
    3. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    4. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    5. Kenneth J. Arrow & Herve Raynaud, 1986. "Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511754, December.
    6. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    7. Peter Fishburn & William Gehrlein, 1976. "Borda's rule, positional voting, and Condorcet's simple majority principle," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 79-88, December.
    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. Yu Xiao & Ye Deng & Jun Wu & Hong‐Zhong Deng & Xin Lu, 2017. "Comparison of rank aggregation methods based on inherent ability," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(7), pages 556-565, October.
    2. B. Ahn & S. Choi, 2012. "Aggregation of ordinal data using ordered weighted averaging operator weights," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 201(1), pages 1-16, December.

    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. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    2. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    3. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    4. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    5. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    6. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    7. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    8. Srinivas K. Reddy & Jay E. Aronson & Antonie Stam, 1998. "SPOT: Scheduling Programs Optimally for Television," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 83-102, January.
    9. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    10. Elliott, Michael A., 2010. "Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 750-763.
    11. Satish Tyagi, 2016. "An improved fuzzy-AHP (IFAHP) approach to compare SECI modes," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(15), pages 4520-4536, August.
    12. Jiří Mazurek, 2018. "Some notes on the properties of inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(1), pages 27-42.
    13. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    14. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    15. Begoña Gutiérrez-Nieto & Carlos Serrano-Cinca & Juan Camón-Cala, 2016. "A Credit Score System for Socially Responsible Lending," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 691-701, February.
    16. Azzopardi, Ernest & Nash, Robert, 2013. "A critical evaluation of importance–performance analysis," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 222-233.
    17. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    18. Arslan, Turan & Khisty, Jotin, 2006. "A rational approach to handling fuzzy perceptions in route choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 571-583, January.
    19. Cinelli, Marco & Kadziński, Miłosz & Gonzalez, Michael & Słowiński, Roman, 2020. "How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    20. Linares, Pedro, 2009. "Are inconsistent decisions better? An experiment with pairwise comparisons," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 193(2), pages 492-498, March.

    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:43:y:1996:i:5:p:613-627. 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.