Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
The Car Method for using Preference Strength in Multi-Criteria Decision Making
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, Austria.
Stockholm University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Computer and Systems Sciences. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA, Austria.
2016 (English)In: Group Decision and Negotiation, ISSN 0926-2644, E-ISSN 1572-9907, Vol. 25, no 4, 775-797 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Resource type
Text
Abstract [en]

Multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) methods have been around for quite some time. However, the elicitation of preference information in MCDA processes, and in particular the lack of practical means supporting it, is still a significant problem in real-life applications of MCDA. There is obviously a need for methods that neither require formal decision analysis knowledge, nor are too cognitively demanding by forcing people to express unrealistic precision or to state more than they are able to. We suggest a method, the CAR method, which is more accessible than our earlier approaches in the field while trying to balance between the need for simplicity and the requirement of accuracy. CAR takes primarily ordinal knowledge into account, but, still recognizing that there is sometimes a quite substantial information loss involved in ordinality, we have conservatively extended a pure ordinal scale approach with the possibility to supply more information. Thus, the main idea here is not to suggest a method or tool with a very large or complex expressibility, but rather to investigate one that should be sufficient in most situations, and in particular better, at least in some respects, than some hitherto popular ones from the SMART family as well as AHP, which we demonstrate in a set of simulation studies as well as a large end-user study.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2016. Vol. 25, no 4, 775-797 p.
Keyword [en]
Multi-criteria decision analysis, Ranking methods, Comparing MCDA methods
National Category
Information Systems
Research subject
Computer and Systems Sciences
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-124683DOI: 10.1007/s10726-015-9460-8ISI: 000382013000005OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-124683DiVA: diva2:890518
Available from: 2016-01-04 Created: 2016-01-04 Last updated: 2016-10-03Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Danielson, MatsEkenberg, Love
By organisation
Department of Computer and Systems Sciences
In the same journal
Group Decision and Negotiation
Information Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 42 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf