The role of weights and scales in the application of multiobjective decision making. (English) Zbl 0537.90054

This role is clearly crucial. The main questions at stake here are: 1) How different techniques may yield different results when applied to the same problem, apparently under the same assumptions? 2) How different techniques use the weights (in such a way that the same weights may lead to different results)? Several methods are compared for a water resources example, namely compromise programming, cooperative game theory, multiattribute utility theory, ELECTRE.
Reviewer: V.Cohen


90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
62C12 Empirical decision procedures; empirical Bayes procedures
91B06 Decision theory
91B16 Utility theory
91A12 Cooperative games
62C25 Compound decision problems in statistical decision theory
90C90 Applications of mathematical programming
Full Text: DOI


[1] Benayoun, R.; Roy, B.; Sussman, B., ELECTRE: une method pour guider le choix en preśence de points de vue multiple, ()
[2] Benayoun, R.; de Montgolfier, J.; Tergny, J.; Larichev, O., Linear programming with multiple objective functions: STEP method (STEM), Math. programming, 1, 3, 366-375, (1971) · Zbl 0242.90026
[3] Duckstein, L.; Opricovic, S., Multiobjective optimization in river basin development, Water resources res., 16, 1, 14-20, (1980)
[4] Dyer, J.S., Interactive goal programming, Management sci., 19, 62, (1972) · Zbl 0257.90023
[5] Fishburn, P.D., Methods of estimating additive utilities, Management sci., 13, 7, 435-453, (1967)
[6] Gershon, M.; Duckstein, L., Multiobjective approaches to river basin planning, J. water resources planning and management division, ASCE, 109, 1, 13-28, (1983)
[7] Hansen, P., Electre and related method: A survey, ()
[8] Hemming, T., On the validity of multi-attribute utility models, ()
[9] Hobbs, B.S., A comparison of weighting methods in power plant siting, Decision sci., 725-737, (1980), October
[10] Keelin, T.W., A protocol and procedure for assessing multi-attribute preference functions, ()
[11] Keeney, R., Evaluation of proposed storage sites, Operations res., 27, 1, 48-64, (1979)
[12] Keeney, R.; Raiffa, H., Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs, (1976), Wiley New York · Zbl 0488.90001
[13] Keeney, R.; Wood, E.F., An illustrative approach to water resource planning, Water resources res., 13, 4, 705-712, (1977)
[14] Krzysztofowicz, R., Preference criterion and group utility model for reservoir control under uncertainty, ()
[15] Neuman, S.P.; Krzysztofowicz, R., An iterative algorithm for interactive multiobjective programming, Adv. water resources, 1, 1, 1-14, (1977)
[16] Oppenheimer, K.R., A proxy approach to multi-attribute decision making, Management sci., 24, 6, 675-689, (1978) · Zbl 0382.90004
[17] Roy, B.; Bertier, P., La méthode ELECTRE II, ()
[18] Spronk, J., Interactive multiple goal programming for capital budgeting and financial planning, (1981), Martinus Nijhoff Boston
[19] Steuer, R.E., An interactive multiple objective linear programming procedure, TIMS studies in management science, 6, 225-239, (1977)
[20] Szidarovszky, F.; Bogardi, I.; Duckstein, L., Use of cooperative games in a multiobjective analysis of mining and environment, ()
[21] White, D.J., Multiobjective interactive programming, () · Zbl 0426.90080
[22] Wierzbicki, A.P., A methodological guide to multiobjective optimization, IIASA report no. WP-79-122, (1979), Laxenburg, Austria · Zbl 0439.90085
[23] Zeleny, M., Compromise programming, () · Zbl 0325.90033
[24] Zeleny, M., The theory of the displaced ideal, (), 153-206
[25] Zionts, S., An interactive method for evaluating discrete alternatives involving multiple criteria, (), 1976, Also
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.