7.3 Assessment Schemes
175
(Brans and Vincke, 1985; Roy, 1985, 1996). As an example, the outranking method
Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) is
choose here.
7.3.2 Multicriteria Decision Aid Methods: An Outline
The objective of outranking methods is to support the decision maker. Outranking methods
do not focus on maximizing or minimizing a utility function, their intention is the pairwise
comparison of criteria of two alternatives. Outranking methods use preference functions
which indicate the preference, indifference or incomparability of criteria. A comprehensive overview about outranking methods and their characteristics can be found in Guitouni
and Martel (1998) and a more general and comprehensive description of multiple criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) can be found in, for example, Belton and Stewart (2002) and
DCLG (2009). Two outranking methods were developed in the earliest stage of MCDA
and now are widely used for various purposes: ELECTRE and PROMETHEE. ELECTRE
(Elimination et Choice Translation Reality) was applied to many problems to support decision makers, but has the disadvantages to require a lot of parameters. Some of them
influence the results in a way which were not clearly understood and the application was
more complex than others (Brans and Vincke, 1985; Belton and Stewart, 2002; Ruhland,
2004). Salminen et al. (1998) compared three different outranking methods in the context
of environmental problems and came to the conclusions that more than one method should
be applied if possible. The differences are not great between the outcomes of the different
methods, they vary in their complexity.
Guitouni and Martel (1998) provided tentative guidelines to chose the right method:
Guideline 1 Determine the stakeholders of the decision process. If there are many decision makers, one should think about group decision-making methods or group decision
support systems.
Guideline 2 Consider the decision maker “cognition” when choosing a particular
preference elucidation mode.
Guideline 3 Determine the decision problematic pursued by the decision maker. If the
decision maker wants to get an alternatives ranking, then a ranking method is appropriate,
and so on.
Guideline 4 Choose the multicriterion aggregation procedure (MCAP) that can handle
properly the input information available and for which the decision maker can easily
provide the required information; the quality and the quantities of the information are
major factors in the choice of the method.
175
(Brans and Vincke, 1985; Roy, 1985, 1996). As an example, the outranking method
Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation (PROMETHEE) is
choose here.
7.3.2 Multicriteria Decision Aid Methods: An Outline
The objective of outranking methods is to support the decision maker. Outranking methods
do not focus on maximizing or minimizing a utility function, their intention is the pairwise
comparison of criteria of two alternatives. Outranking methods use preference functions
which indicate the preference, indifference or incomparability of criteria. A comprehensive overview about outranking methods and their characteristics can be found in Guitouni
and Martel (1998) and a more general and comprehensive description of multiple criteria
decision analysis (MCDA) can be found in, for example, Belton and Stewart (2002) and
DCLG (2009). Two outranking methods were developed in the earliest stage of MCDA
and now are widely used for various purposes: ELECTRE and PROMETHEE. ELECTRE
(Elimination et Choice Translation Reality) was applied to many problems to support decision makers, but has the disadvantages to require a lot of parameters. Some of them
influence the results in a way which were not clearly understood and the application was
more complex than others (Brans and Vincke, 1985; Belton and Stewart, 2002; Ruhland,
2004). Salminen et al. (1998) compared three different outranking methods in the context
of environmental problems and came to the conclusions that more than one method should
be applied if possible. The differences are not great between the outcomes of the different
methods, they vary in their complexity.
Guitouni and Martel (1998) provided tentative guidelines to chose the right method:
Guideline 1 Determine the stakeholders of the decision process. If there are many decision makers, one should think about group decision-making methods or group decision
support systems.
Guideline 2 Consider the decision maker “cognition” when choosing a particular
preference elucidation mode.
Guideline 3 Determine the decision problematic pursued by the decision maker. If the
decision maker wants to get an alternatives ranking, then a ranking method is appropriate,
and so on.
Guideline 4 Choose the multicriterion aggregation procedure (MCAP) that can handle
properly the input information available and for which the decision maker can easily
provide the required information; the quality and the quantities of the information are
major factors in the choice of the method.