Free Access
Issue
RAIRO-Oper. Res.
Volume 26, Number 4, 1992
Page(s) 367 - 389
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/1992260403671
Published online 06 February 2017
  • L. ADELMAN, P. J. STICHA and M. L. DONNELL, The Rôle of Task Properties in Determining the Relative Effectiveness of Weighting Techniques, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1984, 33, p. 243-262, III (1 ab, 3 bij, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 b, 16 c).
  • L. ADELMAN, P. J. STICHA and M. L. DONNELL, An Experimental Investigation of the Relative Effectiveness of Two Techniques for Structuring Multiattributed Hierarchies, Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc., 1986, 37, p. 188-196, III.
  • J. P. ANCOT, Micro-Qualiflex, an Interactive Software Package for the Determination and Analysis of the Optimal Solution to Decision Problems, Kluwer Academic Publishers Group, 1988, II.
  • A. ARBEL, Approximate Articulation of Preference and Priority Derivation, E.J.O.R., 1989, 43, p. 317-326. II (1 a, 3 b, 8 b, 10 b, 15 b). [MR: 1029890] [Zbl: 0697.90003]
  • C. BANA e COSTA, A Multicriteria Decision Aid Methodology to Deal with Conflictuous Situation on Weight, E.J.O.R., n° 26, 1986, p. 22-34, II (1 c, 3 d, 4 b, 5 b, 6 b, 7 b, 8 a, 9 b, 10 b, 11 b, 12 b). [MR: 846077] [Zbl: 0589.90048]
  • C. BANA e COSTA, A Methodology for Sensitivity Analysis in Three-Criteria Problems: a Case Study in Municipal Management, E.J.O.R., n° 33, 1988, p. 159-173, II (3 a, 4 b, 5 b, 6 b).
  • C. BANA e COSTA, Une méthode pour l'aide à la décision en situations multicritères et multiacteurs, Université de Paris Dauphine, Document du LAMSADE n° 59, 1989, II ( l c , 3 d, 4 b, 5 b, 6 b, 8 a , 9 b, 10 b, 11 b, 12 b).
  • H. BARRON and C. P. SCHMIDT, Entropy Based Selection with Multiple Objectives, Nav. Res. Logist., 1988 a, 35, p. 643-654. [MR: 981195] [Zbl: 0661.90086]
  • H. BARRON and C. P. SCHMIDT, Sensitivity Analysis of Additive Multi-Attribute Value Models, Oper. Res., 1988 b, 36, p. 122-127, II.
  • J. BARZILAI, W. D. COOK and B. GOLANY, Consistent Weights for Judgements Matrices of the Relative Importance of Alternatives, Oper. Res. Letters, 1987, 6, p. 131-134, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 a, 10 b, 15 b). [MR: 904836] [Zbl: 0622.90004]
  • J. BARZILAI and B. GOLANY, Deriving Weights from Pairwise Comparison Matrices: the Additive Case, Oper. Res. Letters, 1990, 9, p. 407-410, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 a, 10 b, 15 b). [Zbl: 0711.90007]
  • D. I. BATISHEV, V. F. ANUCHIN and D.E. SHAPOSHNIKOV, The Use of the Qualitative Information on the Importance of Particular Criteria for the Computation of Weighting Coefficients in Lewandowski, Volkovich Eds. Multiobjective Problems of Mathematical Programming, Proceedings, Yalta, U.S.S.R., Springer-Verlag, 1988, II (3 b, 4 b, 8 a). [Zbl: 0765.90078]
  • V. BELTON, A Comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process and a Simple Multiattribute Value Function, EJOR, n° 26, 1986, p. 7-21, III (1 a, 3 abe, 4 a, 7 a, 8 a, 10 b). [MR: 846076]
  • V. BELTON and T. GEAR, On a Short-Coming of Saaty's Method of Analytic Hierarchies, Omega, 1983, p. 228-230, II (1 a, 3 b, 8 b, 10 b, 15 b).
  • V. BELTON and T. GEAR, Series of Experiments into the Use of Pairwise Comparison Techniques to Evaluate the Weights, Decision Making with Multiple Objectives, Proceedings, Cleveland, Ohio. Aussi dans V. CHANKONG and Y. Y. HAIMES (eds.), 1983, Decision Making with Multiple Objectives, Springer Verlag, 1984, p.375-385, III (1 a, 3 b, 8 b, 10 b, 16 d). [MR: 872731]
  • V. BELTON and S. VICKERS, Use of Simple Multi-Attribute Value Function Incorporating Visual Interactive Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, in Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, edited by C. BANA e COSTA, Springer-Verlag, 1990, II (1 a, 3 fj, 4 a, 7 a, 8 a, 9 a, 10 a, 11 a).
  • C. G. E. BOENDER, J. G. De GRAAN and F. A. LOOTSMA, Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with Fuzzy Pairwise Comparisons, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, n° 2, 1989, p. 133-144, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 a, 13 a). [MR: 980343] [Zbl: 0663.62017]
  • K. BORCHERDING, T. EPPEL and D. Von WINTERFELD, Comparison of Weighting Judgments in Multiattribute Utility Measurement Management Sci., 1991, 37, p. 1603-1619, II (3 dj, 16 cd) [Zbl: 0729.91012]
  • D. BOUYSSOU, Approches descriptives et constructives d'aide à la décision, Thèse de 3e cycle, Université de Paris Dauphine, 1984, I (6 ab, 12 a).
  • D. BOUYSSOU, Some Remarks on the Notion of Compensation in M.C.D.M., E.J.O.R., 1986, 26, p. 150-160, IV (8 a, 12 a). [MR: 846086] [Zbl: 0598.90057]
  • D. BOUYSSOU and J. C. VANSNICK, Noncompensatory and Generalized Noncompensatory Preference Structures, Theory and Decision, 1986, 21, p. 251-266, IV (8 a, 12 a). [MR: 861114] [Zbl: 0605.90003]
  • H. D. BRUNK, Mathematical Models for Ranking from Paired Comparison, J. Amer. Statis. Assoc., 1960, 55, p. 503-520, IV. [MR: 115242] [Zbl: 0101.11902]
  • V. CARAOULI, Indices d'importance relative des critères, W.P. LAMSADE (non publié), 1986, I. (1 a, 3 a, 4 b, 5 b, 7 b, 8 a, 9 b, 10 b, 11 b).
  • E. U. CHOU and W. WEDLEY, Optimal Criterion Weights in Multicriteria Decision Making, Decision with Multiple Objectives, Proceedings, Cleveland, Ohion, 1984, p. 345-353, II (1 a, 3 a, 4 a, 6 a, 8 a, 10 b). [Zbl: 0558.90052]
  • A. T. W. CHU, R. E. KALABA and K. SPINGARN, A Comparison of two Methods for Determining Weights Belonging to Fuzzy Sets, J. Optim. Theor. Appl., 1979, 27, p. 531-538, III (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 a, 8 a, 10 b, 15 a, 16 c). [MR: 533119] [Zbl: 0377.94002]
  • C. W. CHURCHMANN and R. L. ACKOFF, An Approximate Mesure of Value, Oper. Res., 1954, 2, p. 172-187, II (1 a, 3 cf, 4 a, 8 b, 10 a).
  • C. W. CHURCHMAN, R. L. ACKOFF and E. L. ARNOFF, Introduction to Operations Research (CH. 6: Weighting Objectives), J. Wiley, 1975, New-York, I. [MR: 81815] [Zbl: 0079.35905]
  • M. CLAESSENS, F. LOOTSMA and F. VOGT, An elementary proof of Paelinck's theorem on the convex hull of ranked criterion weights, E.J.O.R., 1991, 52, p. 258, IV. [Zbl: 0727.90040]
  • K. O. COGGER and P. L. YU, Eigenweight Vectors and Least Distance Approximation for Revealed Preference in Pairwise Weight Ratio, J. Optim. Theor. Appl., 1985, 46, p. 483-491, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 5 a, 7 a, 8 a, 10 b). [MR: 797852] [Zbl: 0552.90050]
  • R. L. COOK and T. R. STEWART, A Comparison of Seven Methods for Obtaining Subjective Descriptions of Judgemtal Policy, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1975, 13, p. 31-45, III (1 a, 3 bdj, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 16 ac).
  • W. D. COOK and M. KRESS, Deriving Weights from Pairwise Comparison Ratio Matrix: an Axiomatic Approach, E.J.O.R., 1988, 37, p. 355-362, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 10 b). [MR: 970400] [Zbl: 0652.90002]
  • J. P. CRAGIN, The Nature of Importance Perceptions: A Test of a Cognitive Model, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1983, 31, p. 262-276, V.
  • R. M. DAWES and B. CORRIGAN, Linear Models in Decision Making, Psychol. Bull., 1974, 81, p. 95-106, III (3 aj, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 b, 16 ab).
  • R. DRUGMAN, Étude sur la signification pour le décideur des poids dans les méthodes multicritères d'aide à la décision, Mémoire de Licence, Université Libre de Bruxelles, 1990, I (1 a, 3 dj).
  • R. T. ECKENRODE, Weighting Multiple Criteria, Management Sci., 1965, 12, p. 180-192, III (1 b, 2 a, 3 bcfj, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 a).
  • W. EDWARDS, How to Use Multiattribute Utility Measurement for Social Decision Making, I.E.E.E. Trans. Systems Man. Cyberne., 1977, 7, p. 326-340, II (1 b, 3 j, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 b, 10 a).
  • H. J. EINHORN and R. M. HOGARTH, Unit Weighting Schemes for Decision Making, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1975, 13, p. 171-192, III (1 a, 3 a, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 a, 10 b, 16 ac).
  • G. FISCHER, N. DAMODARAN, K. LASKEY and D. LINCOLN, Preferences for Proxy Attributes, Management Sci., 1987, 33, p. 198-214, V. [MR: 905823]
  • B. FISCHHOFF, P. SLOVIC and S. LICHTENSTEIN, Knowing What You Want: Measuring Labile Values, in Bell-Raiffa-Tversky: Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p.398-421. V.
  • P. C. FISHBURN, Methods for Estimating Additives Utilities, Management Sci., 1967, 13, p. 435-453, III (1 a, 3 bcdij, 4 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 ab, 10 ab).
  • P. C. FISHBURN, Lexicographic Orders, Utilities and Decision Rules: a Survey, Management Sci., 1974, 20, p. 1442-1471, IV (3 f, 8 a, 12 a). [MR: 363428] [Zbl: 0311.90007]
  • P. C. FISHBURN, Noncompensatory Preferences, Syntheses, 1976, 33, p. 393-403, IV (12 a). [Zbl: 0357.90004]
  • P. C. FISHBURN, A Survey of Multiattribute/Multicriterion Evaluation Theories, in Multiple Criteria Problem Solving, Proceedings, Buffalo (N. Y.), edited by S. ZIONTS, Springer-Verlag, 1977, p. 181-224, IV. [Zbl: 0387.90005]
  • S. I. GASS, The Setting of Weights in Linear Goal Programming Problems, Compters and Oper. Res., 1987, 14, p. 227-229, II (15 b).
  • A. GBODOSSOU, La notion de poids de critères/attributs en analyse multicritère, une étude empirique, Thèse Ph. D., 1986, Université Laval, I (14 a, 15 b).
  • M. GERSCHON, The Role of Weights and Scales in the Applications of Multi-Objective Decision Making, E.J.O.R., 1984, n° 14, p. 244-250, III (8 a, 15 b). [Zbl: 0537.90054]
  • W. M. GOLDSTEIN, Judgments of Relative Importance in Decision Making: Global vs Local Interpretation of Subjective Weights, Organ. Behav. Hum. Des. Proc., 1990, 47, p. 313-336, VI (1 a, 3 ej, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 b).
  • P. T. HARKER, Alternative Modes of Questionning in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Math. Model., 1987, 9, p. 353-360, II (3 b, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 b, 15 b). [MR: 902229] [Zbl: 0626.90001]
  • R. M. HEELER, C. OKECHUKU and S. REID, Attribute Importance: Contrasting Measurements, J. Marketing Res., 1979, 16, p. 60-93, III (1 a, 3 ej, 4 a, 8 b, 10 ab, 16 c).
  • J. C. HERSHEY, H. C. KUNREUTHER and P. SCHOEMAKER, Sources of Bias in Assessment Procedures for Utility Fuctions, Management Sci., 1982, 28, n° 8, p. 936-954, V. [Zbl: 0487.90013]
  • J. C. HERSHEY and P. SCHOEMAKER, Probability Versus Certainty Equivalence Methods in Utility Measurement: Are They Equivalent?, Management Sci., 1985, 31, p. 1213-1231, V.
  • B. F. HOBBS, A Comparision of Weighting Methods in Power Plant Siting, Decision Sci., 1980, 11, p. 725-737, III (3 abdefj, 8 a, 10 ab, 16 bc).
  • R. M. HOGARTH (ed.), Question Framing and Response Consistency, New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, Jossey-Bass, Publichers, 1982, V.
  • R. D. HOLDER, Somme Comments on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, J. Oper. Res. Soc., 1990, 41, p. 1073-1076, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 b, 15 b).
  • D. HORSKY and M. R. RAO, Estimation of Attribute Weights from Preference Comparison, Management Sci., 1984, 30, n° 7, p. 801-822, II (1 a, 3 a, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 a, 10 b, 11 a). [MR: 756954] [Zbl: 0551.90053]
  • G. P. HUBERT, Multi-Attribute Utility Models: A Review of Field and Field-Like Studies, Management Sci., 1974, 20, p. 1393-1402. [Zbl: 0303.90001]
  • J. JACCARD, D. BRINBERG and L. J. ACKERMAN, Assessing Attribute Importance: a Comparison of Six Methods, J. Consum. Res., 1986, 12, p. 463-468, III (1 a, 3 acj, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 ab, 16 c).
  • E. JACQUET-LAGRÈZE, Binary preference indices: A New Lood on Multicriteria Aggregation Procedures, E.J.O.R., 1982, 10, p. 26-32, IV. [MR: 655495] [Zbl: 0481.90003]
  • E. JACQUET-LAGRÈZE, PREFCALC: Manuel utilisateur, Euro-Décision, 1983, II (1 a, 3 e, 4 b, 5 b, 7 a, 8 a, 9 a, 10 a, 11 a). [MR: 655495]
  • E. JACQUET-LAGRÈZE and J. SISKOS, Assessing a Set of Additive Utility Functions for Multi criteria Decision-Making, the U.T.A. Method, E.J.O.R., 1982,10, p. 151-164, II (1 a, 3 e, 4 b, 5 b, 7 a, 8 a, 9 a, 10 a, 11 a). [MR: 655495] [Zbl: 0481.90078]
  • A. K. JAIN, F. ACITO, M. K. MALHOTRA and V. MAHAJAN, A Comparison of the Internal Validity of Alternative Parameter Estimation Methods in Decompositional Multiattribute Preference Models, J. Market. Res., 1979, 16, p. 313-322, III (3 a, 4 a, 6 a, 8 a, 9 b, 10 b, 11 a).
  • E. M. JOHNSON andG. P. HUBERT , The Technology of Utility Assessment, I.E.E.E. Trans. Systems Man. Cybernet. smc-7, 1977, p. 311-325, III (3 fij, 4 a, 6 a, 8 a, 10 ab).
  • D. KAHNEMAN and A. TVERSKY, Choices, Values and Frames, Amer. Psychol., 1984, 39, p. 341-350, V.
  • R. D. KAMENETZKY, Relationship Between the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Additive Value Function, Decision Sci., 1982, 13, p. 702-713, III (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 10 b, 15 b).
  • R. L. KEENEY, An Illustrated Procedure for Assessing Multiattributed Utility Functions, Sloan Manag. Rev., 1972, 14, p. 37-50, VI (4 a, 6 a, 8 a, 10 b).
  • R. L. KEENEY, The Art of Assessing Multi-Attribute Utility Functions, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1977, 19, p. 267-310, VI.
  • R. L. KEENEY and K. NAIR, Selecting Nuclear Plant Sites in the Pacific Northwest Using Decision Analysis, in Conflicting Objectives in Decision, Bell, Keeney, Raiffa (Eds), John Wiley & Sons, 1975, p. 298-322, VI (1 a, 3 di, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 b, 10 b). [MR: 459511]
  • R. L. KEENEY and H. RAIFFA, Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons, 1976, IV (1 a, 3 di, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 b, 10 b). [MR: 449476] [Zbl: 0488.90001]
  • R. KHORRAMSHAHGOL and V. MOUSTAKIS, Delphic Hierarchy Process (D.H.P.): a Methodology for Priority Setting Derived from the Delphi Method and Analytic Hierarchy Process, E.J.O.R., n° 37, 1988, p. 347-354, II (1 b, 2 b, 4 a, 8 b). [Zbl: 0652.90065]
  • L. KISS, J.-M. MARTEL and R. NADEAU, ELECCALC, Un D.S.S. pour modéliser les préférences d'un décideur, WP 91-38, F.S.A., Université Laval, 1991, II. (1 a, 3 a, 4 b, 5 b, 6 b, 7 b, 8 a, 9 a, 10 b, 11 a).
  • A. L. KNOLL and A. ENGELGERG, Weighting Multiple Objectives. The Churchman-Ackoff Technique Revisited, Comput. Oper. Res., 1978, 5, p. 165-177, II (1 ab, 2 a, 3 cf, 4 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 a, 11 a, 15 a).
  • M. KRESS, Approximate Articulation of Preference and Priority Derivation, a Comment, E.J.O.R., 1991, 52, p. 382-383, II (1 a, 3 b, 15 b).
  • W. KRUSKAL, Concepts of Relative Importance, Qüestio, 1984, 8, p. 39-45, I (4 a, 6 a, 8 b). [EuDML: 40026]
  • W. KRUSKAL and R. MAJORS, Concept of Relative Importance in Recent Scientific Literature, Ameri. Statist., 1989, 43, p. 2-6, I (4 a, 6 a, 8 b).
  • E. F. LANE and W. A. VERDINI, Consistency Test for AHP Decision Makers, Decision Sci., 1989, 20, p. 575-590, II (1 a, 3 b, 10 b, 15 b).
  • F. A. LOOTSMA, Modélisation du jugement humain dans l'analyse multicritère au moyen de comparaisons par paires, RAIRO Rech. Oper., 1987, 21, p. 241-257, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 10 b). [EuDML: 104923] [MR: 919159] [Zbl: 0624.90051]
  • B. MARESCHAL, Weights Stability Intervals in Multicriteria Decision Aid, E.J.O.R., n° 33, 1988, p. 54-64, II (4 b, 8 a). [MR: 923639] [Zbl: 0634.90074]
  • J. M. MARTEL and R. NADEAU, Modélisation des préférences révélées avec ELECTRE II: ELECCALC, une approche interactive, Document de Travail, GRADE, Université Laval, Québec, 1988, II (1 a, 3 a, 4 a, 5 b, 6 b, 7 b, 8 a, 9 a, 10 b, 11 a).
  • O. R. MEN'SHIKOVA and V. V. PODINOVSKII, Constructing the Preference Relation and the Core in Multicriterion Problems with Inhomogeneous Criteria Ordered by Importance, U.S.S.R. Comput. Math. Phys., 1988, 28, p. 15-22, I. [MR: 945943] [Zbl: 0684.90093]
  • I. MILLET and P. T. HARKER, Globally Effective Questioning in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, E.J.O.R., 1990, 48, p. 88-97, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 b, 10 b, 15 a).
  • B. MOND and E. E. ROSINGER, Interactive Weights Assessment in Multiple Attribute Decision Making, E.J.O.R., 1985, 22, p. 19-25, II (1 a, 3 cj, 4 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 a, 9 a, 10 b). [MR: 806459] [Zbl: 0569.90051]
  • P. C. MORRIS, Weighting Inconsistent Judgements, Pi Mu Epsilon J., 1979, p. 576-581, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 15 b).
  • V. MOUSSEAU, La notion d'importance relative des critères, Mémoire de D.E.A., Université de Paris-Dauphine, 1989, I (1 a, 3 a → f, 4 ab, 5 ab, 6 ab, 10 ab, 12 a, 15 b).
  • R. J. NEWMAN, Differential Weighting in Multiattribute Utility Measurement: When it Should Not and When it Does Make a Difference, Organ. Behav. Hum Perf., 1977, 20, p. 312-325, III (1 a, 3 fj, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 7 a, 8 a, 16 ac).
  • D. M. NOWLAN, The Use of Criteria Weights in Rank Ordering Techniques of Project Evaluation, Urban Stud., 1975, 12, p. 169-176.
  • P. C. NUTT, Comparing Methods for Weighting Decision Criteria, Omega, 1980, 8, p. 163-172, III (1 b, 2 a, 3 aj, 4 a, 6 a, 8 ab, 10 ab, 16 cd).
  • J. H. P. PAELINCK, QUALIFLEX: A Flexible Multiple-Criteria Decision Method, Economic Lett., 1978, 1, p. 193-197, II (1 a, 3 f, 4 b).
  • C. PASCHE, Une approche de l'analyse multicritère par les systèmes experts, Cah. C.E.R.O., 1987, 29, p. 49-60, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 b, 7 b, 8 a, 9 a). [Zbl: 0624.90050]
  • C. PASCHE, EXTRA: An Expert System for Multicriteria Decision Making, E.J.O.R., 1991, 52, p. 224-234, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 b, 7 b, 8 a, 9 a). [Zbl: 0725.90048]
  • H. PASTIJN and J. LEYSEN, Constructing an Outranking Relation with ORESTE, Math. Comput. Modelling, 1989, 12, p. 1255-1268, II (1 a, 3 f).
  • J. W. PAYNES, Contingent Decision Behavior, Psychol. Bull., 1982, 92, p. 382-402, V.
  • D. PEKELMAN and K. SEN, Mathematical Programming Models for the Determination of Attribute Weights, Management Sci., 1974, 20, p. 1217-1231, II (1 a, 3 g, 4 a, 6 a, 8 a, 10 b). [Zbl: 0303.90006]
  • V. V. PODINOVSKII, Multicriterial Problems with Importance-Ordered Criteria, traduit de Avtom. Telemekh., n° 11, 1976, p. 118-127, I. [MR: 443852] [Zbl: 0369.90004]
  • V. V. PODINOVSKII, Importance Coefficients of Criteria in Decision-Making Problems. Serial or Ordinal Coefficients, traduit de Avtom. Telemekh., n° 10, 1978, p. 130-142, I. [MR: 533373] [Zbl: 0419.90004]
  • V. V. PODINOVSKII, Criteria Importance Theory in Lewandowiski, Volkovich Eds. Multiobjective Problems of Mathematical Programming, Proceedings, Yalta, U.S.S.R., Springer-Verlag, 1988, I. [MR: 1121512] [Zbl: 0825.90006]
  • J. R. RAO and N. ROY, Fuzzy Set Theoretic Approach of Assigning Weights to Objectives in Multicriteria Decision Making, Int. J. Systems Sci., 1989, 20, p. 1381-1386, II. [MR: 1005682] [Zbl: 0679.90079]
  • E. E. ROSINGER, Beyond Preference Information Based Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Makng, E.J.O.R., 1991, 53, p. 217-227, I. [Zbl: 0732.90044]
  • M. ROUBENS, Preference Relations on Actions and Criteria in Multicriteria Decision Making, E.J.O.R., 1982, 10, p. 51-55, II. [Zbl: 0481.90080]
  • B. ROY, Méthodologie multicritère d'aide à la décision, Economica, 1985, IV.
  • B. ROY, Decision Science or Decision-Aid Science, E.J.O.R., 1992 a (à paraître),IV (5 ab, 6 ab).
  • B. ROY, Concerning the Notion of Importance of Criteria: lts Formai Integration into Multi-Criteria Decision Aid, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Wiley, 1992 b (à paraître), I.
  • B. ROY and D. BOUYSSOU, Comparison of Two Decision Aid Models Applied to a Nuclear Power Plant Siting Example, E.J.O.R., 1986, 25, p. 200-215, III.
  • B. ROY and D. BOUYSSOU, Conflits entre critères et procédures d'agrégation multicritère, Document du LAMSADE n° 41, Université de Paris-Dauphine, 1987 a, IV.
  • B. ROY and D. BOUYSSOU, Procédures d'agrégation multicritère conduisant à un critère unique de synthèse, Document du LAMSADE n° 42, Université de Paris-Dauphine, 1987 b, IV.
  • B. ROY and D. BOUYSSOU, Procédures d'agrégation multicritère non fondées sur un critère unique de synthèse, Document du LAMSADE n° 68, Université de Paris-Dauphine, 1991, IV.
  • B. ROY and M. PRÉSENT and D. SILHOL, A Programming Method for Determining which Paris Metro Station Should Be Renovated, E.J.O.R., 1986, 24, p. 318-334, VI (3 a, 4 b, 5 b, 6 b, 7 b, 8 a, 10 b).
  • T. L. SAATY, The Analytic Hierarchy Process, Mac Graw Hill, New York, 1980, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 b, 11 a). [MR: 773297] [Zbl: 0587.90002]
  • T. L. SAATY, Décider face à la complexité: une approche analytique multi-critère d'aide à la décision, Entreprise Moderne d'Édition, Collection Université-Entreprise, 1984, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 b, 11 a).
  • T. L. SAATY, Axiomatic Foundatin of the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Sci., 1986, 32, p. 841-855, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 b, 10 b, 11 a). [MR: 846562] [Zbl: 0596.90003]
  • T. L. SAATY, An Exposition of the A.H.P. in Reply to the Paper, Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Management Sci., 1989, 36, p. 259-268, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 b, 11 a, 15 b). [MR: 1042928]
  • T. L. SAATY, L. G. VARGAS and R. E. WENDELL, Assessing Attribute Weights by Ratio, OMEGA, 1983, 11, p. 9-13, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 b, 11 a, 15 b).
  • Y. SAYEKI, Allocation of Importance: an Axiom System, J. Math. Psych., 1972, 9, p. 55-56, I. [MR: 321563] [Zbl: 0233.92009]
  • Y. SAYEKI and K. H. VESPER, Allocation of Importance in a Hierarchical Goal Structure, Management Sci., 1973, 19, p. 667-675, I. [Zbl: 0233.92009]
  • S. SCHENKERMAN, Use and Abuse of Weights in Multiple Objective Decision Support Models, Decision Sci., 1991, 22, p. 369-378, I.
  • R. J. SCHMITT, Comparison of Subjective and Objective Weighting Strategies in Changing Task Situatins, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1978, 21, p. 171-188, III.
  • R. J. SCHMITT and R. L. LEVINE, Statistical and Subjective Weights: some Problems and Proposals, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1977, 20, p. 15-20, V.
  • P. J. H. SCHOEMAKER and C. C. WAID, An Experimental Comparison of Different Approaches to Determing Weights in Additive Utility Models, Management Sci., 1982, 28, p. 188-196, III (1 a, 3 aj, 4 a, 7 a, 10 ab, 16 bc).
  • B. SCHONER and W. C. WEDLEY, Alternative Scales in A.H.P., in LOCKETT and ISLEI (eds.), Improving Decision Making in Organization, Proceedings, Manchester, Springer-Verlag, 1988, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 10 b, 15 b).
  • B. SHONER and W. C. WEDLEY, Ambiguous Criteria Weights in AHP: Consequences and Solutions, Decision Sci., 1989, 20, p. 462-475, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 b, 11 a, 15 b).
  • J. SHANTEAU, The Concept of Weight in Judgment and Decision Making: a Review and Some Unifying Proposais, Report n° 228, Center of Research on Judgment and Policy, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1980, I
  • H. D. SHERALI, Equivalent Weights for Lexicographic Multi-Objective Programs: Characterizations and Computations, E.J.O.R., n° 11, 1982, p. 367-379. [MR: 687445] [Zbl: 0494.90071]
  • J. P. SHIM, Bibliographical Research on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (A.H.P.), Soc. Econ. Plann. Sci., 1989, 23, p. 161-167.
  • P. SLOVIC, Choice Between Equally Valued Alternative, J. Exp. Psychol. Human, 1975, 1, p. 280-287, V.
  • P. SLOVIC, B. FISCHHOFF and S. LICHTENSTEIN, The Frame one Adopts Affects Attitudes Towards Risk, in R. M. HOGARTH (ed.), Question Framing and Response Consistency, New Direction for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, n° 11, 1981, Jossey-Bass Publishers, V.
  • P. SLOVIC and S. LICHENTSTEIN, Comparison of Bayesian and Regression Approaches to the Study of Information Processing in Judgment, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1971, 6, p. 649-744, V.
  • P. SLOVIC and S. LICHTENSTEIN, Preference Reversals: a Broader Perspective, Amer. Econ. Rev., 1983, 73, p. 596-605, V.
  • T. SOLYMOSI and J. DOMBI, A method for Determining the Weights of Criteria: the Centralized Weights, E.J.O.R., 1986, 26, p. 35-41, II (1 a, 3 c, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 7 b, 8 a, 9 a, 10 b). [MR: 846078]
  • E. S. SOOFI, Generalized Entropy-Based Weights for Multiattribute Value Models, Oper, Res., 1990, 38, p. 362-363, II (4 a, 6 a, 14 a). [Zbl: 0705.90001]
  • V. SRINIVASAN and A. D. SHOCKER, Estimating the Weights for Multiple Attributes in a Composite Criterion Using Pairwise Judgments, Psychometrika, 1973 a, 38, p. 473-493, II (1 a, 3 a, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 a, 10 b). [MR: 343475] [Zbl: 0281.62075]
  • V. SRINIVASAN and A. D. SHOCKER Linear Programming Techniques for Multidimensional Analysis of Preferences, Psychometrika, 1973 b, 38, p. 337-369, II (1 a, 3 a, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 a, 10 b). [MR: 418395] [Zbl: 0316.92024]
  • W. G. STILLWELL, D. A. SEAVER and W. EDWARDS, A Comparison of Weight Approximation Techniques in Mutliattribute Utility Decision Making, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1981, 28, p. 62-77, III (3 f, 4 a, 6 a, 8 b, 16 acd).
  • W. G. STILLWELL, D. Von WINTERFELDT and R. S. JOHN, Comparing Hierarchical and Nonhierarchical Weighting Methods for Eliciting Multitattribute Value Models, Management Sci., 1987, 33, p. 442-450, III (1 a, 3 j, 16 bc).
  • O. SVENSON, Process Description of Decision Making, Organ. Behav. Hum. Perf., 1979, 23, p. 83-112, V.
  • E. TAKEDA, K. O. COGGER and P. L. YU, Estimating Criterion Weights Using Eigenvectors: a Comparative Study, E.J.O.R., 1987, 29, p.360-369, III (3 b, 4 a, 10 b, 16 c). [MR: 891318] [Zbl: 0618.90046]
  • E. TAKEDA, P. L. YU and K. O. COGGER, A Comparative Study of Eigen Weight Vectors, Decision Making With Multiple Objective, Proceedings, Cleveland, Ohio, 1984, p. 388-399, III (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 10 b). [Zbl: 0558.90051]
  • B. TELL, A Comparative Study of Four Multiple Criteria Methods, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Jouy-en-Josas, France, Springer-Verlag, ed. Thiriez-Zionts, 1975, p. 183-197. III. (1 a, 3 di, 8 a, 10 a, 16 c). [Zbl: 0336.90004]
  • A. TVERSKY, On the Elicitation of Preferences: Descriptive and Prescriptive Considerations, in Bell, Keeney, Raiffa (eds.), Conflicting Objectives in Decisions, J. Wiler, 1977.
  • A. TVERSKY and D. KAHNEMAN, Choices are Affected by the Way in Which Decisions are Framed, in R. M. HOGARTH (ed.), Question Framing and Response Consistency, New Direction for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science, n°11, 1981, Jossey- Bass Publishers, V. [Zbl: 1225.91017] [MR: 607666]
  • A. TVERSKY, S. SATTAH and P. SLOVIC, Contingent Weighting in Judgement and Choice, Psychol. Rev., 1988, 95, p. 371-395, V.
  • A. TVERSKY, P. SLOVIC and D. KAHNEMAN, Causes of Preference Reversal, American Econ. Rev., 1990, 80, p. 204-216, V.
  • L. VALADARES TAVARES, The TRIDENT Approach to Rank Alternative Tenders for Large Engeneering Projects, Found. Control Engng., 1984, 9, p. 181-191, II. (1 a, 3 a, 7 a, 8 a, 9 a, 10 b, 11 a). [Zbl: 0595.90046]
  • D. VANDERPOOTEN, The Use of Preference Information in Multiple Criteria Interactive Procedures, in Improving Decision Making in Organisations, A. G. LOCKET and G. ISLEY (eds.), Proceedings, Machester, 1988, Springer-Verlag, I [Zbl: 0961.90040]
  • J.-C. VANSNICK, Strength of Preference Theoretical and Practical Aspects, Operational Research'84, J. P. BRANS ed., Elsevier, 1984, IV. [Zbl: 0571.90041]
  • J.-C. VANSNICK, On the Problem of Weight in Multiple Criteria Decision Making (The Non Compensatory Approach), E.J.O.R., n° 24, 1986, p. 288-294, IV (6 b, 7 b, 8 a, 12a). [MR: 827240] [Zbl: 0579.90059]
  • J.-C. VANSNICK, Principes et applications des méthodes multicritères, Document de l'Université de l'État à Mons, 1989, IV.
  • J.-C. VANSNICK, Measurement Theory and Decision Aid, in Readings in Multiple Criteria Decision Aid, C. BANA e COSTA ed., Springer Verlag, 1990, p. 81-101, IV.
  • M. VIELI, Une expérience en matière de pondération des critères, Document de Travail (non publié), Université de Fribourg, Suisse, 1984, III (1 a, 3 j, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 b, 10 a, 16 c).
  • R. Von NITZSCH and M. WEBER, The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattributer Utility Measurements, W.P., R.W.T.H. Aachen., 1990, V. [Zbl: 0800.90071]
  • D. Von WINTERFELDT and W. EDWARDS, Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research, Cambridge University Press., 1986, V.
  • H. WAINER, Estimating Coefficients in Linear Models: It Don't Make No Nervermind, Psychol. Bull., 1976, 83, p. 213-217, III (16 ab).
  • S. R. WATSON and A. FREELING, Comment on: Assessing Weights by Ratios, Omega, 1983, 11, p. 13-14, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 b, 10 b, 11 a, 15 b).
  • E. U. WEBER and O. COSKUNOGLU, Descriptive and Prescriptive Models of Decision Making: Implications for the Development of Decision Aids, I.E.E.E. Trans. Systems Man Cybernet., 1990, 20, p. 310-317.
  • M. WEBER, F. EISENFÜHR and D. Von WINTERFELD, The Effects of Splitting Attributes on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurement, Management Sci., 1988, 34, p. 431-445, V.
  • R. R. YAGER, On Ordered Weighted Averaging Aggregation Operators in Multicriteria Decision Making, I.E.E.E. Trans. Systems Man Cybernet., 1988, 18, p. 183-190, IV (13 a). [MR: 931863] [Zbl: 0637.90057]
  • F. ZAHEDI, The Analytic Heirarchy Process, a Survey of the Method and its Applications, Interfaces, 1986, 16, p. 96-108, II.
  • M. S. ZAHIR, Incorporating the Uncertainty of Decision Judgements in the Analytic Hierarchy Process, E.J.O.R., 1991, 53, p. 206-216, II (1 a, 3 b, 4 a, 8 b, 10 b, 15 a). [Zbl: 0729.90589]
  • M. ZELENY, Multiple Criteria Decision Making, Chap. 7, Mac Graw Hill, 1982, I (14 a). [Zbl: 0588.90019]
  • S. H. ZHU and N. H. ANDERSON, Self-Estimation of Weight Parameter in Multiattribute Analysis, Organ. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc., 1991, 48, p. 36-54, III (1 a, 3 adj, 4 a, 5 a, 6 a, 8 a).

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.