Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making

Naval Research Logistics

Volumn 43, Issue 5, 1996, Pages 613-627

  Lansdowne, Zachary F ^a  

^a MITRE CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; LOGISTICS; MATHEMATICAL PROGRAMMING; OPERATIONS RESEARCH; SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

COST AND OPERATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES; MULTIPLE ALTERNATIVES; MULTIPLE CRITERION; ORDINAL RANKING METHODS; OUTRANKING TECHNIQUE; POSITIONAL VOTING;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 0030216537     PISSN: 0894069X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199608)43:5<613::AID-NAV2>3.0.CO;2-8     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Arrow, K.J., and Raynaud, H., Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986.
2. Bernardo, J.J., "An Assignment Approach to Choosing R&D Experiments," Decision Sciences, 8, 489-501 (1977).
3. Black, D., The Theory of Committees and Elections, Kluwer Academic, Boston, 1987.
4. Borda, J-C, "Mémoire sur les Élections au Scrutin," Histoire de l'Académie Rayale des Sciences, Paris, 1781.
5. Condorcet, M., Essai sur l'Application de l'Analyse à la Probabilité des Décisions Rendues à la Pluralité des Voix, Paris, 1785.
6. Cook, W.D., and Seiford, L.M., "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, 24, 1721-1732 (1978).
7. Cook, W.D., and Seiford, L.M., "On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems," Management Science, 28, 621-637 (1982).
8. Cook, W.D., Seiford, L.M., and Warner, S.L., "Preference Ranking Models: Conditions for Equivalence," Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 9, 125-137 (1983).
9. Department of Defense, OSD Program and Analysis (PA&E) Cost and Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) : Action Officer Workshops, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, Program Analysis and Evaluation, Washington, DC, 1991.
10. Department of the Air Force, AFMC Cost & Operational Effectiveness Analysis (COEA) Guide, AFMC Pamphlet 173-1, Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH, 1992.
11. Dyer, J.S., "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, 36, 249-258 (1990).
12. Fishburn, P.C., "A Comparative Analysis of Group Decision Methods," Behavioral Science, 16, 538-544 (1971).
13. Fishburn, P.C., "Condorcet Social Choice Functions," SIAM Journal of Applied Mathematics, 33, 469-489 (1977).
14. Fishburn, P.C., and Gehrlein, W.V., "Borda's Rule, Positional Voting, and Condorcet's Simple Majority Principle," Public Choice, 28, 79-88 (1976).
15. Henry, M.H., and Hogan, W.C., "Cost and Effectiveness Integration," Phalanx, 28(1), 12-14 (1995).
16. Hoag, C.G., and Hallett, G.H., Proportional Representation, Wiley, New York, 1926.
17. Hwang, C.L., and Lin, M.J., Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria, Springer, New York, 1987.
18. Keeney, R.L., and Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley, New York, 1976.
19. Köhler, G., "Choix Multicritère et Analyse Algébrique des Données Ordinales," thesis of the 3rd Cycle, Université Scientifique et Médicale de Grenoble, France, 1978.
20. Saari, D.G., Geometry of Voting, Springer, New York, 1994.
21. Saaty, T.L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.
22. Van Newenhizen, J., "The Borda Method Is Most Likely To Respect the Condorcet Principle," Economic Theory, 2, 69-83 (1992).