Integrating imperfection of information into the PROMETHEE multicriteria decision aid methods: A general framework

2Citations
Citations of this article
5Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Multicriteria decision aid methods are used to analyze decision problems including a series of alternative decisions evaluated on several criteria. They most often assume that perfect information is available with respect to the evaluation of the alternative decisions. However, in practice, imprecision, uncertainty or indetermination are often present at least for some criteria. This is a limit of most multicriteria methods. In particular the PROMETHEE methods do not allow directly for taking into account this kind of imperfection of information. We show how a general framework can be adapted to PROMETHEE and can be used in order to integrate different imperfect information models such as a.o. probabilities, fuzzy logic or possibility theory. An important characteristic of the proposed approach is that it makes it possible to use different models for different criteria in the same decision problem.

References Powered by Scopus

PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications

1275Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

PROMETHEE methods

646Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Decision making in the TBM: The necessity of the pignistic transformation

576Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Towards a knowledge-based cognitive system for industrial application: Case of personalized products

18Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

An extension of PROMETHEE with evidential evaluations

0Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ben Amor, S., & Mareschal, B. (2012). Integrating imperfection of information into the PROMETHEE multicriteria decision aid methods: A general framework. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 37(1), 9–23. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10209-011-0002-0

Readers over time

‘13‘14‘17‘18‘2000.511.52

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 2

67%

Professor / Associate Prof. 1

33%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Decision Sciences 1

25%

Business, Management and Accounting 1

25%

Mathematics 1

25%

Engineering 1

25%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0