The negotiation template, which defines a set of potential negotiation offers, is traditionally evaluated by means of the simple additive weighting method (SAW). However, some recent research reports on the potential problems and inconsistencies in using and interpreting SAW-based scores. Thus, in this paper we consider the issue of evaluating negotiation offers when the negotiator's preferences are expressed verbally. We present a new approach called Measuring Attractiveness near Reference Situations (MARS), which combines the algorithms of two multiple criteria decision making methods: ZAPROS and MACBETH. Applying the elements of ZAPROS allows identifying a small set of reference alternatives that consists of the best resolution levels for all the negotiation issues but one. In pair-wise comparisons of these alternatives negotiators need to evaluate trade-offs only, which means deciding which concessions are better to be made. Using the elements of MACBETH allows determining the strong interval scale based on verbal judgments defined by negotiators at the beginning of the preference elicitation process. We study in detail the legitimacy of hybridizing ZAPROS and MACBETH that differ in their philosophies of decision support as well as discuss the drawbacks of these two MCDM methods and propose some alternative solutions that make this approach applicable to supporting negotiators in the evaluation of negotiation offers. Finally, we present an example in which we indicate the differences in the negotiation offers' scoring process conducted by means of MARS and the traditional ZAPROS and MACBETH procedures.

SummaryRoad route decisions very frequently cause discussions and disagreement since they involve the number of stakeholders with competing interests. Before the construction of the road can start, the route for this road has to be determined, taking into account various facets, e.g. financial, technological, social and environmental ones. Such a situation can be described in the following way: the best possible choice must be made out of a finite set of alternatives (potential road routes) evaluated against a set of criteria. For this purpose different multicriteria decision aiding methods can be used, e.g. a novel tool called SIPRES. Its algorithm combines the key elements of the revised Simos' procedure and the ZAPROS method. The method is transparent and easy to implement. On the one hand, it allows decision-makers to define their preferences simply and provides a straightforward but effective method for analysing the trade-offs between the alternatives using selected reference alternatives only (the ZAPROS-like approach). On the other hand, the revised Simos' procedure applied in the method allows determining the cardinal scores for the alternatives.The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how the road route can be selected with the help of the SIPRES method, and to show thereby that this technique may be useful for solving such complex problems and may improve a decision-making process in certain situations.

The third sector and public benefit organizations (PBOs) play a significant role in the Polish economy. Although the third sector can boast of a long history in Poland, an intensive development of these entities has been observed since 1989. According to the current law, organizations with the public benefit status enjoy numerous benefits. This entails the need to adequately assess their activities, especially when taking into consideration the fact that they are not profit-oriented.The aim of this paper is to propose a new assessment method for evaluating PBOs. The recommended approach is based on multi-criteria decision aiding (MCDA). The procedure proposed employs the EVAMIX technique for mixed evaluations -a hybrid of the EVAMIX method and the EVAMIX method with stochastic dominance (SD) rules. An illustrative example uses eleven PBOs from Lodz Voivodeship operating in the field of 'Ecology, animals and heritage protection'.

Abstract. In many countries, organizations of public benefit play an important role in the economy and are established only for charitable purposes. Serving the public interest is often connected with certain benefits, such as additional source of revenue, tax advantages or state grants, but also certain obligations, such as guaranteeing trustworthiness and transparency of operations. Taking the role of charities and voluntary organizations into consideration there is a great need to assess properly such entities whereas tools indicated for corporate finance are not appropriate since these units are established for purposes other than profit-making. Moreover, their range of activities is very different. Hence, new assessment methods are needed in order to evaluate them properly. For this reason the main aim of this paper is to propose and apply multi-criteria decision aiding (MCDA) approach to the problem of assessment of organizations of public benefit. The proposed procedure using EVAMIX method for mixed evaluations (deterministic and stochastic) has been employed in the process of appraising and ranking nine Public Benefit Organizations (PBOs) from one of Polish voivodships operating in the field of 'Ecology, animals and heritage protection', and eight charities from two neighboring English metropolitan boroughs, operating in the field of 'Animals'. Rankings of these entities have been obtained so that, e.g., a potential donator would have a better base to make his or her decision regarding financial support.

No abstract