Evaluating Multiple‐Attribute Decision Support Systems

Zapatero, Enrique G.; Smith, Charles H.; Weistroffer, Heinz Roland

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1360(199707)6:4<201::aid-mcda138>3.3.co;2-q

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The MCDM tool was assessed relative to the farmers' expectations of its usefulness in assisting them with their decision making. They were asked for their opinions on: the appropriateness of MCDM for the decision; the importance of some of the benefits of MCDM methods; and whether the decision arrived at was what was intuitively expected (Evans & Riha 1989;Hobbs et al 1992;Gundersen et al 1994;Zapatero et al 1997;Qureshi et al 1999;Bell et al 2001;Lai et al 2002).…”

Section: Value Of Mcdm To the Farmers Expectations And Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of new technologies or management systems on sheep and beef farms

Smeaton¹,

Dooley²

2006

ProNZG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adoption of new technologies or management systems on sheep and beef farms is a complex business. Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods provide a quantitative means to assist with decision making where there are multiple and conflicting goals measured in different units. The MCDM process consists of a series of stages from defining the problem to identifying the best alternatives. In a study investigating the adoption of beef production technologies, seven sheep and beef farmers from throughout New Zealand were confronted with a choice of improved or new systems for their beef production operations. Suggested systems had gross margin values calculated for them. The MCDM tool was then used to rank the new systems in order of preference. The farmers decided what criteria were important to them in making decisions. They then scored each system for each of the criteria, and decided on the importance of each criterion relative to other criteria. An overall ranking for each system was calculated using this information. Across all seven case studies, profit and issues directly related to profit made up less than half of the contribution to the top ranked system. In two cases, it contributed less than 20% of the total. Other criteria included sustainability, management complexity, labour requirements, family needs, impacts on pasture quality control and input costs risk. In nearly half of all cases, the most profitable option was not the preferred option when all criteria were considered. Keywords: multiple criteria decision making, farm systems, beef, decision making

show abstract

Section: Value Of Mcdm To the Farmers Expectations And Outcomesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adoption of new technologies or management systems on sheep and beef farms

Smeaton¹,

Dooley²

2006

ProNZG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to have a wider measurement of housing affordability (not focusing on the house price to household income ratio alone), multi-criteria analysis is a suitable tool to measure accurate affordability level (Zapatero et al, 1997). Zapatero et al (1997) explained that the multi-criteria analysis is often known as multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) by the School of American and multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA) by the European School. A study by Mulliner et al (2013) found that MCDM can address various quantitative and qualitative criteria that affect both housing affordability and sustainability.…”

Section: Measurement Of Sustainable Housing Affordabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A study by Mulliner et al (2013) found that MCDM can address various quantitative and qualitative criteria that affect both housing affordability and sustainability. This analysis allows the researcher to assess the sustainable housing affordability with the consideration of the various factors that can contribute directly to the problems and analyse the aggregation of several evaluation criteria in order to choose, rank or determine the right decision making (Zapatero et al, 1997). The objective is to enable the decision maker to solve problems by providing them a proper tool towards uncovering the decision in purchasing a house that have a multi-facet number of criteria affecting affordability levels of the households.…”

Section: Measurement Of Sustainable Housing Affordabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

The measurement of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework: Case Study of Malaysia

Said¹,

Majid²,

Norzin³

2015

15ª Conferência Internacional Da LARES

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid urbanisation and economic development in Malaysia since the late 1980s has resulted in a significant expansion of housing development in urban areas. The Malaysian housing sector has thrived owing to growing market and active supply-demand dynamics. However, the increase in housing price has aroused greater public concern about the future direction of the housing sector in this country. Cheap and low-quality houses have often been associated with affordable housing. Nevertheless, this may not be true if sustainability is taken into account. In dealing with sustainable housing affordability, the factors or criteria are necessary to be weighed-in in determining the best alternative or options available in any particular area. This research has been conducted in five urban areas in Klang Valley, Malaysia using COPRAS method (one of the MCDM methods). The method could be realized by giving weigh to individual factors. The findings indicate that area with high utility degree is the best area that conforms to the sustainable housing affordability factors. Likewise, an area with lower ranking in utility degree can be described as a worst-performing area in terms of conforming to sustainable housing affordability factors. The originality of this research has contributed to a new picture in sustainable housing affordability in the country because it is the first paper in Malaysia to address such issues using COPRAS framework.

show abstract

“…Because of that, Zapatero et al . () tried to make further investigation to examine the relationship between the amount of structure offered by a DSS and the decision‐making style of the decision maker. Using five software packages, 24 college faculty members participated in a repeated measures experiment.…”

Section: Multi‐criteria Decision Support Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision Support System and Multi‐Criteria Decision Aid: A State of the Art and Perspectives

Razmak

Aouni

2014

Multi Criteria Decision Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to highlight the role of the Decision Support System within the field of multi-criteria decision aid (MCDA). The MCDA tools have been incorporated into systems to create Multi-Criteria Decision Support Systems (MCDSSs). In our literature review, we noticed that more than 100 papers have been written over a 20-year period in which MCDSS was used as a decision-making tool. The present paper describes some real applications of MCDSS in different fields, harmoniously combined with decision-making methods such as analytic hierarchy process, Utility Additive, and Goal Programming. The present study proposes an integrative MCDSS evaluation through guidance on the tools most useful for a specific user with a particular decision problem.

show abstract

Evaluating Multiple‐Attribute Decision Support Systems

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

Adoption of new technologies or management systems on sheep and beef farms

Adoption of new technologies or management systems on sheep and beef farms

The measurement of sustainable housing affordability using a multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework: Case Study of Malaysia

Decision Support System and Multi‐Criteria Decision Aid: A State of the Art and Perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About