IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ids/ijmcdm/v1y2010i1p74-79.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Two conceptions of decision aiding

Author

Listed:
  • Bernard Roy

Abstract

After a brief presentation of three pillars on which decision aiding is founded, the paper describes two clearly different conceptions on which decision aiding can be carried out. The first one (Section 2) is primarily positivist, and the second one (Section 3) is primarily constructivist. These two conceptions are not incompatible and do not exhaustively cover all the conceptions conceived and used. Section 4 illustrates the differences between these two conceptions with regard to a specific point. Section 5 schematises on three levels what differentiates these two conceptions.

Suggested Citation

  • Bernard Roy, 2010. "Two conceptions of decision aiding," International Journal of Multicriteria Decision Making, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 1(1), pages 74-79.
    • Handle: RePEc:ids:ijmcdm:v:1:y:2010:i:1:p:74-79
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.inderscience.com/link.php?id=33687
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mayag, Brice & Bouyssou, Denis, 2020. "Necessary and possible interaction between criteria in a 2-additive Choquet integral model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 308-320.
    2. Salvatore Greco & Benedetto Matarazzo & Roman Słowiński, 2013. "Comments on: Multicriteria decision systems for financial problems," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 21(2), pages 268-274, July.
    3. Barbati, M. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Ishizaka, A. & Panaro, S., 2023. "A multiple criteria methodology for priority based portfolio selection," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    4. Sarah Ben Amor & Fateh Belaid & Ramzi Benkraiem & Boumediene Ramdani & Khaled Guesmi, 2023. "Multi-criteria classification, sorting, and clustering: a bibliometric review and research agenda," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 771-793, June.
    5. Martyn, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz, 2023. "Deep preference learning for multiple criteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(2), pages 781-805.
    6. Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2013. "Robust multi-criteria ranking with additive value models and holistic pair-wise preference statements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 169-180.
    7. Marco Cinelli & Matteo Spada & Wansub Kim & Yiwen Zhang & Peter Burgherr, 2021. "MCDA Index Tool: an interactive software to develop indices and rankings," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(1), pages 82-109, March.
    8. Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Roy, Bernard, 2022. "Electre-Score: A first outranking based method for scoring actions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 297(3), pages 986-1005.
    9. Maria Franca Norese & Diana Rolando & Rocco Curto, 2023. "DIKEDOC: a multicriteria methodology to organise and communicate knowledge," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 1049-1082, June.
    10. Kadziński, Miłosz & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2012. "Selection of a representative value function in robust multiple criteria ranking and choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 217(3), pages 541-553.
    11. Marco Cinelli & Matteo Spada & Miłosz Kadziński & Grzegorz Miebs & Peter Burgherr, 2019. "Advancing Hazard Assessment of Energy Accidents in the Natural Gas Sector with Rough Set Theory and Decision Rules," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-17, November.
    12. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Ferretti, Valentina & Kadzinski, Milosz, 2018. "Predictive analytics and disused railways requalification: insights from a Post Factum Analysis perspective," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 85922, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Vieira, Ana C.L., 2023. "Desirability–doability group judgment framework for the collaborative multicriteria evaluation of public policies," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 118192, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ids:ijmcdm:v:1:y:2010:i:1:p:74-79. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sarah Parker (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.inderscience.com/browse/index.php?journalID=350 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.