IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rsg/littra/2016-013.html

Comparison of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approaches Evaluating eGovernment Development

Author

Listed:
  • Eva Ardielli

Abstract

This paper focuses on the comparison of selected multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) methods for the evaluation of eGovernment development. Multiple criteria evaluation of alternatives is regarded as the basis of MCDM problems. The methods are defined as a set of techniques which aim to rank options, from the most preferred to the least preferred, with a view to supporting decision makers in their selection of the most appropriate alternative under uncertain circumstances. The application of the methods in practice therefore has great potential. As interest in the application of selected MCDM methods has grown, it has also come to encompass the issue of eGovernment development in terms of its ability to modernize public administration. The research in this article is based on the results of the following MCDM methods: WSA; TOPSIS; and MAPPAC. These methods are compared in terms of their applicability and reliability for the purpose of evaluating eGovernment development.

Suggested Citation

  • Eva Ardielli, 2016. "Comparison of Multiple Criteria Decision Making Approaches Evaluating eGovernment Development," Littera Scripta, VSTE, vol. 9(2), May.
    • Handle: RePEc:rsg:littra:2016-013
    DOI: 10.36708/LS.2016.I02.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://littera-scripta.com/articles/comparison-of-multiple-criteria-decision-making-approaches-evaluating-egovernmen-59e8c226
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.36708/LS.2016.I02.001?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:rsg:littra:2016-013. 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: Robin Kunju Mol Raj (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://littera-scripta.com/ .

    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.