IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/isochp/978-3-030-89647-8_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this book chapter

Comparing Cardinal and Ordinal Ranking in MCDM Methods

In: Multicriteria and Optimization Models for Risk, Reliability, and Maintenance Decision Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Mats Danielson

    (Stockholm University
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA)

  • Love Ekenberg

    (Stockholm University
    International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, IIASA)

Abstract

There are several MCDM methods attempting to elicit criteria weights, ranging from direct rating and point allocation methods to more elaborated ones. To facilitate the weight elicitation, some of the approaches utilize elicitation methods whereby prospects are ranked using ordinal importance information, while others use cardinal information. Methods are sometimes assessed in case studies, or more formally by utilizing systematic simulations. Furthermore, the treatment of corresponding methods for the handling of the alternative’s values has sometimes been neglected. There is a wish for methods with as little cognitive demand as possible, lowering the hurdle to employ such methods at all. In this paper, we explore simplified models mixing cardinal and ordinal statements and demonstrate which of them are more efficient than established methods. It turns out that weights are much more insensitive to cardinality than values, which has implications for all ranking methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Mats Danielson & Love Ekenberg, 2022. "Comparing Cardinal and Ordinal Ranking in MCDM Methods," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Adiel Teixeira de Almeida & Love Ekenberg & Philip Scarf & Enrico Zio & Ming J. Zuo (ed.), Multicriteria and Optimization Models for Risk, Reliability, and Maintenance Decision Analysis, pages 29-40, Springer.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:isochp:978-3-030-89647-8_2
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-89647-8_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    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:spr:isochp:978-3-030-89647-8_2. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.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.