Essay And Surveys On Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Essays and Surveys on Multiple Criteria Decision Making

The Fifth International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision Making, not suprisingly, had several objectives. First, it aimed at beinq a forum for exchange and intensive discussion of recent ideas on theory and practice of MCDM, following the now well-established tradition of the previous meetings in the series, organized by H. Thiriez and S. Zionts in Jouy-en-Josas (1975), S. Zionts in Buffalo (1977), G. Fandel and T. Gal in Hagen/Konigswinter (1979) and J. Morse in Newark (1980). Second, closer contacts Nere desired between participants in these meetings and other active groups in the field, prominent among which is the European Working Group on Multiple Criteria Decision Aid. Third, participation of senior or junior researchers who had recently developped important new methodolo0ies, such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process, was actively sought for. Fourth, a synthesis of the rapidly expanding field of MCDM was to be made through selective surveys by leading researchers in the various areas it comprises. Fifth, cross-fertilization and multidisciplinary research was to be encouraged through presentations on the connections between MCDM and mathematics, economics, game theory, computer science and other subjects. Sixth, much emphasis was to be given to real-world applications of MCDM, particularly large scale ones and/or pioneering work in new fields. The present volume reflects the general agreement observed among participants that these goals were largely attained.

Essay and Surveys on Multiple Criteria Decision Making

Essays In Decision Making

The pioneering study by Bowman [1980) reawakened interest in risk and return relations in the strategic management literature. We do not examine this literature here because we have elsewhere reviewed it in detail 1 and because, for the most part, these studies have been confined to ex post data. Discussions of the strategies which subjects used to direct their ex ante evaluations of risks and returns have either been omitted or else have been only indirectly inferred from ex post data. In addition, with few exceptions, this literature does not attempt to ascertain the meanings that might have been assigned by subjects to terms like "risk" and/or the "returns" with which they have been concerned. Even fewer of these studies have attempted to ascertain how the subjects implemented their definitions en of prospective strategies. Thus, tius literature may route to arriving at evaluations best be regarded as bearing only indirect relations to the present study which is concerned not only with the meanings assigned to terms like "risk" and "return" but also with how these terms are used in arriving at risk and return evaluations of proposed strategies as well as how they are measured and used, on an ex ante basis en route to seeing how these evaluations match with ex post performance. In a sense, one part of this study--i. e.