Paper
Weighting multiple objectives—the churchman-ackoff technique revisited

https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-0548(78)90022-9Get rights and content

Abstract

The Churchman-Ackoff technique for assigning weights among objectives has been reviewed and found to be lacking in several respects. Aspects of the computational process have not been uniquely specified, and implementation often proves to be inefficient and laborious. A revised technique has been developed which corrects these deficiencies while maintaining the potential for increased accuracy as compared to more elementary methods such as ranking and rating. The computational segments of the procedure have been isolated from the subject interviews, permitting the generation of an algorithm which can be implemented by computer. Experimental results comparing the revised technique with alternate methods are presented.

References (17)

  • R.L. Ackoff et al.

    Fundamentals of Operations Research

  • N.N. Barish

    Economic Analysis for Engineering and Managerial Decision Making

  • I.D. Bross

    Design for Decision

  • J.R. Canada

    Intermediate Economic Analysis for Management and Engineering

  • C.W. Churchman et al.

    An Approximate Measure of Value

    Ops. Res.

    (1954)
  • C.W. Churchman et al.

    Introduction to Operations Research

  • G.S. Day

    Evaluating Models of Attitude Structure

    J. Marketing Research

    (1972)
  • R.T. Eckenrode

    Weighting Multiple Criteria

    Mgmt Sci.

    (1965)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (8)

  • BRAW: Block-wise Rating the Attribute Weights in MADM

    2021, Computers and Industrial Engineering
    Citation Excerpt :

    They believe the weight value are not respected only to the meaning of the importance of the criteria, but include other aspects (De Almeida et al., 2016, 2015; Edwards & Barron, 1994; Keeney, 1992). The critical issue to this matter is directly asking the precise weight value from the DM, in such a way that in the relevant methods such as Point Allocation method (PA) (Hoffman, 1960), Direct Rating method (DR) (Doyle, Green, & Bottomley, 1997), Approximate Measure of Value (AMV) (Churchman & Ackoff, 1954), Revised Churchman Ackoff Technique (RCAT) (Knoll & Engelberg, 1978), Swing procedure (Von Winterfeldt & Edwards, 1986) an imprecision may be occurred (De Almeida et al., 2016). Conversely, in the BRAW method no question is put to the DM directly about the weights, even those related to the ratio between the weights or interval for the weights.

  • A Typology Scheme for the Criteria Weighting Methods in MADM

    2023, International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making
View all citing articles on Scopus

Arnold L. Knoll is a Senior Research Scientist at the Isreal Fiber Institute, Jerusalem, and a lecturer at the Jerusalem College of Technology. He received the B.A. degree at Yeshiva College and the M.S. and Ph.D. degrees at Harvard University in Applied Physics. His current interests have been in applications of computer techniques, operations research and mathematical modelling to problems in the textile industry. His publications have appeared in several IEEE journals and in Textile Institute and Industry.

Abraham Engelberg is a senior lecturer in the department of computer science at the Jerusalem College of Technology (Israel). He received his Ph.D. in Operations Research at New York University in 1969. He has served on the faculties of the Polytechnic Institute of New York and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His present research interests focus on the development of computerized algorithms and simulation models in the areas of transportation and decision theory.

View full text