Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl


2014 | 178 | 58-72

Article title

System rekomendacji doboru wag kryteriów oparty na ich charakterystyce probabilistycznej


Title variants

System Supporting the Decision Criteria Weights Specification Based on Their Probabilistic Characteristics

Languages of publication



A tool for supporting the negotiator during the process of the analysis of own preferences and the analysis of the preferences of the potential partner is proposed in this work. The approach is based on the construction of the collective preferences model for a selected negotiator's profile in the form of multivariate probability distribution over the space of negotiation issue weights vectors. In the process of user interaction with the system the ranges of issue weights are modified that allows for the decomposition of the general multi-variate distribution into series of uni-variate distributions corresponding to single issues. Such distributions conditionally depend on the issue weight ranges set by the decision-maker for all the remaining issues. Moreover, in the work we consider the possibility of constructing the collective preferences model in a continuous form in the case normally distributed weights for some sets of issues. The data from the Negotiation Support System Inspire [Kersten 1999] were used to examine the normality of the issue weights distribution for different issue sets.






Physical description



  • Belton V., Stewart T.J., 2002: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  • Bottomley P.A., Doyle J.R., 2001: A Comparison of Three Weight Elicitation Methods: Good, Better, and Best. "Omega" 29, 553-560.
  • Brzostowski J., Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2012: Supporting Negotiation by Multi- Criteria Decision Making Methods. "Optimum - Studia Ekonomiczne", nr 5(59), 3-29.
  • Diakoulaki D., Mavrotas G., Papayannakis L., 1995: Determining Objective Weights in Multiple Criteria Problems: The Critic Method. "Computers & Operations Research", No. 22, 763-770.
  • Edwards W., 1977: How to Use Multi-attribute Utility Analysis for Social Decision Making. "IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybernet" SMC-7, 326-340.
  • Figueira J., Greco S., Ehrgott M., 2005: Multiplie Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, New York.
  • Hwang C.L., Yoon K., 1981: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, New York.
  • Keeney R.L., Raiffa H., 1976: Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. Wiley, New York.
  • Kersten G.E., 1985: An Interactive Procedure for Solving Group Decision Problems. W: Decision Making with Multiple Objectives. V. Chankong, Y.Y. Haimes (eds.). Springer Verlag, No. 242, 331-344.
  • Kersten G.E, Noronha S., 1999: WWW-based Negotiation Support: Design, Implementation, and Use. "Decision Support Systems", No. 25(2), 135-154.
  • Kersten G.E., Lai H., 2007: Negotiation Support and E-Negotiation Systems. "Group Decision & Negotiation", No. 16(6), 553-586.
  • Kilgour D.M., Chen Y., Hipel K.W., 2010: Multiple Criteria Approaches to Group Decision and Negotiation. W: Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. M. Ehrgott (ed.). International Series in Operations Research and Management Science, Springer, No. 142, 317-338.
  • Kilmann R., Thomas K.W., 1983: The Thomas-Kilmann Conflict Mode Instrument. The Organizational Development Institute, Cleveland, OH, 57-64.
  • Linstone H.A., Turoff M., 1975: The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications. Reading, Mass, Addison-Wesley.
  • Ma J., Fan Z.P., Huang L.H., 1999: A Subjective and Objective Integrated Approach to Determine Attribute Weights. "European Journal of Operational Research" No. 112, 397-404.
  • Mardia K.V., 1970: Measures of Multivariate Skewness and Kurtosis with Applications. "Biometrika", No. 57, 519-530.
  • Roszkowska E., 2011: Wybrane modele negocjacji. Wydawnictwo UwB, Białystok.
  • Saaty T.L., 1980: The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Salo A., Hämäläinen R.P., 2012: Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Group Decision Processes. W: Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. D.M. Kilgour, C. Eden (eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, 269-284.
  • Stillwell W.G., Seaver D.A., Edwards W., 1981: A Comparison of Weight Approximation Techniques in Multiattribute Utility Decision Making. "Organizational Behavior and Human Performance", No. 28, 62-77.
  • Takeda E., Cogger K.O., Yu P.L., 1987: Estimating Criterion Weights Using Eigenvectors: A Comparative Study. "European Journal of Operational Research" No. 29, 360-369.
  • Tzeng G.-H., Chen T.-Y., Wang J.C., 1998: A Weight Assessing Method with Habitual Domains. "European Journal of Operational Research" 110(2), 342-367.
  • Wu Z., Chen Y., 2007: The Maximizing Deviation Method for Group Multiple Attribute Decision Making under Linguistic Environment. "Fuzzy Sets and Systems", No. 158(14), 1608-1617.

Document Type

Publication order reference



YADDA identifier

JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.