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


2014 | 178 | 107-126

Article title

Wybrane własności i odmiany procedury SAW w kontekście wspomagania negocjacji


Title variants

Some Properties and Types of the SAW Procedure from the Perspective of Supporting Negotiation

Languages of publication



This work provides a survey of the properties of SAW method (Simple Additive Weighting) which is one of the simplest and mostly used multiple criteria techniques. The work is presented by focusing mostly on the application of SAW in the support of bilateral negotiations. The strengths and limitations of the proposed approach are discussed and the suggestions of modifications of the classical algorithm are presented from the viewpoint of applications in the negotiation process. The function assigning a score to the negotiation packages, determined by the use of modified SAW procedure is a useful tool facilitating linear ordering of negotiation packages, the estimation of potential concessions, the implementation of a negotiation strategy and the analysis of negotiation compromise








Physical description



  • Barron F.H, Barrett B.E., 1996a: The Efficacy of SMARTER: Simple Multi-attribute Rating Technique Extended to Ranking. "Acta Psychologica", 93(1-3), s. 23-36.
  • Barron F.H., Barrett B.E., 1996b: Decision Quality Using Ranked Attribute Weights. "Management Science", 42, 1515-1523.
  • Belton V., Stewart T.J., 2002: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approch. Kluwer, Dordrecht.
  • Figueira J., Greco S., Ehrgott M., 2005: Multiplie Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. Springer, New York.
  • García-Cascales S.M., Lamata M.T., 2012: On Rank Reversal and TOPSIS Method. "Mathematical and Computer Modelling", 56, s. 123-132.
  • Greco S., Matarazzo B., Słowiński R., 2001: Rough Sets Theory for Multicriteria Decision Analysis. "European Journal of Operational Research", s. 129.
  • Guitouni A., Martel J.M., 1998: Tentative Guidelines to Help Choosing an Appropriate MCDA Method. "European Journal of Operational Research", 109, s. 501-521.
  • Hwang C.L., Yoon K., 1981: Multiple Attribute Decision Making: Methods and Applications. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
  • Jadidi O., Hong T.S., Firouzi F., Yusuff R.M., 2008: An Optimal Grey Based Approach Based on TOPSIS Concept for Supplier Selection Problem. "International Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management", Vol. 4, No. 2, s. 104-117.
  • Kersten G.E., Noronha S.J., 1999: WWW-based Negotiation Support: Design, Implementation and Use. "Decision Support Systems", 25(2), s. 135-154.
  • Kukuła K., 2000: Metoda unitaryzacji zerowanej. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa.
  • Roszkowska E., 2011: Wybrane modele negocjacji. Wydawnictwo UwB, Białystok.
  • Roszkowska E., 2012: Zastosowanie metody TOPSIS do wspomagania procesu negocjacji. W: Taksonomia 19. Klasyfikacja i analiza danych - teoria i zastosowania. K. Jajuga, M. Walesiak (red.). Wydawnictwo UE, Wrocław, s. 68-75.
  • Roszkowska E., Wachowicz T., 2012: Negotiation Support with Fuzzy TOPSIS. W: Group Decision and Negotiation, Proceedings. A.T. Almeida, D.C. Morais, S.F. Daher (eds.). Recife, Brasil, s. 161-175.
  • 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, s. 269-284.
  • Saaty T.L., 1980: The Analytical Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill, New York.
  • Simos J., 1990: Evaluer l'impact sur l'environnement: Une approche originale par l'analyse multicrite` re et la ne´ gociation. Presses Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes, Lausanne.
  • Słowiński R., 2007: Podejście regresji porządkowej do wielokryterialnego porządkowania wariantów decyzyjnych. W: Techniki informacyjne w badaniach systemowych. P. Kulczycki, O. Hryniewicz, J. Kacprzyk (red.). Wydawnictwo Naukowo- Techniczne, Warszawa.
  • Solymosi T., Dompi J., 1985: A Method for Determining the Weights of Criteria: The Centralized Weights. "European Journal of Operational Research", 26, s. 35-41.
  • 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", 28, s. 62-77.
  • Thiessen E.M., Soberg A., 2003: Smartsettle Described with the Montreal Taxonomy. "Group Decision and Negotiation", 12, s. 165-170.
  • Triantaphyllou E.B., Shu S., Nieto S., Ray T., 2000: Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An Operations Research Approach. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
  • Tzeng G.H., Chen T.Y., Wang J.C., 1998: A Weight Assessing Method with Habitual Domains. "European Journal of Operational Research", 110(2), s. 342-367.
  • Wachowicz T., 2008: NegoCalc: Spreadsheet Based Negotiation Support Tool with Even-Swap Analysis. W: J. Climaco, G. Kersten, J.P. Costa (eds.). Group Decision and Negotiation 2008: Proceedings - Full Papers, INESC Coimbra, s. 323-329.
  • Walesiak M., 2006: Uogólniona miara odległości w statystycznej analizie wielowymiarowej. Wydawnictwo Akademii Ekonomicznej, Wrocław.
  • Wysocki F., 2010: Metody taksonomiczne w rozpoznawaniu typów ekonomicznych rolnictwa i obszarów wiejskich. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Przyrodniczego, Poznań.

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.