Table 2
A summary of assessment procedures during the extraction step of some of the most prominent weight elicitation methods.
| | Weight elicitation method | Extraction (assessment procedure) |
| | Direct Rating | Rate each criterion on a 0–100 scale
|
| | Point Allocation | Distribute 100 points among the criteria |
| | SMART | (1) Identify the least important criterion, assign 10 points to it
(2) Rate the remaining criteria relative to the least important one |
| | SWING | (1) Consider all criteria at their worst consequence level
(2) Identify the criterion most important to change from worst to best level, assign 100 points to it
(3) Continue with steps 1 and 2 with the remaining criteria, rate relative to the most important |
| | Trade-off methods | Judge criteria in pairs
(1) Make a choice between two alternatives
alt.1: the best consequence level of the first criterion and the worst of the second
alt.2: the worst consequence level of the first criterion and the best of the second
(2) State how much the decision-maker is willing to give up on the most important criterion in order to change the other one to its best level
(3) Continue with steps 1 and 2 with the remaining criteria |
| | Rank-order methods | Ordinal statements of criteria importance, that is rank all criteria from the most important to the least important |
| | AHP | Use a systematic pairwise comparison approach in determining preferences
(1) Make a choice between two criteria to determine which is the most important
(2) State how much more important the criterion identified in step 1 is in comparison to the second criterion using a semantic scale to express strength of preference
(3) Continue with steps 1 and 2 with the remaining criteria |
| | CROC | (1) Rank all criteria from the most to the least important
(2) The most important criterion is given 100 points. The decision-maker is asked to express the importance of the least important criterion in relation to the most important
(3) Adjust the distances between the criteria on an analogue visual scale to express the cardinal importance information between the criteria |
| | Interval methods | Generalized ratio weight procedures which employ interval judgments to represent imprecision during extraction instead of point estimates, as in for example, interval SMART/SWING |
|
|
