@article{ref1,
title="Sensitivity analysis of multiple-choice decision methods for transportation",
journal="Transportation research record",
year="1987",
author="Alexander, Ernest R. and Beimborn, Edward A.",
volume="1124",
number="",
pages="36-42",
abstract="Multiple-objective decision-making (MODM) processes are used to rate alternative plans and projects in order to find a preferred alternative or to set priorities among a set of projects. In this paper, the sensitivity of project rankings to various assumptions in calculation procedures used to rank alternative highway projects is tested. Issues addressed included methods of standardization, aggregation of weights and scores, and inclusion of a benefit-cost element. <br><br>RESULTS of the work indicate that project rankings arrived at through MODM techniques can be sensitive to computational assumptions. Failure to use standardization can have a major effect, whereas differences in standardization have some effect, and differences in weighting techniques have a moderate effect. The selection of criteria and their arrangement in a hierarchy are also critical; improper utilization can have significant unintended consequences. Unexpected turbulence and sensitivity of applied MODM models may be the result of their size and complexity, suggesting the need to reduce the numbers of criteria and alternatives.     Record URL:        http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/trr/1987/1124/1124-005.pdf    TRT Terms: Alternatives analysis; Benefit cost analysis; Decision making; Mathematical models; Project management; Ratings; Sensitivity analysis; Standardization; Strategic planning    Uncontrolled Terms: Multiple objectives; Projects    Subject Areas: Administration and Management; Highways; Planning and Forecasting; I10: Economics and Administration; I72: Traffic and Transport Planning;<p /><p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0361-1981",
doi="",
url="http://dx.doi.org/"
}