Talk:Multiple-criteria decision analysis

Revising the MCDA/MCDM article
We have been discussing the idea of making contributions to the article MCDA/MCDM in Wikipedia in the lists of the International Society on MCDM and INFORMS Section on MCDM. Many colleagues contributed to these discussions and we prepared a structure which can be accessed at (http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3612186/WikiStructureJune.pdf). Leading researchers of different areas have committed to develop related parts.

To start the process, Pekka Korhonen, Jyrki Wallenius and myself have written a long introduction that caters to the developed structure. It is designed to naturally lead to the additional contributions in different areas, especially those mentioned in the structure.

I thought of either incorporating this into the current MCDA article or publishing a new article on MCDM in Wikipedia.

If we incorporate it within the current MCDA article, we need to replace background, general form, and classification. We can keep the current list of MCDA methods. Once we publish the new version, we can all go over it and improve it.

It seems more reasonable to me to have a single MCDA/MCDM article along the above guidelines. Before making any changes, I would like to hear your opinions.

Murat Koksalan President, INFORMS Section on MCDM

President Elect, International Society on MCDM Koksalan (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There is certainly room for improvement in Wikipedia's coverage of MCDA/MCDM. I am far from an expert on the subject matter, but I rather agree that one article would be best. Also you should remember that Wikipedia is mainly an encyclopedia for general audiences, so articles should not be too long or too technical. Probably nobody will object too much to whatever you choose to do. It is important that whomever is working on the article has some Wikipedia skills, or is willing to develop them. There are two kinds of these skills: Technical skills, involving how to make the page appear as you want it to, how to cite sources, etc., and what might be called "cultural" skills, involving what is seen as proper behavior by the mass of other editors. I am wondering what is the Wikipedia skill level of the people who plan to work on the article. (I am a possible source of assistance if the skills are light or absent.) Lou Sander (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * We have been warning each other to make the articles as nontechnical and as short as possible. Wikipedia skills of many of us are probably quite poor. I am currently working on transforming the 'Introduction' article (written as a Word document) into the Wikipedia format.  I am delighted with the help offer and intend to make full use of it.  Once the Introduction part is launched, the rest will hopefully follow soon. Koksalan (talk) 08:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional Types of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis
There are a number of other multi-criteria decision analysis techniques that could be added to this page. decision-matrix method and Mission-Oriented Analysis are two that come to mind.

Are there any objections to adding these to the list?

Thopper 12:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Disaggregation/Aggregation methods
There seems to be no article for them yet. I'll try to start a write-up on them based on what I studied in university, as well as some articles I have across. Any help would be greatly appreciated. SentientContrarian (talk) 11:18, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Adding a new MCDM method to the list
After reviewing the multiple-criteria decision analysis page, I believe that the Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA)can be added to the list of the MCDM methods which is published in Applied Soft Computing journal recently. Its website is avaliable as well for more information: www.ordinalpriorityapproach.com


 * Specific text to be added or removed: Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA)
 * Reason for the change: The Ordinal Priority Approach (OPA) is a new MCDM method which works based on ordinal data.
 * References supporting change:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr.Blue.2020 (talk • contribs)


 * What you've got here is a collection of primary sources, but Wikipedia is supposed to be based on secondary sources. We would need those to ensure that this is placed in the proper context. We generally only cover new methods and research once they have come into wide use by others, beyond the initial researchers - we should be citing the sources that show that has happened. - MrOllie (talk) 11:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)