Daugiakriterinio vertinimo būdų suderinamumas

Abstract

When va­rio­us mul­tip­le cri­te­ria met­hods are used to eva­lu­a­te a par­ti­cu­lar ob­ject or phenomenon, con­flic­ting re­sults are usu­al­ly ob­tai­ned. This al­lows us to sta­te that eve­ry met­hod has its ad­van­ta­ges and di­sad­van­ta­ges as well as its own lo­gic, high­ligh­ting so­me par­ti­cu­lar as­pects of the consi­de­red ob­ject or si­tu­a­tion. Se­e­king to re­du­ce the par­ti­cu­lar ef­fects of va­rio­us mul­tic­ri­te­ria eva­lu­a­tion met­hods (MCEM) on the cal­cu­la­tion re­sults, it is ra­tio­nal to es­ti­ma­te the con­si­de­red ob­ject (or phe­no­me­non) by using se­ve­ral met­hods and, then, to find the ave­ra­ge es­ti­ma­te. The­re­fo­re, a the­o­re­ti­cal as well as prac­ti­cal pro­blem of se­lec­ting the ap­prop­ria­te mul­tic­ri­te­ria eva­lu­a­tion met­hods to be used as a ‘pac­ka­ge’ ari­ses.