Skip to main content



Using the resource
Potential benefits from using the resource
Easy to implement for decision problems with relatively many competing options.
Existing user-friendly software.
Can deal with qualitative or quantitative consequence estimates.
While other outranking techniques can be used where consequence estimates are quantitative or semi-quantitative, there is little argument for doing so, because in these circumstances MAVT offers a much firmer normative basis for decision-making
Potential limitations from using the resource
Appears to fail on some basic axioms of rationality.
Requires acceptances of behavioural models of decision making.
Practical information
UN languages in which the resource is available:
Development stage:
Full, working product

Outranking stems from the French school of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, which places a greater emphasis on behavioural models of decision-making. Outranking techniques typically involve the sequential elimination of alternatives. Weights are assigned to each objective according to their perceived importance, without consideration of the range of consequences associated with alternatives. For each pair of alternatives, a concordance index and a discordance index are constructed. The concordance index coarsely characterises the strength of the argument that one alternative is better than another based on the weighted sum of objectives for which it dominates the other. The discordance index reports the strength of the argument against eliminating the (weakly) dominated alternative. Decision makers work through a consequence table iteratively, adjusting critical thresholds for concordance and discordance until a satisfactory choice is made.


Subregions covered