Skip to contentScholarGate
LibraryBookshelfDeskReview StudioAssistant
Sign in
On this page
IntuitionHow it worksWhen to use itStrengths & limitationsCommon pitfalls🔒 Read the full methodSourcesRelated methods
Cite this pageSpotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →
Home›Decision-making›Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique
MCDMWeight Subjectivecrisp

Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique

MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique) is a weight subjective multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) method introduced by Bana e Costa, C. A., Vansnick, J.-C. in 1994. It turns a decision matrix of alternatives scored on multiple criteria into a structured, reproducible result.

ScholarGate
  1. MCDM
  2. v1
  3. 1 Sources
  4. PUBLISHED
Cite this page →
Tools & resources
Download slides
Learn & explore

Read the full method

Members only

Sign in with a free account to read this section.

Sign in

Method map

The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.

MACBETH
AHPSORTAPLOCOARASAROMANARTASICOBRACOCOSOCODAS

When to use it

MACBETH elicits qualitative pairwise judgements (e.g. 'moderate' preference for C1 over C2) and converts them to cardinal weights via LP. It avoids forcing the DM to assign numerical scores directly. The software M-MACBETH (www.m-macbeth.com) implements the full method.

Strengths & limitations

Strengths
  • Follows a transparent, reproducible computational procedure that can be audited step by step.
  • Handles multiple criteria of differing scales and units within a single decision matrix.
Limitations
  • Results depend on the chosen normalisation, weights, and parameter settings.

Sources

  1. Bana e Costa, C. A., Vansnick, J.-C. (1994). MACBETH — An interactive path towards the construction of cardinal value functions. International Transactions in Operational Research DOI: 10.1016/0969-6016(94)90010-8 ↗

How to cite this page

ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/macbeth

Related methods

AHPSORTAPLOCOARASAROMANARTASICOBRACOCOSOCODAS

Which method?

Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.

  • AHPSORTDecision-making↔ compare
  • APLOCODecision-making↔ compare
  • ARASDecision-making↔ compare
  • AROMANDecision-making↔ compare
  • ARTASIDecision-making↔ compare
  • COBRADecision-making↔ compare
  • COCOSODecision-making↔ compare
  • CODASDecision-making↔ compare
Compare side by side →

Similar methods

QUALIFLEXAHPPROMETHEEPROMETHEE-IIPROMETHEE-VIPROMETHEE-VMABACPROMETHEE-I

Related reference concepts

Decision Support SystemsDecision MakingPolicy AnalysisWeighted ScoresCost-Benefit AnalysisParticipative Decision Making

Spotted an issue on this page? Report or suggest a fix →

ScholarGate — MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique). Retrieved 2026-07-20 from https://scholargate.app/en/decision-making/macbeth · Dataset: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20539026
Quick facts
Originator
Bana e Costa, C. A., Vansnick, J.-C.
Subfamily
Weight Subjective
Year
1994
Type
Weight Subjective (qualitative pairwise judgment, linear programming, MAVT-based)
Value Space
crisp
Uncertainty
None
Compensation
N/A
Rank Reversal
No
Related methods
AHPSORTAPLOCOARASAROMANARTASICOBRACOCOSOCODAS
ScholarGate

A content-first reference library for research methods — what each one is, how it works, and where it comes from.

Open data (CC-BY)

Explore

  • Library
  • Search the library…
  • Browse by field
  • Fields
  • Journey
  • Compare
  • Which method?

Reference

  • Subjects
  • Atlas
  • Glossary
  • Methodology
  • Philosophy

Your tools

  • Bookshelf
  • Desk
  • Chat

Company

  • About
  • Pricing
  • Contact
  • Suggest a method

Entries are compiled from published sources for reference. Verifying the accuracy and suitability of any information for your own use remains your responsibility.

© 2026 ScholarGate · A research-method reference library
  • Privacy
  • Cookies
  • Terms
  • Delete account