Various schemes have been proposed for generating a set of non-subjective weights when aggregating multiple criteria for the purposes of ranking or selecting alternatives. The maximin approach chooses the weights which maximise the lowest score (assuming there is an upper bound to scores). This is equivalent to finding the weights which minimize the maximum deviation, or range, between the worst and best scores (minimax). At first glance this seems to be an equitable way of apportioning weight, and the Rawlsian theory of justice has been cited in its support.We draw a distinction between using the maximin rule for the purpose of assessing performance, and using it for allocating resources amongst the alternatives. We demonstrate that it has a number of drawbacks which make it inappropriate for the assessment of performance. Specifically, it is tantamount to allowing the worst performers to decide the worth of the criteria so as to maximise their overall score. Furthermore, when making a selection from a list of alternatives, the final choice is highly sensitive to the removal or inclusion of alternatives whose performance is so poor that they are clearly irrelevant to the choice at hand.
|Name||UH Business School Working Paper|
|Publisher||University of Hertfordshire|