IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v80y1998i0p333-34510.1023-a1018980318183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Objectivity and subjectivity in thedecision making process

Author

Listed:
  • John T. Buchanan
  • Erez J. Henig
  • Mordecai I. Henig

Abstract

Classical Operations Research assumed objectivity. Operations researchers hardly botheredto ask the decision maker about his or her preferences, assuming that a well-defined singleobjective function was an adequate representation of the decision problem. Many multi-criteriadecision methods began in response to this failure of Operations Research. Othermethods took a totally different and more subjective point of view. In this paper, we discussobjective and subjective descriptions, their interpretation and use in decision making. In thecenter of the ability to distinguish between these objective and subjective components standscientific methods and scientists. We argue that it is possible and necessary to understandwhere and how objective measures should be replaced by subjective measures and judgementin the decision making process. Copyright Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Suggested Citation

  • John T. Buchanan & Erez J. Henig & Mordecai I. Henig, 1998. "Objectivity and subjectivity in thedecision making process," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 80(0), pages 333-345, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:80:y:1998:i:0:p:333-345:10.1023/a:1018980318183
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1018980318183
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1023/A:1018980318183
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1018980318183?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Amy Poh Ai Ling & Mohamad Nasir Saludin & Masao Mukaidono, 2012. "Deriving consensus rankings via multicriteria decision making methodology," Papers 1201.1604, arXiv.org.
    2. António Osório, 2017. "Judgement and ranking: living with hidden bias," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 253(1), pages 501-518, June.
    3. Mortenson, Michael J. & Doherty, Neil F. & Robinson, Stewart, 2015. "Operational research from Taylorism to Terabytes: A research agenda for the analytics age," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(3), pages 583-595.
    4. Osório, António (António Miguel), 2016. "Judgement and Ranking: Living with Hidden Bias," Working Papers 2072/267264, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Department of Economics.
    5. Robert A. Dees & Matthew F. Dabkowski & Gregory S. Parnell, 2010. "Decision-Focused Transformation of Additive Value Models to Improve Communication," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(2), pages 172-184, June.
    6. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    7. Alina Cristea, 2015. "HOW WE CAN RESTORE THE BALANCE IN THE ROMANIAN ENERGY MARKET (International Conference "Recent Advances in Economic and Social Research", 13-14 mai 2015, București)," Institute for Economic Forecasting Conference Proceedings 151201, Institute for Economic Forecasting.
    8. Paweł Ziemba & Marek Kannchen & Mariusz Borawski, 2024. "Selection of the Family Electric Car Based on Objective and Subjective Criteria—Analysis of a Case Study of Polish Consumers," Energies, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-27, March.
    9. Alexis Tsoukiàs, 2007. "On the concept of decision aiding process: an operational perspective," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 3-27, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:80:y:1998:i:0:p:333-345:10.1023/a:1018980318183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.