IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v32y2004i4p323-332.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A multiple-criteria framework for evaluation of decision support systems

Author

Listed:
  • Phillips-Wren, Gloria E.
  • Hahn, Eugene D.
  • Forgionne, Guisseppi A.

Abstract

In the literature, decision support systems (DSSs) have typically been evaluated on only a single criterion such as the outcome from decision making. However, it is clear that DSSs simultaneously have a critical impact on the process-oriented aspects of decision making, suggesting that a combination of both outcome and process criteria are highly relevant for DSS evaluation. Indeed, process characteristics are particularly crucial for web-based and real-time DSSs because of their ability to deliver timely, current information through features such as just-in-time information, real-time processing, on-line transaction processing, connectivity and globally up-to-date information. In this underexplored area, we propose a framework to evaluate DSSs that combines outcome- and process-oriented evaluation measures. The approach is demonstrated in the context of a real-time threat criticality detection DSS. Investigations are conducted using a multicriteria decision-making method called the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as well as a newly developed stochastic enhancement of AHP. We find that the real-time DSS offered a significant improvement in terms of process-related characteristics. However, it did not offer a statistically significant improvement in terms of outcome-related characteristics. The importance of simultaneously addressing both sets of considerations is discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Phillips-Wren, Gloria E. & Hahn, Eugene D. & Forgionne, Guisseppi A., 2004. "A multiple-criteria framework for evaluation of decision support systems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 323-332, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:32:y:2004:i:4:p:323-332
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305-0483(04)00006-4
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bolloju, N., 2001. "Aggregation of analytic hierarchy process models based on similarities in decision makers' preferences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 128(3), pages 499-508, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Gunasekaran, A. & Ngai, E.W.T. & McGaughey, R.E., 2006. "Information technology and systems justification: A review for research and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 173(3), pages 957-983, September.
    2. Sophia Xiaoxia Duan & Santoso Wibowo & Josephine Chong, 2021. "A Multicriteria Analysis Approach for Evaluating the Performance of Agriculture Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Agribusiness," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-16, April.
    3. Hahn, Eugene D., 2006. "Link function selection in stochastic multicriteria decision making models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(1), pages 86-100, July.
    4. Phillips-Wren, G. & Mora, M. & Forgionne, G.A. & Gupta, J.N.D., 2009. "An integrative evaluation framework for intelligent decision support systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 642-652, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    2. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold & Pyka, Andreas & Leoneti, Alexandre Bevilacqua, 2021. "On the performance and strategy of innovation systems: A multicriteria group decision analysis approach," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    3. Pablo Cabrera-Barona & Omid Ghorbanzadeh, 2018. "Comparing Classic and Interval Analytical Hierarchy Process Methodologies for Measuring Area-Level Deprivation to Analyze Health Inequalities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-12, January.
    4. Bendoly, Elliot & Bachrach, Daniel G., 2003. "A process-based model for priority convergence in multi-period group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 534-545, August.
    5. Renat Heuberger & Alan Brent & Luis Santos & Christoph Sutter & Dieter Imboden, 2007. "CDM Projects under the Kyoto Protocol: A Methodology for Sustainability Assessment – Experiences from South Africa and Uruguay," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 33-48, February.
    6. Yousaf Ali & Muhammad Sabir & Noor Muhammad, 2019. "Refugees and Host Country Nexus: a Case Study of Pakistan," Journal of International Migration and Integration, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 137-153, February.
    7. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Rezaei, Jafar, 2015. "Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 49-57.
    9. Ikuobase Emovon & Rosemary A. Norman & Alan J. Murphy, 2018. "Hybrid MCDM based methodology for selecting the optimum maintenance strategy for ship machinery systems," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 29(3), pages 519-531, March.
    10. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    11. Claudio Marcianò & Giuseppa Romeo & Fortunato Cozzupoli, 2015. "An Integrated Methodological Framework for the Definition of Local Development. Strategies for Fisheries Local Action Groups: an application to the Stretto Coast FLAG in South Italy," 2015 EAFE (European Association of Fisheries Economists) Conference Papers 008, Nisea.
    12. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    13. Oliva, Gabriele & Scala, Antonio & Setola, Roberto & Dell’Olmo, Paolo, 2019. "Opinion-based optimal group formation," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 164-176.

    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:eee:jomega:v:32:y:2004:i:4:p:323-332. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    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.