IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v7y1998i1d10.1023_a1008675230233.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support

Author

Listed:
  • Ann Davey

    (Northeastern University)

  • David Olson

    (Texas A and M University, College Station)

Abstract

Use of multiple criteria decision making (MCDM) models to aid the group decision process was tested. Two multiple criteria group decision support systems (MCGDSS) were studied, one using the AHP/Tchebycheff method of Iz and the other using Kersten's NEGO system. These systems were compared with a commercial GDSS, VisionQuest. VisionQuest does not include multiple criteria tools. To make the study comparable, VisionQuest was augmented with an ad hoc linear programming model that could generate solutions with specified characteristics requested by the using group. The three systems were compared on the dimensions of solution quality and decision support effectiveness. One of the hypotheses was that MCDM models would force participants to examine criteria, preferences, and aspirations more thoroughly, thus leading to decisions of better quality. Subjects using the MCGDSSs were expected to have higher mean quality and effectiveness values. However, the quality and effectiveness values of the VisionQuest/ad hoc system were found to be better on the dimension of effectiveness. Explanations for this result are included in the paper. Another hypothesis was that the AHP/Tchebycheff method of Iz, a value-oriented system, would yield more effective group support than the goal-oriented NEGO system. However, the NEGO system was found to yield solutions with better quality measures than the solutions obtained with the AHP/Tchebycheff system. Observation of the groups using the MCDM systems indicate that both the AHP/Tchebycheff and NEGO methods can be revised to enhance their effectiveness. The primary difficulty encountered with the AHP/Tchebycheff method was in the large number of pairwise comparisons required by AHP. The NEGO method can be enhanced by including specification of desired attainment levels in the first stage of the method. Both MCDM techniques have potential to benefit group decision support by giving using groups a means to design better solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Ann Davey & David Olson, 1998. "Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 55-75, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:7:y:1998:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008675230233
    DOI: 10.1023/A:1008675230233
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008675230233
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/A:1008675230233?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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jyrki Wallenius, 1975. "Comparative Evaluation of Some Interactive Approaches to Multicriterion Optimization," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 21(12), pages 1387-1396, August.
    2. Korhonen, Pekka & Moskowitz, Herbert & Wallenius, Jyrki, 1992. "Multiple criteria decision support - A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 361-375, December.
    3. Pekka Korhonen & Jyrki Wallenius & Stanley Zionts, 1984. "Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem using Convex Cones," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1336-1345, November.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney & Craig W. Kirkwood, 1975. "Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 430-437, December.
    5. Iz, P & Jelassi, MT, 1990. "An interactive group decision aid for multiobjective problems: An empirical assessment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 595-604.
    6. James L. Corner & Craig W. Kirkwood, 1991. "Decision Analysis Applications in the Operations Research Literature, 1970–1989," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 39(2), pages 206-219, April.
    7. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    8. Iz, Peri H., 1992. "Two multiple criteria group decision support systems based on mathematical programming and ranking methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 61(1-2), pages 245-253, August.
    9. Thompson, Leigh & Hastie, Reid, 1990. "Social perception in negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 98-123, October.
    10. V. Srinivasan Rao & Sirkka L. Jarvenpaa, 1991. "Computer Support of Groups: Theory-Based Models for GDSS Research," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(10), pages 1347-1362, October.
    11. Jarke, Matthias & Jelassi, M. Tawfik & Shakun, Melvin F., 1987. ": Towards a negotiation support system," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 314-334, September.
    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. Dias, Luis C. & Climaco, Joao N., 2005. "Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 291-307, January.
    2. Gregory E. Kersten & Hsiangchu Lai, 2007. "Negotiation Support and E-negotiation Systems: An Overview," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(6), pages 553-586, November.
    3. Shuliang Li & Jim Zheng Li, 2009. "A multi‐agent‐based hybrid framework for international marketing planning under uncertainty," Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(3), pages 231-254, July.
    4. Sulin Ba & Jan Stallaert & Andrew B. Whinston, 2001. "Research Commentary: Introducing a Third Dimension in Information Systems Design—The Case for Incentive Alignment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 12(3), pages 225-239, September.
    5. Raimo Hämäläinen & Eero Kettunen & Mika Marttunen & Harri Ehtamo, 2001. "Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 331-353, July.
    6. Theodor J. Stewart & Alison Joubert & Ron Janssen, 2010. "MCDA Framework for Fishing Rights Allocation in South Africa," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 247-265, May.
    7. Mohammadi, Majid & Rezaei, Jafar, 2020. "Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    8. Stefan A. Hajkowicz, 2012. "For the Greater Good? A Test for Strategic Bias in Group Environmental Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 331-344, May.
    9. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.

    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. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    2. Angur, Madhukar G. & Lotfi, Vahid & Sarkis, Joseph, 1996. "A hybrid conjoint measurement and bi-criteria model for a two group negotiation problem," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 195-206, September.
    3. Utpal Bose & David B. Paradice, 1999. "The Effects of Integrating Cognitive Feedback and Multi-attribute Utility-Based Multicriteria Decision-Making Methods in GDSS," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(2), pages 157-182, March.
    4. Robert L. Armacost & Jamshid C. Hosseini & Julie Pet-Edwards, 1999. "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 535-555, November.
    5. Athanasios Spyridakos & Denis Yannacopoulos, 2015. "Incorporating collective functions to multicriteria disaggregation–aggregation approaches for small group decision making," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 227(1), pages 119-136, April.
    6. Aloysius, John A. & Davis, Fred D. & Wilson, Darryl D. & Ross Taylor, A. & Kottemann, Jeffrey E., 2006. "User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems: The impact of preference elicitation techniques," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 273-285, February.
    7. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    8. Pekka Salminen & Jeffrey E. Teich & Jyrki Wallenius, 1998. "The Secretary Problem Revisited - The Group Decision-Making Perspective," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 3-21, January.
    9. Maddulapalli, A.K. & Azarm, S. & Boyars, A., 2007. "Sensitivity analysis for product design selection with an implicit value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(3), pages 1245-1259, August.
    10. Islei, Gerd & Lockett, Geoff & Naudé, Peter, 1999. "Judgemental modelling as an aid to scenario planning and analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 61-73, February.
    11. Contreras, I. & Marmol, A.M., 2007. "A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria group decision problems with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1530-1539, September.
    12. Dorota Górecka & Ewa Roszkowska & Tomasz Wachowicz, 2016. "The MARS Approach in the Verbal and Holistic Evaluation of the Negotiation Template," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(6), pages 1097-1136, November.
    13. Pekka Korhonen & Majid Soleimani-damaneh & Jyrki Wallenius, 2017. "The use of quasi-concave value functions in MCDM: some theoretical results," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 86(2), pages 367-375, October.
    14. Kurka, Thomas & Blackwood, David, 2013. "Selection of MCA methods to support decision making for renewable energy developments," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 225-233.
    15. Downing, C. E. & Ringuest, J. L., 1998. "An experimental evaluation of the efficacy of four multi-objective linear programming algorithms," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 104(3), pages 549-558, February.
    16. Korhonen, Pekka J. & Silvennoinen, Kari & Wallenius, Jyrki & Öörni, Anssi, 2012. "Can a linear value function explain choices? An experimental study," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(2), pages 360-367.
    17. Saaty, Thomas L. & Shang, Jen S., 2007. "Group decision-making: Head-count versus intensity of preference," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(1), pages 22-37, March.
    18. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    19. Akram Dehnokhalaji & Pekka J. Korhonen & Murat Köksalan & Nasim Nasrabadi & Diclehan Tezcaner Öztürk & Jyrki Wallenius, 2014. "Constructing a strict total order for alternatives characterized by multiple criteria: An extension," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(2), pages 155-163, March.
    20. Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.

    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:grdene:v:7:y:1998:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008675230233. 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: 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.