Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multicriteria Methods for Group Decision Processes: An Overview

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation

Abstract

Important decisions are often taken by groups of decision-makers who need to choose among several alternatives in view of multiple objectives, in recognition of the interests of stakeholders. Such decision problems can be supported with the methods and processes of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) which foster collaboration, lend structure to the decision process, and help in managing problem complexity. In this chapter, we examine rationales for using MCDA methods in group decision processes, outline typical phases of these processes, summarize widely used MCDA methods and discuss some of their recent methodological extensions. We also provide guidelines for the design and implementation of MCDA-assisted group decision processes, based on an examination of behavioral factors and a structured review of selected case studies. We conclude with an outlook for the future in light of recent developments and trends.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson RM, Hobbs BF (2002) Using a Bayesian approach to quantify scale compatibility bias. Manag Sci 48(12):1555–1568

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aubert AH, Lienert J (2019) ‘Gamified online survey to elicit citizens’ preferences and enhance learning for environmental decisions. Environ Model Softw 111:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bakhanova E, Garcia JA, Raffe WL, Voinov A (2020) Targeting social learning and engagement: what serious games and gamification can offer to participatory modeling. Environ Model Softw 134:104846

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa CA, Fernandes TG, Correia PV (2006) Prioritisation of public investments in social infrastructures using multicriteria value analysis and decision conferencing: a case study. Int Trans Oper Res 13(4):279–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basak I, Saaty T (1993) Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Math Comput Model 17(4–5):101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bayley C, French S (2008) Designing a participatory process for stakeholder involvement in a societal decision. Group Decis Negot 17(3):195–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell ML, Hobbs BF, Ellis H (2003) The use of multi-criteria decision-making methods in the integrated assessment of climate change: implications for IA practitioners. Socio Econ Plan Sci 37(4):289–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Gear T (1983) On a short-coming of Saaty’s method of analytic hierarchies. Omega 11(3):228–230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Pictet J (1997) A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? J Decis Syst 6(3):283–303

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Ackermann F, Shepherd I (1997) Integrated support from problem structuring through to alternative evaluation using COPE and V. I. S. A. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6(3):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bertsch V, Geldermann J (2008) Preference elicitation and sensitivity analysis in multicriteria group decision support for industrial risk and emergency management. Int J Emerg Manag 5(1–2):7–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brans J-P, Macharis C, Kunsch PL, Chevalier A, Schwaninger M (1998) Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure. Eur J Oper Res 109(2):428–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummer V, Könnölä T, Salo A (2008) Foresight within ERA-NETs: experiences from the preparation of an international research program. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 75(4):483–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brummer V, Salo A, Nissinen J, Liesiö J (2011) A methodology for the identification of prospective collaboration networks in international R&D programmes. Int J Technol Manag 54(4):369–389

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Camilleri G, Zarate P (2020) Group multicriteria approach. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Cockerill K, Glynn P, Chabay I, Farooque M, Hämäläinen RP, Miyamoto B, McKay P (2019) Records of engagement and decision making for environmental and socio-ecological challenges. EURO J Decis Process 7(3–4):243–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colorni A, Tsoukiàs A (2020) Designing alternatives in decision problems. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 27(3–4):150–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrente S, Figueira JR, Greco S, Slowinski R (2020) Multiple criteria decision support. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Damart S, Adam-Ledunois S (2020) Impact of cognitive style on group decision and negotiation. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • de Almeida A, Frej E, Morais DC, Costa A (2020a) Multiple criteria group decisions with partial information about preference. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • de Almeida A, Rosselli L, Morais DC, Costa A (2020b) Neuroscience tools for behavioural studies in group decision and negotiation. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreu G (1960) Topological methods in cardinal utility theory. In: Arrow KJ, Karlin S, Suppes P (eds) Mathematical methods in the social sciences. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer JS (1990) Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process. Manag Sci 36(3):249–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dyer RF, Forman EH (1992) Group decision support with the analytic hierarchy process. Decis Support Syst 8(2):99–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3):673–686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (2020) Behavioral considerations in group support. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehtamo H, Hämäläinen RP (2001) Interactive multiple-criteria methods for reaching Pareto optimal agreements in negotiations. Group Decis Negot 10(6):475–491

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faure GO, Shakun MF et al (1990) Social-emotional aspects of negotiation. Eur J Oper Res 46(2):177–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferretti V, Montibeller G (2016) Key challenges and meta-choices in designing and applying multi-criteria spatial decision support systems. Decis Support Syst 84:41–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Filzmoser M, Vetschera R, Koeszegi ST (2020) Negotiation processes: empirical insights. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108(1):165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco A, Greiffenhagen C (2020) Group support practice: decision support ‘as it happens’. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Hämäläinen RP (2016) Behavioural operational research: returning to the roots of the OR profession. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):791–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205(3):489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S (1986) Decision theory: an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Ellis Horwood, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • French S, Rios Insua D, Ruggeri F (2007) e-participation and decision analysis. Decis Anal 4(4):211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French S, Maule J, Papamichail N (2009) Decision behaviour, analysis and support. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Geldermann J, Bertsch V, Treitz M, French S, Papamichail KN, Hämäläinen RP (2009) Multi-criteria decision support and evaluation of strategies for nuclear remediation management. Omega 37(1):238–251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greco S, Figueira J, Ehrgott M (2016) Multiple criteria decision analysis. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene R, Devillers R, Luther JE, Eddy BG (2011) GIS-based multiple-criteria decision analysis. Geogr Compass 5(6):412–432

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory R, Failing L, Harstone M, Long G, McDaniels T, Ohlson D (2012) Structured decision making: a practical guide to environmental management choices. Wiley, Chichester, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Hajkowicz SA (2008) Supporting multi-stakeholder environmental decisions. J Environ Manag 88(4):607–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP (1988) Computer assisted energy policy analysis in the parliament of Finland. Interfaces 18(4):12–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP (2003) Decisionarium – aiding decisions, negotiating and collecting opinions on the web. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 12(2–3):101–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP (2015) Behavioural issues in environmental modelling–the missing perspective. Environ Model Softw 73:244–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Alaja S (2008) The threat of weighting biases in environmental decision analysis. Ecol Econ 68(1–2):556–569

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Lahtinen TJ (2016) Path dependence in operational research – how the modeling process can influence the results. Oper Res Perspect 3:14–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Pöyhönen M (1996) On-line group decision support by preference programming in traffic planning. Group Decis Negot 5:485–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E (2008) Systems intelligence – the way forward? A note on Ackoff’s why few organizations adopt systems thinking. Syst Res Behav Sci 25(6):821–825

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Salo AA, Poysti K (1992) Observations about consensus seeking in a multiple criteria environment. In: Proceedings of the twenty-fifth Hawaii international conference on system sciences, vol. 4, Maui, Hawaii. IEEE, pp 190–198

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Lindstedt MR, Sinkko K (2000) Multiattribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management. Risk Anal 20(4):455–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen R, Kettunen E, Marttunen M, Ehtamo H (2001) Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management. Group Decis Negot 10(4):331–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Mustajoki J, Marttunen M (2010) Web-based decision support: creating a culture of applying multi-criteria decision analysis and web-supported participation in environmental decision making. In: Rios-Insua D, French S (eds) E-democracy: a group decision and negotiation perspective. Advances in group decision and negotiation 5. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 201–221

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Luoma J, Saarinen E (2013) On the importance of behavioral operational research: the case of understanding and communicating about dynamic systems. Eur J Oper Res 228(3):623–634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E, Törmänen J (2018) Systems intelligence: a core competence for next-generation engineers? In: 2018 IEEE international conference on teaching, assessment, and learning for engineering (TALE), Wollongong, Australia. IEEE, pp 641–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Hämäläinen RP, Miliszewska I, Voinov A (2020) Leadership in participatory modelling – is there a need for it? Environ Model Softw. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2020.104834

  • Hamilton SH, Fu B, Guillaume JH, Badham J, Elsawah S, Gober P, Hunt RJ, Iwanaga T, Jakeman AJ, Ames DP et al (2019) A framework for characterising and evaluating the effectiveness of environmental modelling. Environ Model Softw 118:83–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harju M, Liesiö J, Virtanen K (2019) Spatial multi-attribute decision analysis: axiomatic foundations and incomplete preference information. Eur J Oper Res 275(1):167–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harris-Lovett S, Lienert J, Sedlak D (2019) A mixed-methods approach to strategic planning for multi-benefit regional water infrastructure. J Environ Manag 233:218–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma E, Alonso S, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2007) A consensus model for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 15(5):863–877

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipel KW, Kilgour DM, Xu H, Xiao Y (2020) Conflict resolution using the graph model: matrices, uncertainty, and systems perspectives. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgkin J, Belton V, Koulouri A (2005) Supporting the intelligent MCDA user: a case study in multi-person multi-criteria decision support. Eur J Oper Res 160(1):172–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis IL (1982) Groupthink: psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelokhani-Niaraki M (2019) Exploring the effect of group decision on information search behaviour in web-based collaborative GIS-MCDA. J Decis Syst 28(4):261–285

    Google Scholar 

  • Jelokhani-Niaraki M (2021) Collaborative spatial multicriteria evaluation: a review and directions for future research. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 31(1):9–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Kangas A, Kangas J, Kurttila M (2008) Decision support for forest management. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1996) Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. Eur J Oper Res 92(3):537–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (2013) Foundations for group decision analysis. Decis Anal 10(2):103–120

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Gregory RS (2005) Selecting attributes to measure the achievement of objectives. Oper Res 53(1):1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Kirkwood CW (1975) Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Manag Sci 22(4):430–437

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kibris Ö (2020) Negotiation as a cooperative game. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiker GA, Bridges TS, Varghese A, Seager TP, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag Int J 1(2):95–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgour DM (2020) Group decisions: choosing multiple winners by voting. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kim S-H, Ahn B-S (1997) Group decision making procedure considering preference strength under incomplete information. Comput Oper Res 24(12):1101–1112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim JK, Choi SH (2001) A utility range-based interactive group support system for multiattribute decision making. Comput Oper Res 28(5):485–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein M (2020) Crowd-scale deliberation for group decision-making. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinmuntz D (2007) Resource allocation decisions. In: Edwards W, Miles RF Jr, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis–from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Könnölä T, Salo A, Brummer V (2011) Foresight for European coordination: developing national priorities for the forest-based sector technology platform. Int J Technol Manag 54(4):438–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krantz DH, Luce RD, Suppes P (1971) Foundations of measurement. Academic, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R, Salminen P (2001) SMAA-2: stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Oper Res 49(3):444–454

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R, Miettinen K, Salminen P (2005) Reference point approach for multiple decision makers. Eur J Oper Res 164(3):785–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahtinen TJ, Hämäläinen RP (2016) Path dependence and biases in the even swaps decision analysis method. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):890–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahtinen TJ, Guillaume JH, Hämäläinen RP (2017a) Why pay attention to paths in the practice of environmental modelling? Environ Model Softw 92:74–81

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahtinen TJ, Hämäläinen RP, Liesiö J (2017b) Portfolio decision analysis methods in environmental decision making. Environ Model Softw 94:73–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahtinen TJ, Hämäläinen RP, Jenytin C (2020) On preference elicitation processes which mitigate the accumulation of biases in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 282(1):201–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leppänen I, Hämäläinen RP, Saarinen E, Viinikainen M (2018) Intrapersonal emotional responses to the inquiry and advocacy modes of interaction: a psychophysiological study. Group Decis Negot 27(6):933–948

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liesiö J, Mild P, Salo A (2007) Preference programming for robust portfolio modeling and project selection. Eur J Oper Res 181(3):1488–1505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liesiö J, Mild P, Salo A (2008) Robust portfolio modeling with incomplete cost information and project interdependencies. Eur J Oper Res 190(3):679–695

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindstedt M, Liesio J, Salo A (2008) Participatory development of a strategic product portfolio in a telecommunication company. Int J Technol Manag 42(3):250–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linkov I, Moberg E (2011) Multi-criteria decision analysis: environmental applications and case studies. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL

    Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J (2006) GIS-based multicriteria decision analysis: a survey of the literature. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 20(7):703–726

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J, Jankowski P (2020) Emerging trends and research frontiers in spatial multicriteria analysis. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 34(7):1257–1282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Malczewski J, Rinner C (2015) GIS-MCDA for group decision making. In: Multicriteria decision analysis in geographic information science. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 223–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Mármol AM, Monroy L, Rubiales V (2007) An equitable solution for multicriteria bargaining games. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1523–1534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martinovski B (2020) Role of emotion in group decision and negotiation. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinovsky B (2015) Emotion in group decision and negotiation. Springer, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Hämäläinen RP (2008) The decision analysis interview approach in the collaborative management of a large regulated water course. Environ Manag 42(6):1026–1042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Lienert J, Belton V (2017) Structuring problems for multi-criteria decision analysis in practice: a literature review of method combinations. Eur J Oper Res 263(1):1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Belton V, Lienert J (2018) Are objectives hierarchy related biases observed in practice? A meta-analysis of environmental and energy applications of multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 265(1):178–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marttunen M, Haag F, Belton V, Mustajoki J, Lienert J (2019) Methods to inform the development of concise objectives hierarchies in multi-criteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 277(2):604–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsatsinis NF, Samaras AP (2001) MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems. Eur J Oper Res 130(2):414–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsatsinis NF, Tzoannopoulos K-D (2008) Multiple criteria group decision support through the usage of argumentation-based multi-agent systems: an overview. Oper Res 8(2):185–199

    Google Scholar 

  • Mild P, Liesiö J, Salo A (2015) Selecting infrastructure maintenance projects with robust portfolio modeling. Decis Support Syst 77:21–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Belton V (2006) Causal maps and the evaluation of decision options-a review. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):779–791

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Von Winterfeldt D (2015) Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal 35(7):1230–1251

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Belton V, Ackermann F, Ensslin L (2008) Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. J Oper Res Soc 59(5):575–589

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jimenez JM, Aguaron J, Escobar MT, Salvador M (2020) Group decision support using the analytic hierarchy process. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP (2000) Web-HIPRE: global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. Infor 38(3):208–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Marttunen M (2017) Comparison of multi-criteria decision analytical software for supporting environmental planning processes. Environ Model Softw 93:78–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP, Lindstedt MR (2006) Using intervals for global sensitivity and worst-case analyses in multiattribute value trees. Eur J Oper Res 174(1):278–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mustajoki J, Hämäläinen RP, Sinkko K (2007) Interactive computer support in decision conferencing: two cases on off-site nuclear emergency management. Decis Support Syst 42(4):2247–2260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nurmi H (2020) Group decisions: choosing a winner by voting. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Ormerod RJ (2014) OR competences: the demands of problem structuring methods. EURO J Decis Process 2(3–4):313–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papamichail KN, French S (2013) 25 years of mcda in nuclear emergency management. IMA J Manag Math 24(4):481–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parnell GS, Bresnick TA, Tani SN, Johnson ER (2013) Handbook of decision analysis. Wiley, Hoboken, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Payne JW, Bettman JR, Schkade DA, Schwarz N, Gregory R (1999) Measuring constructed preferences: towards a building code. In: Elicitation of preferences. Springer, Amsterdam, pp 243–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD, e Costa CAB (2007) Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res 154(1):51–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips LD, Phillips MC (1993) Facilitated work groups: theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44(6):533–549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pöyhönen M, Vrolijk H, Hämäläinen RP (2001) Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees. Eur J Oper Res 134(1):216–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Punkka A, Salo A (2013) Preference programming with incomplete ordinal information. Eur J Oper Res 231(1):141–150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren P, Xu Z, Kacprzyk J (2020) Group decisions with intuitionistic fuzzy sets. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Roselli LRP, de Almeida AT, Frej EA (2019) Decision neuroscience for improving data visualization of decision support in the FITradeoff method. Oper Res 19(4):933–953

    Google Scholar 

  • Saarinen E, Hämäläinen RP (2004) Systems intelligence: connecting engineering thinking with human sensitivity. In: Hämäläinen RP Saarinen E (eds) Systems intelligence: discovering a hidden competence in human action and organizational life. Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Reports A88, pp. 1–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1977) A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol 15(3):234–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (2005) Theory and applications of the analytic network process: decision making with benefits, opportunities, costs, and risks. RWS publications, Pittsburgh, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • Salo A (1995) Interactive decision aiding for group decision support. Eur J Oper Res 84(1):134–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1992) Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements. Oper Res 40(6):1053–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (1997) On the measurement of preferences in the analytic hierarchy process. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6(6):309–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo AA, Hämäläinen RP (2001) Preference ratios in multiattribute evaluation (PRIME)-elicitation and decision procedures under incomplete information. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 31(6):533–545

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo A, Hämäläinen RP (2010) Multicriteria decision analysis in group decision processes. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 269–283

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Salo A, Keisler J, Morton A (2011) Portfolio decision analysis: improved methods for resource allocation. Springer International Series in Operations Research & Management Science Vol. 162, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Santos SP, Belton V, Howick S (2002) Adding value to performance measurement by using system dynamics and multicriteria analysis. Int J Oper Prod Manag 22(11):1246–1272

    Google Scholar 

  • Schilling MS, Oeser N, Schaub C (2007) How effective are decision analyses? Assessing decision process and group alignment effects. Decis Anal 4(4):227–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott RJ, Cavana RY, Cameron D (2016) Recent evidence on the effectiveness of group model building. Eur J Oper Res 249(3):908–918

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shoumy NJ, Ang L-M, Seng KP, Rahaman DM, Zia T (2020) Multimodal big data affective analytics: a comprehensive survey using text, audio, visual and physiological signals. J Netw Comput Appl 149:102447

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Siebert J, Keeney RL (2015) Creating more and better alternatives for decisions using objectives. Oper Res 63(5):1144–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simao A, Densham PJ, Haklay MM (2009) Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: an application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. J Environ Manag 90(6):2027–2040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slotte S, Hämäläinen RP (2015) Decision structuring dialogue. EURO J Decis Process 3(1–2):141–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slovic P (1995) The construction of preference. Am Psychol 50(5):364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg RJ (1999) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Vetschera R (2000) A multi-criteria agency model with incomplete preference information. Eur J Oper Res 126(1):152–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vilkkumaa E, Salo A, Liesiö J (2014) Multicriteria portfolio modeling for the development of shared action agendas. Group Decis Negot 23(1):49–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voinov A, Kolagani N, McCall MK, Glynn PD, Kragt ME, Ostermann FO, Pierce SA, Ramu P (2016) Modelling with stakeholders–next generation. Environ Model Softw 77:196–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachowicz T, Roszkowska E (2020) Holistic preferences and prenegotiation preparation. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius J, Dyer JS, Fishburn PC, Steuer RE, Zionts S, Deb K (2008) Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Manag Sci 54(7):1336–1349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wikipedia (2020) List of cognitive biases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang J-B, Xu D-L (2002) On the evidential reasoning algorithm for multiple attribute decision analysis under uncertainty. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 32(3):289–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yearworth M, White L (2020) Group support systems: experiments with an online system and implications for same-time/different-places working. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Zare F, Guillaume JH, Jakeman AJ, Torabi O (2020) Reflective communication to improve problem-solving pathways: key issues illustrated for an integrated environmental modelling case study. Environ Model Softw 126:104645

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research has been partly supported by the Platform Value Now project of the Strategic Research Council of the Academy of Finland (funding decision 314207).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Systems Analysis Laboratory, Department of Mathematics and Systems Analysis, Aalto University School of Science, Aalto, Finland

    Ahti Salo, Raimo P. Hämäläinen & Tuomas J. Lahtinen

Authors
  1. Ahti Salo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Raimo P. Hämäläinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tuomas J. Lahtinen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ahti Salo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Wilfrid Laurier University Dept. Mathematics, Waterloo, ON, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

  2. University of Strathclyde Strathclyde Business School, Glasgow, UK

    Colin Eden

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Salo, A., Hämäläinen, R.P., Lahtinen, T.J. (2021). Multicriteria Methods for Group Decision Processes: An Overview. In: Kilgour, D.M., Eden, C. (eds) Handbook of Group Decision and Negotiation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_16-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12051-1_16-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-12051-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Behavioral Science and PsychologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation