Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

On-line group decision support by preference programming in traffic planning

  • 31 Accesses

  • 1 Citations


Preference programming is a decision support technique which allows decision makers to give preference statements of weight ratios in terms of intervals instead of single numbers in a value tree. Individual preferences, based on single number statements, can be combined into an interval model, and the negotiation proceeds by focusing on decreasing the width of the intervals. The preference programming approach was evaluated with a realistic traffic planning problem by using the HIPRE 3+ Group Link software. The results from nine test groups indicate that preference programming is an operational group decision support technique which initiates negotiations and efficiently directs the discussion towards issues which are relevant in reaching a consensus.

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


  1. ArbelA. (1989). “Approximate Articulation of Preference and Priority Derivation,”European Journal of Operational Research 43, 317–326.

  2. ArbelA., and L. G.Vargas. (1993). “Preference Simulation and Preference Programming: Robustness Issues in Priority Derivation,”European Journal of Operational Research 69, 200–209.

  3. BuiT. X. (1987).Co-oP: A Group Decision Support System for Cooperative Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 290. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  4. DaviesM. A. (1994). “A Multicriteria Decision Model Application for Managing Group Decisions,”Journal of Operational Research Society 45, 47–58.

  5. DyerR. F., and E. H.Forman. (1992). “Group decision support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,”Decision Support Systems, 8, 99–124.

  6. EdwardsW. (1977). “How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 7, 326–340.

  7. Ehtamo, H., M. Verkama, and R. P. Hämäläinen. (1994). “Negotiating Efficient Agreements over Continuous Issues.” Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory Research Report A51.

  8. FisherR., and W.Ury. (1981).Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co..

  9. HwangC. L., and M. J.Lin. (1987).Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

  10. Hämäläinen, R. P., A. A. Salo, and K. Pöysti. (1991). “Observations about Consensus Seeking in a Multiple Criteria Environment.” InProceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 4. IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 190–198.

  11. Hämäläinen, R. P., and H. Lauri. (1993).HIPRE 3+ Decision Support Software vs. 3.13. User's Guide, Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory. (The software is distributed by Santa Monica Software Inc., 30033 Harvester Road, Malibu, CA 90205-464, fax. 310-395-763, tel. 310-451-2382, e-mail: hipre@sms.com).

  12. Hämäläinen, R. P., and E. Kettunen. (1994a).HIPRE 3+ Group Link. User's Guide, Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory.

  13. Hämäläinen, R. P., and E. Kettunen. (1994b). “On-line Group Decision Support by HIPRE 3+ Group Link.” InProceedings of the Third Symposium on the AHP, July 11–13, The George Washington University, Washington D.C.

  14. Hämäläinen, R. P., and O. Leikola. (1995). “Spontaneous Decision Conferencing in Parliamentary Negotiations.” InProceedings of the Twenty-seventh Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sciences, January 4–7. IEEE Computer Society Press.

  15. IsleiG., and G.Lockett. (1991). “Group Decision Making: Suppositions and Practice,”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 25, 67–81.

  16. IzP., and R. L.Gardiner. (1993). “Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Support Systems for Cooperative Groups,”Group Decision and Negotiation 2, 61–79.

  17. JarkeM., M. T.Jelassi, and M. F.Shakun. (1987). “MEDIATOR: Towards a Negotiation Support System,”European Journal of Operational Research 31, 314–334.

  18. JelassiM. T., and A.Foroughi. (1989). “Negotiation Support Systems: An Overview of Design Issues and Existing Software,”Decision Support Systems 5, 167–181.

  19. KeeneyR. L., and C. W.Kirkwood. (1975). “Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions,”Management Science 22, 430–437.

  20. KeeneyR. L. (1976). “A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility,”Management Science, 23, 140–145.

  21. KeeneyR. L., and H.Raiffa. (1976).Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. New York: Wiley.

  22. MumpowerJ. L. (1991). “The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems,”Management Science 37, 1304–1324.

  23. NunamakerJ. F., A. R.Dennis, J. S.Valacich, and D. R.Vogel. (1991). “Information Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain,”Management Science 37, 1325–1346.

  24. SaatyT. L. (1980).The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

  25. SaatyT. L. (1989). “Group Decision making and the AHP.” In B.Golden, E.Wasil, and P. T.Harker (eds.),The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  26. SaloA. A., and R. P.Hämäläinen. (1992). “Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements,”Operations Research 40, 1053–1061.

  27. SaloA. A. (1993). “Inconsistency Analysis by Approximately Specified Priorities,”Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17, 123–133.

  28. SaloA. A., and R. P.Hämäläinen. (1995). “Preference Programming through Approximate Ratio Comparisons,”European Journal of Operational Research 82, 458–475.

  29. VerkamaM., R. P.Hämäläinen, and H.Ehtamo. (1992). “Multi-Agent Interaction Processes: From Oligopoly Theory to Decentralized Artificial Intelligence,”Group Decision and Negotiation 2, 137–159.

  30. VerkamaM., R. P.Hämäläinen, and H.Ehtamo. (1994). “Modeling and Computational Analysis of Reactive Behavior in Organizations.” In K. M.Carley, and M. J.Prietula (eds.),Computational Organization Theory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  31. vonWinterfeldtD., and W.Edwards. (1986).Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hämäläinen, R.P., Pöyhönen, M. On-line group decision support by preference programming in traffic planning. Group Decis Negot 5, 485–500 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00553914

Download citation

Key words

  • Multiple Criteria Decision Making
  • hierarchical weighting techniques
  • preference programming
  • Group Decision Support Systems