Skip to main content
Log in

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

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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 via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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).

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

  • 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.

  • 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.

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

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

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00553914

Key words

Navigation