Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 5, Issue 4–6, pp 485–500 | Cite as

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

  • Raimo P. Hämäläinen
  • Mari Pöyhönen


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.

Key words

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


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. ArbelA. (1989). “Approximate Articulation of Preference and Priority Derivation,”European Journal of Operational Research 43, 317–326.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  4. DaviesM. A. (1994). “A Multicriteria Decision Model Application for Managing Group Decisions,”Journal of Operational Research Society 45, 47–58.Google Scholar
  5. DyerR. F., and E. H.Forman. (1992). “Group decision support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,”Decision Support Systems, 8, 99–124.Google Scholar
  6. EdwardsW. (1977). “How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 7, 326–340.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  8. FisherR., and W.Ury. (1981).Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co..Google Scholar
  9. HwangC. L., and M. J.Lin. (1987).Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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: Scholar
  12. Hämäläinen, R. P., and E. Kettunen. (1994a).HIPRE 3+ Group Link. User's Guide, Helsinki University of Technology, Systems Analysis Laboratory.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  15. IsleiG., and G.Lockett. (1991). “Group Decision Making: Suppositions and Practice,”Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 25, 67–81.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. KeeneyR. L., and C. W.Kirkwood. (1975). “Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions,”Management Science 22, 430–437.Google Scholar
  20. KeeneyR. L. (1976). “A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility,”Management Science, 23, 140–145.Google Scholar
  21. KeeneyR. L., and H.Raiffa. (1976).Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-offs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  22. MumpowerJ. L. (1991). “The Judgment Policies of Negotiators and the Structure of Negotiation Problems,”Management Science 37, 1304–1324.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  24. SaatyT. L. (1980).The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  26. SaloA. A., and R. P.Hämäläinen. (1992). “Preference Assessment by Imprecise Ratio Statements,”Operations Research 40, 1053–1061.Google Scholar
  27. SaloA. A. (1993). “Inconsistency Analysis by Approximately Specified Priorities,”Mathematical and Computer Modelling 17, 123–133.Google Scholar
  28. SaloA. A., and R. P.Hämäläinen. (1995). “Preference Programming through Approximate Ratio Comparisons,”European Journal of Operational Research 82, 458–475.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  31. vonWinterfeldtD., and W.Edwards. (1986).Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raimo P. Hämäläinen
    • 1
  • Mari Pöyhönen
    • 2
  1. 1.Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of TechnologyEspooFinland
  2. 2.Systems Analysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of TechnologyEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations