Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support

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

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

  • Beauclair, R.A. and D.W. Straub. (1990). “Utilizing GDSS Technology: Final Report on a Recent Empirical Study,” Information and Management 18, 213-220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benayoun, R., J. DeMontgolfier, J. Tergny, and O. Larichev. (1971). “Linear Programming with Multiple Objective Functions: Step Method (STEM),” Mathematical Programming 1, 366-375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J.T., and H.G. Daellenbach. (1988). Desirable Properties of Interactive Multi-Objective Methods,” MCDM International Conference, Manchester, England.

  • Bui, T.X. (1987). Co-Op: A Group Decision Support System for Cooperative Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A. and W.W. Cooper. (1971). Management Models and Industrial Applications of Linear Programming. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohon, J.L. (1978). Multiobjective Programming and Planning. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, J.L., and C.W. Kirkwood. (1991). “Decision Analysis Applications in the Operations Research Literature, 1970–1989,” Operations Research 39, 2, 206-219.

    Google Scholar 

  • CTC. (1992). VisionQuest User's Guide. Austin, TX: Collaborative Technologies Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cyert, R.M., and J.G. March. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, J.S., and R.K. Sarin. (1978). “Cardinal Preference Aggregation Rules for the Case of Certainty,” in S. Zionts (ed.), Multiple Criteria Problem Solving Proceedings. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 68-86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, R.F., and E.H. Forman. (1992). “Group Decision Support with the AHP,” Decision Support Systems 8, 99-124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fisher, R., and W. Ury. (1983). Getting to Yes. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franz, L.S., G.R. Reeves, and J.J. Gonzalez. (1992). “Group Decision Processes: MOLP Procedures Facilitating Group and Individual Decision Orientations,” Computers and Operations Research 19, 695-706.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freimer, M., and P.-L. Yu. (1976). “Some New Results on Compromise Solutions for Group Decision Problems,” Management Science 22, 688-693.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galtupe, R.B., and G. DeSanctis. (1988). “Computer-Based Support for Group Problem-Finding: An Experimental Investigation,” Management Information Systems Quarterly 12, 277-296.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goicoechea, A., D.R. Hansen, and L. Duckstein. (1982). Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications. New York: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golden, B.L., E.A. Wasil, and D.E. Levy. (1989). “Applications of the AHP: A Categorized Annotated Bibliography,” in B.L. Golden, E.A. Wasil, P.T. Harker, and J.M. Alexander (eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Applications and Studies. New York: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Henig, M.I. (1989). “The Foundations of Multi-Criteria Interactive Modelling: Some Reflections,’ in P. Korhonen, A. Lewandowski and J. Wallenius (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Support. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, G.P. (1984). “Issues in the Design of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Information Systems Quarterly 8, 195-204.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Ignizio, J.P. (1976). Goal Programming and Extensions. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iz, P. (1991). “Group Decision Support and Multiple Criteria Optimization,” 24th Proceeding of HICSS 3, 678-686.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iz, P. (1992). “Two Multiple Criteria Group Decision Support Systems Based on Mathematical Programming and Ranking Methods,” European Journal of Operational Research 61, 245-253.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iz, P., and Jelassi, M.T. (1990). “An Interactive Group Decision Aid for Multiobjective Problems: An Empirical Assessment,” OMEGA 18, 595-604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iz, P., and L. Krajewski. (1992). “A Comparison of Three Interactive Muitiobjective Programming Techniques as Group Decision Support Tools,” INFOR 30, 349-365.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Javaigi, R.G., and H.K. Jain. (1988). “Integrating MCDM Models into DSS Framework for Marketing Decisions,” Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 35, 575-596.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Joyner, R., and K. Tunstall. (1970). “Computer Augmented Organizational Problem Solving,” Management Science 17, B212-B225.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L., and C.W. Kirkwood. (1975). “Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions, Management Science 22(4), 430-437.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R.L., and H. Raiffa. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kersten, G.E. (1985). “NEGO — Group Decision Support System,” Information and Management 8, 237-246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P., H. Moskowitz, J. Wallenius, and S. Zionts. (1979). “A Bargaining Model for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem,” in G. Fandel and T. Gal (eds.), MCDM Theory and Application. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen, P., J. Wallenius, and S. Zionts. (1984). “Solving the Discrete Multiple Criteria Problem Using Convex Cones,” Management Science 30(11), 1336-1345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, K.L., and J.L. King. (1988). “Computer-Based Systems for Cooperative Work and Group Decision Making,” ACM Computing Surveys 20, 115-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krzysztofowicz, R. (1979). “Group Utility Assessment through a Nominal-interacting Process,” unpublished working paper. Cambridge, MA: Dept. of Civil Engineering, MIT.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S.M. (1972). Goal Programming for Decision Analysis. Philadelphia, PA: Auerbach.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowski, A. (1989). “SCDAS — Decision Support System for Group Decision Making: Decision Theoretic Framework,” Decision Support Systems 5, 403-423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowski, A., and A. Wierzbicki. (1989). “Decision Support Systems Using Reference Point Optimization,” in A. Lewandowski and A. Wierzbicki (eds.), Aspiration Based Decision Support Systems. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, H.S., and T.W. Butler. (1992). “An Interactive Framework for Multi-Person, Multiobjective Decisions,” Decision Sciences 24, 1-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotfi, V., and J.E. Teich. (1991). “Multicriteria Decision Making using Personal Computers,” in P. Korhonen, A. Lewandowski, and J. Wallenius (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Support. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, J.G., and H. Simon. (1958). Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J., D. Vogel, A. Heminger, and B. Martz. (1989a). “Experiences at IBM with Group Support Systems: A Field Study,” Decision Support Systems 5, 183-196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J., D. Vogel, and B. Konsynski. (1989b). “Interaction of Task and Technology to Support Large Groups,” Decision Support Systems 5, 139-152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J., A. Dennis, J. Valacich, D. Vogel, and J. George. (1991). “Electronic Meeting Systems that Support Group Work,” Communications of the ACM 34, 42-61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogryczak, W., K. Studzinski, and K. Zorychta. (1991). “DINAS: A Computer Assisted Analysis System for Multiobjective Transshipment Problems with Facility Location,” Computers and Operations Research 19, 637-647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, M.S., M. Holmes, and G. DeSanctis. (1991). “Conflict Management in a Computer-Supported Meeting Environment,” Management Science 37(8), 926-953.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quaddus, M.A. (1993). Group Decision and Negotiation Support in Multiple Criteria Decision Making: An Interactive Approach. HICSS Proceedings.

  • Rao, V.S., and S.L. Jarvenpaa. (1991). “Computer Support of Groups: Theory-Based Models for GDSS Research,” Management Science 37, 1347-1362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rouse, W.G., and T.T. Sheridan. (1974). “Computer-Aided Group Decision Making: Theory and Practice,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics. Dallas, TX.

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sealey, C.W. (1977). “Commercial Bank Portfolio Management with Multiple Objectives,” Journal of Commercial Bank Lending 39-48.

  • Selten, R. (1972). “The Equity Principle in Economic Behavior,” in H.W. Gottinger, and W. Leinfender (eds.), Decision Theory and Social Choice. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steuer, R.E., and E.U. Choo. (1983). “An Interactive Weighted Tchebycheff Procedure for Multiple Objective Programming,” Mathematical Programming 26, 326-344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K.P. (1991). “Problem Restructuring in Negotiation,” Management Science 37(10), 1248-1268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teich, J. (1991). “Decision Support for Negotiations,” Ph.D. dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., and R. Haste. (1990). “Social Perception in Negotiation,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 47, 98-123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L., E. Mannix, and M. Bannerman. (1988). “Group Negotiation: Effects of Decision Rule, Agenda and Aspiration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 86-95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietz, R. (1983). Aspiration Levels in Bargaining and Decision Making. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tietz, R., and O.J. Bartos. (1983). “Balancing of Aspiration Levels in Bargaining,” in R. Tietz (ed.), Aspiration Levels and Economic Decision Making. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vinze, A.S. (1992). “Empirical Verification of Effectiveness for a Knowledge-Based System,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 37, 1-26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius, J. (1975). “Comparative Evaluation of Some Interactive Approaches to Multicriteria Optimization,” Management Science 21, 1387-1396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius, H. (1991). Implementing Interactive Multiple Criteria Decision Methods in Public Policy. Jyvaskyla, Finland: Jyvaskyla Studies in Computer Science, Economics and Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, H.F., and S.Y. Shen. (1989). “Group Decision Support with MOLP Applications,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 19, 143-153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki, A.P. (1982). “A Mathematical Basis for Satisficing Decision Making,” Mathematical Modelling 3, 391-405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki, A.P. (1984). “Interactive Decision Analysis and Interpretative Computer Intelligence,” in M. Grauer and A.P. Wierzbicki (eds.), Interactive Decision Analysis. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, P.-L. (1973). “A Class of Solutions for Group Decision Problems,” Management Science 19, 936-946.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahedi, F. (1986). “The AHP — A Survey of the Method and its Applications,” Interfaces 16, 96-108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zanakis, S.H., and S.K. Gupta. (1985). “A Categorized Bibliographic Survey of Goal Programming,” Omega 13(3), 211-222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1973). “Compromise Programming,” in J.L. Cochrane and M. Zeleny (eds.), Multiple Criteria Decision Making. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1974). “A concept of Compromise Solutions and the Method of the Displaced Ideal,” Computers and Operations Research 1, 479-496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeleny, M. (1982). Multiple Criteria Decision Making. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Business, Northeastern University, Tahlequah, OK, 74464

    Ann Davey

  2. Department of Business Analysis and Research, College of Business Administration, Texas A and M University, College Station, TX, 77843-4217, USA

    David Olson

Authors
  1. Ann Davey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David Olson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Davey, A., Olson, D. Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support. Group Decision and Negotiation 7, 55–75 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008675230233

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008675230233

Search

Navigation