Building a Shared Model for Multi-criteria Group Decision Making

Experience from a Case Study for Sustainable Transportation Planning in Quebec City
  • Francis Marleau Donais
  • Irène Abi-Zeid
  • Roxane Lavoie
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 293)

Abstract

Shared procedures to build a consensus within a group decision process are sometimes used in multi-criteria decision-making. Facilitators often face several challenges and the solutions to overcome them are scarce and not well documented. This paper presents a case study within a decision framework that combines problem structuring with the multi-criteria decision aid method MACBETH in order to build a shared preference model. The framework was applied in a transportation planning context with a group of professionals from Quebec City, Canada to assess and rank streets as a function of their potential to become Complete Streets. The analysis of the process showed that difficulties in expressing preferences, access to data during workshops, group size, group discussion management, and project length were encountered. Nonetheless, the proposed framework and the use of sub-groups to build criteria scales were a way to overcome these challenges and allowed us to successfully complete the project.

Keywords

Group decision-making MACBETH Problem structuring Preference modelling MCDM Case study 

References

  1. 1.
    Belton, V., Stewart, T.J.: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Belton, V., Stewart, T.: Problem structuring and multiple criteria decision analysis. In: Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J.R., Greco, S. (eds.) Trends in Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis, vol. 142, pp. 209–239. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Franco, L.A., Montibeller, G.: Problem structuring for multicriteria decision analysis interventions. Wiley Encycl. Oper. Res. Manag. Sci. (2010). doi:10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0683 Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Belton, V., Pictet, J.: A framework for group decision using a MCDA model: sharing, aggregating or comparing individual information? J. Decis. Syst. 6, 283–303 (1997). doi:10.1080/12460125.1997.10511726 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alencar, L.H., de Almeida, A.T., Morais, D.C.: A multicriteria group decision model aggregating the preferences of decision-makers based on ELECTRE methods. Pesqui. Oper. 30, 687–702 (2010). doi:10.1590/S0101-74382010000300010 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brans, J.-P., Mareschal, B.: Promethee methods. In: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 78. Springer, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Escobar, M.T., Moreno-Jiménez, J.M.: Aggregation of individual preference structures in AHP-group decision making. Group Decis. Negot. 16, 287–301 (2007). doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9050-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Macharis, C., Turcksin, L., Lebeau, K.: Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: state of use. Decis. Supp. Syst. 54, 610–620 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Damart, S.: A cognitive mapping approach to organizing the participation of multiple actors in a problem structuring process. Group Decis. Negot. 19, 505–526 (2010). doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9141-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haezendonck, E.: Introduction: transport project evaluation in a complex European and institutional environment. In: Transport Project Evaluation Extending the Social Cost-Benefit Approach. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Glos, UK; Northampton, MA, pp. 1–8 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    McCann, B.: Completing Our Streets: The Transition to Safe and Inclusive Transportation Networks. Island Press, Washington (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marleau Donais, F., Lavoie, R., Abi-Zeid, I., Delisle, J.-P.: Évaluation du potentiel des rues à être aménagées en rues conviviales - Une approche par analyse multicritère. 61 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Franco, L.A.: Rethinking Soft OR interventions: models as boundary objects. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 231, 720–733 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2013.06.033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bana e Costa, C.A., De Corte, J.-M., Vansnick, J.-C.: MACBETH. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Decis. Mak. 11, 359–387 (2012). doi:10.1142/S0219622012400068 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Keeney, R.L.: Developing objectives and attributes. In: Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications. Cambridge University Press, pp. 104–128 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsoukiàs, A.: From decision theory to decision aiding methodology. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 187, 138–161 (2008). doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.02.039 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cmap. CmapTools. In: Cmap (2017). http://cmap.ihmc.us/cmaptools/. Accessed 9 Jan 2017
  18. 18.
    Ferretti, V., Montibeller, G.: Key challenges and meta-choices in designing and applying multi-criteria spatial decision support systems. Decis. Supp. Syst. 84, 41–52 (2016). doi:10.1016/j.dss.2016.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Phillips, L.D.: Decision conferencing. In: Edwards, W., Miles, R.F.J., von Winterfeldt, D. (eds.) Advances in Decision Analysis: From Foundations to Applications, pp. 375–399. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Francis Marleau Donais
    • 1
  • Irène Abi-Zeid
    • 2
  • Roxane Lavoie
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Land Management and Regional PlanningUniversité LavalQuébecCanada
  2. 2.Department of Operations and Decision SystemsUniversité LavalQuébecCanada

Personalised recommendations