Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On the concept of decision aiding process: an operational perspective

  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The paper presents the concept of decision aiding process as an extension of the decision process. The aim of the paper is to analyse the type of activities occurring between a “client” and an “analyst” both engaged in a decision process. The decision aiding process is analysed both under a cognitive point of view and an operational point of view: i.e. considering the “products”, or cognitive artifacts the process will deliver at the end. Finally the decision aiding process is considered as a reasoning process for which the update and revision problems hold.

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

  • Abualsamh, R. A., Carlin, B., & McDaniel, R. R. (1990). Problem structuring heuristics in strategic decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 45, 159–174.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allais, M. (1979). The so-called Allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty. In O. Hagen & M. Allais (Eds.), Expected Utility Hypotheses and the Allais Paradox (pp. 437–681). Reidel: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa, C. A. (1996). Les problématiques de l’aide à la décision: vers l’enrichissement de la trilogie choix-tri-rangement. RAIRO/ Recherche Opérationnelle, 30(2), 191–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa, C. A., Ensslin, L., Correa, E. C., & Vansnick, J.-C. (1999). Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. European Journal of Operational Research, 113, 315–335.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banville, C., Landry, M., Martel, J.-M., & Boulaire, C. (1998). A stakeholder approach to MCDA. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 15, 15–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, D., Raiffa, H., & Tversky, A. (1988). Decision making: descriptive, normative, and prescriptive interactions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton, V., & Stewart, T. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton, V., Ackermann, F., & Shepherd, I. (1997). Integrated support from problem structuring through alternative evaluation using COPE and V-I-S-A. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6, 115–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson, K. J. (1975). The interorganizational network as a political economy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 20, 229–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, Th. (1966). The social construction of reality: a treatise its the sociology of knowledge. New York: Garden City.

    Google Scholar 

  • Binbasioglu, M. (2000). Problem structuring support for collaboration and problem solving. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 40, 54–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borcherding, K., Eppel, T., & von Winterfeldt, D. (1991). Comparison of weighting judgments in multiattribute utility measurement. Management Science, 37(12), 1603–1619.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukiàs, A., & Vincke, Ph. (2000). Evaluation and decision models: a critical perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Tsoukiàs, A., & Vincke, Ph. (2007). Evaluation and decision models: stepping stones for the analyst. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

  • Brailsford, S. C., Potts, C. N., & Smith, B. M. (1999). Constraint satisfaction problems: algorithms and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 119, 557–581.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. V. (1989). Toward a prescriptive science and technology of decision aiding. Annals of Operations Research, 19, 467–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, R. V., & Vári, A. (1992). Towards a research agenda for prescriptive decision science: the normative tempered by the descriptive. Acta Psychologica, 1–3, 33–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchanan, J., Henig, E. J., & Henig, M. (1998). Objectivity and subjectivity in the decision making process. Annals of Operations Research, 80, 333–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capurso, E., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2003). Decision aiding and psychotherapy. Bulletin of the EURO Working Group on MCDA, Fall 2003. Available on line at http://www.inescc.pt/~ewgmcda.

  • Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland, P., & Scholes, J. (1990). Soft systems methodology in action. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chu, P., Moskowitz, H., & Wong, R. T. (1988). Robust interactive decision-analysis (RID): an overview. Acta Psychologica, 68, 255–269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olson, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, J., Buchanan, J., & Henig, M. (2001). Dynamic decision problem structuring. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 10(3), 129–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Courtney, J. F., & Paradice, D. B. (1993). Studies in managerial problem formulation systems. Decision Support Systems, 9, 413–423.

    Google Scholar 

  • David, A. (2001). Models implementation: a state of the art. European Journal of Operational Research, 134, 459–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi, B., Funtowicz, S. O., Lo Cascio, S., & Munda, G. (2000). Combining participative and institutional approaches with multicriteria evaluation, an empirical study for water issues in Troina, Sicily. Ecological Economics, 34, 267–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dias, L. C., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2004). On the constructive and other approaches in decision aiding. In C. A. Hengeller, J. Figueira & J. Clímaco (Eds.), Proceedings of the 56th meeting of the EURO MCDA working group (pp. 13–28). CCDRC, Coimbra, October 2004.

  • Eden, C. (1988). Cognitive mapping. European Journal of Operational Research, 36, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C. (1994). Cognitive mapping and problem structuring for system dynamics model building. System Dynamics Review, 10, 257–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., Jones, S., & Sims, D. (1983). Messing about in problems. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1970). Utility theory for decision making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishburn, P. C. (1982). Nontransitive measurable utility. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 26, 31–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • French, S. (1988). Decision theory—an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Chichester: Ellis Horwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friend, J. K., & Hickling, A. (1987). Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genard, J.-L., & Pirlot, M. (2002). Multiple criteria decision aid in a philosophical perspective. In D. Boyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagrèze, P. Perny, R. Slowinski, D. Vanderpooten & Ph. Vincke (Eds.), Aiding decisions with multiple criteria: essays in honour of Bernard Roy (pp. 89–117). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1990). Logic of the social sciences. Boston: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A. (2001). Towards design theory and expandable rationality: the unfinished program of Herbert Simon. Journal of Management and Governance, 5, 260–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hatchuel, A., & Molet, M. (1986). Rational modelling in understanding and aiding human decision making: about two case studies. European Journal of Operational Research, 24, 178–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, P. C., Svenson, O., & Vári, A. (1983). Analysis and aiding decision processes. Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1981). Judgement under uncertainty—heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakas, A. C., Mancarella, P., & Dung, P. M. (1994). The acceptability semantics for logic programs. In Proceedings of ICLP94 (pp. 504–519).

  • Keeney, R. L. (1992). Value-focused thinking. A path to creative decision making. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, L. R., & Ho, J. L. (1988). Decision problem structuring: generating options. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 18, 715–728.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kouvelis, P., & Yu, G. (1997). Robust discrete optimization and its applications. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacan, J. (1968). The language of the self: the function of language in psychoanalysis. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacan, J. (1995). Écrits. Paris: Seuil. First edition in 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, M. (1995). A note on the concept of problem. Organization Studies, 16, 315–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, M., Malouin, J. L., & Oral, M. (1983a). Model validation in operations research. European Journal of Operational Research, 14, 207–220.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, M., Pascot, D., & Briola, D. (1983b). Can DSS evolve without changing our view of the concept of problem? Decision Support Systems, 1, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landry, M., Banville, C., & Oral, M. (1996). Model legitimisation in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 92, 443–457.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larichev, O. I., & Moshkovich, H. M. (1995). Unstructured problems and development of prescriptive decision making methods. In P. Pardalos, Y. Siskos & H. Zopounidis (Eds.), Advances in multicriteria analysis (pp. 47–80). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lehaney, B., Martin, S., & Clarke, S. (1997). A review of problem structuring methodologies. Systemist, 19, 11–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacGregor, D. G., Lichtenstein, S., Baron, J., & Bossuyt, P. (1991). Problem structuring aids for quantitative estimation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4, 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackenzie, K. (1986). Virtual positions and power. Management Science, 32, 622–642.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masser, I. (1983). The representation of urban planning-processes: an exploratory review. Environment and Planning B, 10, 47–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Massey, A. P., & Wallace, W. A. (1996). Understanding and facilitating group problem structuring and formulation: mental representations, interaction, and representation aids. Decision Support Systems, 17, 253–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maturana, M. R., & Varela, F. J. (1984). Autopoiesis and cognition. Dordrecht: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152, 530–554.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., & Théoret, A. (1976). The structure of unstructured decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 246–272.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, H. (1983). Decision rules and the search for a dominance structure: towards a process models of decision making. In P. C. Humphreys, O. Svenson & A. Vári (Eds.), Analysing and aiding decision processes (pp. 343–369). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Montgomery, H., & Svenson, O. (1976). On decision rules and information processing strategies for choices among multiattribute alternatives. Skandinavian Journal of Psychology, 17, 283–291.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moraïtis, P., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2003). Decision aiding and argumentation, 2003. Presented at EUMAS-03 Workshop. Available on line at http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/~tsoukias/recent.html.

  • Mousseau, V. (1995). Eliciting information concerning the relative importance of criteria. In P. Pardalos, Y. Siskos & C. Zopounidis (Eds.), Advances in multicriteria analysis (pp. 17–43). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau, V. (1997). Compensatoriness of preferences in matching and choice. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences, 22(1), 3–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mousseau, V., Dias, L. C., Figueira, J., Gomes, C., & Clímaco, J. N. (2003). Resolving inconsistencies among constraints on the parameters of an MCDA model. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 72–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newstead, S. E., Thompson, V. A., & Handley, S. J. (2002). Generating alternatives: a key component in human reasoning? Memory and Cognition, 30, 129–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norese, M. F. (1988). A multidimensional model by a multiactor system. In B. R. Munier & M. F. Shakun (Eds.), Compromise, negotiation and group decision (pp. 263–276). Reidel: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norese, M. F. (1996). A process perspective and multicriteria approach in decision-aiding contexts. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis, 5, 133–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norese, M. F., & Ostanello, A. (1984). Planning processes and technician interventions: an integrated approach. Sistemi Urbani, 2, 247–259.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norese, M. F., & Ostanello, A. (1989). Identification and development of alternatives: introduction to the recognition of process typologies. In A. G. Lockett & G. Islei (Eds.), LNEMS: Vol. 335. Improving decision making in organisations (pp. 112–123). Springer: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. (1984). Types of organizational decision processes. Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 414–450.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostanello, A. (1990). Action evaluation and action structuring—different decision aid situations reviewed through two actual cases. In C. A. Bana e Costa (Ed.), Readings in multiple criteria decision aid (pp. 36–57). Springer: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostanello, A. (1997). Validation aspects of a prototype solution implementation to solve a complex MC problem. In J. N. Clímaco (Ed.), Multicriteria analysis (pp. 61–74). Springer: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ostanello, A., & Tsoukiàs, A. (1993). An explicative model of ‘public’ interorganizational interactions. European Journal of Operational Research, 70, 67–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paschetta, E., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2000). A real world MCDA application: evaluating software. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 9, 205–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pidd, M. (1988). From problem-structuring to implementation. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 39, 115–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poulton, E. C. (1994). Behavioral decision theory: a new approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raiffa, H. (1970). Decision analysis—introductory lectures on choices under uncertainty. Addison–Wesley: Reading. Traduction française: Analyse de la décision: introduction aux choix en avenir incertain, Dunod, 1973

    Google Scholar 

  • Rios Insua, D., & Martin, J. (1991). On the foundations of robust decision making. In S. Rios (Ed.), Decision theory and decision analysis: trends and challenges (pp. 103–111). Kluwer Academic: Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead, J. (1989). Rational analysis of a problematic world. New York: Wiley. 2nd revised edition in 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1993). Decision science or decision-aid science? European Journal of Operational Research, 66, 184–203.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1998). A missing link in OR-DA, robustness analysis. Foundation of Control Engineering, 23(3), 141–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B., & Bouyssou, D. (1993). Aide multicritère à la décision: méthodes et cas. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savage, L. J. (1954). The foundations of statistics. New York: Wiley. Second revised edition, 1972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffer, G. (1988). Savage revisited. In D. Bell, H. Raiffa & A. Tversky (Eds.), Decision making: descriptive, normative and prescriptive interactions (pp. 193–235). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shakun, M. F. (1991). Airline buyout: evolutionary systems design and problem restructuring in group decision and negotiation. Management Science, 37, 1291–1303.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. A. (1947). Administrative behaviour: a study of decision making processes in administrative organizations. New York: Mac Millan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., & Lichtenstein, S. (1983). Preference reversals: a broader perspective. American Economic Review, 73, 596–605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slovic, P., & Tversky, A. (1974). Who accepts Savage’s axiom? Behavioral Science, 19, 368–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. F. (1988). Towards a heuristic theory of problem structuring. Management Science, 34, 1489–1506.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. F. (1989). Representational effects on the solving of an unstructured decision problem. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 19, 1083–1090.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamelos, I., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2003). Software evaluation problem situations. European Journal of Operational Research, 145, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1996). Decision making and the search for fundamental psychological regularities: what can we learn from a process perspective? Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 65, 252–267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sycara, K. (1991). Problem restructuring in negotiation. Management Science, 37, 1248–1268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukiàs, A. (2003). From decision theory to decision aiding methodology. Technical report, 2003-21, DIMACS, Rutgers University, to appear in European Journal of Operational Research.

  • Tversky, A. (1969). Intransitivity of preferences. Psychological Review, 76, 31–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1972). Elimination by aspects: a theory of choice. Psychological Review, 79, 281–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1977). On the elicitation of preferences: descriptive and prescriptive considerations. In D. Bell, R. L. Keeney & H. Raiffa (Eds.), Conflicting objectives in decisions (pp. 209–222). Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderpooten, D. (2002). Modelling in decision aiding. In D. Bouyssou, E. Jacquet-Lagrèze, P. Perny, R. Slowinski, D. Vanderpooten & Ph. Vincke (Eds.), Aiding decisions with multiple criteria: essays in honour of Bernard Roy (pp. 195–210). Kluwer Academic: Dordrecht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vári, A., & Vescenyi, J. (1983). Pitfalls of decision analysis: examples of r and d planning. In Analysing and aiding decision processes (pp. 183—195). North Holland: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, Ph. (1992). Multicriteria decision-aid. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, Ph. (1999a). Robust and neutral methods for aggregating preferences into an outranking relation. European Journal of Operational Research, 112(2), 405–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, Ph. (1999b). Robust solutions and methods in decision aid. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 8(3), 181–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Second edition in 1947, third in 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavorial research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wakker, P. P. (1989). Additive representations of preferences—a new foundation of decision analysis. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Beavin, J. H., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication. New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change; principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, E. U., & Çoskunoǧlu, O. (1990). Descriptive and prescriptive models of decision making: implications for the development of decision aid. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Mans and Cybernetics, 20, 310–317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M., & Borcherding, K. (1993). Behavioral influences on weight judgments in multiattribute decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 67, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, H.-Y., & Rosenhead, J. (2000). A rigorous definition of robustness analysis. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 51, 176–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolley, R. N., & Pidd, M. (1981). Problem structuring: a literature review. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 32, 197–206.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LAMSADE—CNRS, Université Paris Dauphine, 75775, Paris, Cedex 16, France

    Alexis Tsoukiàs

Authors
  1. Alexis Tsoukiàs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexis Tsoukiàs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tsoukiàs, A. On the concept of decision aiding process: an operational perspective. Ann Oper Res 154, 3–27 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0187-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-007-0187-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation