Multiple Criteria Decision Making Models in Group Decision Support

Ann Davey and David Olson
Additional contact information
Ann Davey: Northeastern University
David Olson: Texas A and M University, College Station

Group Decision and Negotiation, 1998, vol. 7, issue 1, No 5, 55-75

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: analytic hierarchy process; goal programming; group decision support systems (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 1998
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1023/A:1008675230233 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:grdene:v:7:y:1998:i:1:d:10.1023_a:1008675230233

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/journal/10726/PS2

DOI: 10.1023/A:1008675230233

Access Statistics for this article

Group Decision and Negotiation is currently edited by Gregory E. Kersten

More articles in Group Decision and Negotiation from Springer
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().