The Analysis of Interconnected Decision Areas: A Computational Approach to Finding All Feasible Solutions

  • Ion GeorgiouEmail author
  • Joaquim Heck
  • Andrej Mrvar


This paper provides a method for finding the complete set of feasible solutions to a problematic situation, whose structure is that of a network amenable to the analytical approach known as “analysis of interconnected decision areas”, or AIDA. In doing so, the paper not only resolves a long-standing computational problem, but also offers means for examining all solutions in either lists or diagrams, thus empowering decision-makers to make informed judgments as to how to tackle an entire problem or its subsets. The analytical advantage of using a signed graph in AIDA computations is demonstrated, proffering an innovative contribution to the approach. The paper concludes by identifying potentially fruitful avenues of future research as well as interdisciplinary opportunities.


Computational model Computer supported design Networks Decision-making Pajek software 


  1. Ackoff R (1967) Management misinformation systems. Manag Sci 14(4):B147–B156Google Scholar
  2. Aho AV, Hopcroft JE, Ullmann JD (1974) The design and analysis of computer algorithms. Addison-Wesley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Aldous JM, Wilson RJ (2000) Graphs and applications: an introductory approach. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. Banxia (2005) Decision explorer online reference. Version 3.3. Banxia Software Limited, KendalGoogle Scholar
  5. Barnard JM (1993) Substructure searching methods: old and new. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 33(4):532–538Google Scholar
  6. Batagelj V (1991) Some mathematics of network analysis. Network seminar, Department of Sociology, University of PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  7. Batagelj V (2003) Efficient algorithms for citation network analysis. University of Ljubljana, Institute of Mathematics, Physics and Mechanics, Department of Theoretical Computer Science, Preprint Series, 41, 1–27 (arXiv:cs/0309023v1, 14 September)
  8. Batagelj V, Cerinšek M (2013) On bibliographic networks. Scientometrics 96(3):845–864Google Scholar
  9. Batagelj V, Mrvar A (1998) Pajek: a program for large network analysis. Connections 21(2):47–57Google Scholar
  10. Batagelj V, Mrvar A (2008) Analysis of kinship relations with Pajek. Soc Sci Comput Rev 26(2):224–246Google Scholar
  11. Batagelj V, Mrvar A (2014) Pajek. In: Alhajj R, Rokne J (eds) Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining. New York: Springer, pp 1245–1256. [Also see the latest version online: Batagelj V, Mrvar A (2018) Pajek and PajekXXL. In: Alhajj R, Rokne J (eds) Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining. Springer, New York. Accessed 14 Oct 2018
  12. Batagelj V, Zaversnik M (2011) Fast algorithms for determining (generalized) core groups in social networks. Adv Data Anal Classif 59(2):129–145Google Scholar
  13. Batagelj V, Doreian P, Ferligoj A, Kejžar N (2014) Understanding large temporal networks and spatial networks: exploration, pattern searching, visualization and network evolution. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  14. Bayazit N, Esin N, Ozsoy A (1981) Integrative approach to design techniques. Des Stud 2(4):215–223Google Scholar
  15. Blandford S, Hope RP (1985) Systematic methods for the problem solving process with particular reference to design. IEE Proc A Phys Sci Meas Instrum Manag Educ Rev 132(4):199–212Google Scholar
  16. Bonnici V, Giugno R, Pulvirenti A, Shasha D, Ferro A (2013) A subgraph isomorphism algorithm and its application to biochemical data. BMC Bioinform 14(7):S13Google Scholar
  17. Brualdi RA (2018) Introductory combinatorics. Fifth edition [2018 reissue]. Pearson, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Burbidge JL (1973) AIDA and group technology. Int J Prod Res 11(4):315–324Google Scholar
  19. Cartwright D, Harary F (1956) Structural balance: a generalization of Heider’s theory. Psychol Rev 63(5):277–293Google Scholar
  20. Chartrand G (1977) Introductory graph theory. Dover, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. Cohen MN (1995) Lewis carroll: a biography. Alfred A. Knopf, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Conte D, Foggia P, Sansone C, Vento M (2004) Thirty years of graph matching in pattern recognition. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 18(03):265–298Google Scholar
  23. Cook DJ, Holder LB (2007) Mining graph data. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  24. de Nooy W, Mrvar A, Batagelj V (2018) Exploratory social network analysis with Pajek. Revised and expanded edition for updated software: third edition. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Dorst K, Royakkers L (2006) The design analogy: a model for moral problem solving. Des Stud 27(6):633–656Google Scholar
  26. e Costa CAB, Lourenço JC, Oliveira MD, e Costa JCB (2014) A socio-technical approach for group decision support in public strategic planning: the Pernambuco PPA case. Group Decis Negot 23(1):5–29Google Scholar
  27. Eppstein D (1999) Subgraph isomorphism in planar graphs and related problems. J Graph Algorithms Appl 3(3):1–27Google Scholar
  28. Fillmore J, Williamson S (1974) On backtracking: a combinatorial description of the algorithm. Soc Ind Appl Math J Comput 3(1):41–55Google Scholar
  29. Foggia P, Percannella G, Vento M (2014) Graph matching and learning in pattern recognition in the last 10 years. Int J Pattern Recognit Artif Intell 28(01):1450001Google Scholar
  30. Friend J (1989) The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead J (ed) Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 121–157Google Scholar
  31. Friend J (1992) New directions in software for strategic choice. Eur J Oper Res 61(1–2):154–164Google Scholar
  32. Friend J (2001) The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 115–149Google Scholar
  33. Friend J (2014) Starting to build a useful science of public policy choice. Operational Research Society, Document Repository, IOR Legacy Section. Birmingham: West Midlands. Available at the following URL: Accessed 26 Nov 2018
  34. Friend J, Hickling A (2005) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 3rd edn. Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Friend J, Norris ME, Stringer J (1988) The institute for operational research: an initiative to extend the scope of OR. J Oper Res Soc 39(8):705–713Google Scholar
  36. Friend D, Friend J, Cushman M (2002) STRAD: the STRategic ADviser, version 2.3 for Windows, release 2.30 July 2002. User’s Manual. Stradspan Limited, SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  37. Gat D, Gonen A (1981) Orientation map for planning and design methods. Des Stud 2(3):171–175Google Scholar
  38. Golomb SW, Baumert LD (1965) Backtrack programming. J Assoc Comput Mach 12(4):516–524Google Scholar
  39. Hage P, Harary F (1983) Structural models in anthropology. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Harary F (1957) Structural duality. Behav Sci 2(4):255–265Google Scholar
  41. Harary F (1969) Graph theory. Addison Wesley, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  42. Harary F, Jessop N, Luckman J, Stringer J (1965) Analysis of interconnected decision areas: an algorithm for project development. Nature 206(4979):118Google Scholar
  43. Hickling A (1978) AIDA and the levels of choice in structure plans. Town Plan Rev 49(4):459–475Google Scholar
  44. Hope RP, Sharp JA (1989) The use of two planning decision support systems in combination for the redesign of an MBA information technology programme. Comput Oper Res 16(4):325–332Google Scholar
  45. Hsiao S-W, Chou J-R (2004) A creativity-based design process for innovative product design. Int J Ind Ergon 34(5):421–443Google Scholar
  46. Hsiao S-W, Chuang JC (2003) A reverse engineering based approach for product form design. Des Stud 24(2):155–171Google Scholar
  47. Jones JC (1970/1992) Design methods, second edition. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  48. Jones JC (1979) Designing designing. Des Stud 1(1):31–35Google Scholar
  49. Kammeier H (1998) A computer-aided strategic approach to decision making in urban planning: an exploratory case study in Thailand. Cities 15(2):105–119Google Scholar
  50. Kirsh D (2000) A few thoughts on cognitive overload. Intellectica 30(1):19–51Google Scholar
  51. Knuth D (1997) The art of computer programming: volume 1, fundamental algorithms, 3rd edn. Addison Wesley, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  52. Knuth D (2015) The art of computer programming: volume 4, satisfiability, fascicle 6. Addison Wesley, BostonGoogle Scholar
  53. Krissinel EB, Henrick K (2004) Common subgraph isomorphism detection by backtracking search. Softw: Pract Exp 34(6):591–607Google Scholar
  54. Larrosa J, Valiente G (2002) Constraint satisfaction algorithms for graph pattern matching. Math Struct Comput Sci 12(4):403–422Google Scholar
  55. Luckman J (1967) An approach to the management of design. OR 18(4):345–358Google Scholar
  56. Norese MF, Rolando D, Fregonara E (2015) Integration of problem structuring methods: a methodological proposal for complex regional decision-making processes. Int J Decision Support Syst Technol 7(2):58–83Google Scholar
  57. Phahlamohlaka J, Friend J (2004) Community planning for rural education in South Africa. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):684–695Google Scholar
  58. Randic M (1978) Fragment search in acyclic structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 18(2):101–107Google Scholar
  59. Randic M, Wilkins CL (1979) Graph-based fragment searches in polycyclic structures. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 19(1):23–31Google Scholar
  60. Rosenhead J (1996) What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26(6):117–131Google Scholar
  61. Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisted: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  62. Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  63. Schoch D (2015) A positional approach for network centrality. Dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Natural Sciences, Department of Computer and Information Science, Universität Konstanz. Available at the following URL: Accessed 11 Oct 2018
  64. Schoch D, Brandes U (2016) Re-conceptualizing centrality in social networks. Eur J Appl Math 27(6):971–985Google Scholar
  65. Sharifzadegan MH, Fathi H, Zamanian R (2014) Using strategic choice approach in urban regeneration planning (Case study: Dolatkhah area in Tehran, Iran). Int J Archit Urban Dev 4(2):45–52Google Scholar
  66. Smith RP, Morrow JA (1999) Product development process modeling. Des Stud 20(3):237–261Google Scholar
  67. Stradspan Ltd. (2014) and Retrieved 10 Feb 2018
  68. Tarjan RE (1972) Depth-first search and linear graph algorithms. Soc Ind Appl Math J Comput 1(2):146–160Google Scholar
  69. Todella E, Lami IM, Armando A (2018) Experimental use of strategic choice approach (SCA) by individuals as an architectural design tool. Group Decision and Negotiation (online pending print publication)
  70. Tsang E (1993) Foundations of constraint satisfaction. Academic Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Vento M (2015) A long trip in the charming world of graphs for pattern recognition. Pattern Recognit 48(2):291–301Google Scholar
  72. Weas A, Campbell M (2004) Rediscovering the analysis of interconnected decision areas. Artif Intell Eng Des Anal Manuf 18(3):227–243Google Scholar
  73. Wells MB (1971) Elements of combinatorial computing. Pergamon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  74. Willett P, Barnard JM, Downs GM (1998) Chemical similarity searching. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 38(6):983–996Google Scholar
  75. Wilson B (2001) Soft systems methodology: conceptual model building and its contribution. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  76. Wu F-G, Sun H-H, Lin Y-C (2015) Innovative aid design of moving kitchenware for elders. Procedia Manuf 3:6266–6273Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departamento de Informática e Métodos Quantitativos (IMQ)Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV), Escola de Administração de Empresas de São Paulo (EAESP)São PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Faculty of Social SciencesUniversity of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations