Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Criteria for Evaluating Group Decision-Making Methods

  • Chapter
Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 95))

5. Conclusion

This paper has brought many criteria and many methods under one umbrella. We believe that our schematization is a good start and may eventually be improved upon in subsequent revisions and extensions of the criteria used and in debating the importance of these criteria and the accuracy with which they are used to evaluate the methods of MCDM.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 109.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Argyris, C. (1977, Sept–Oct). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review. 115–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Argyris, C. (1990). Integrating the Individual and the Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basadur, M., Ellspermann, S. J. & Evans, G. W. (1994). A new methodology for formulating ill-structured problems. Omega. (22)6. 627–645.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brightman, H. J. (1980). Problem Solving: A logical and creative approach. Business Publishing Division, College of Business Administration, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brightman, H. J. (1988). Group Problem Solving: An improved managerial approach. Atlanta, GA: Business Publishing Division, Georgia State University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camillus, J. C. & Datta, D. K. (1991, April). Managing strategic issues in a turbulent environment. Long Range Planning, (24)2. 67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ching, Lai Wang and Ming Jeng Lin. (1987). Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria: Methods and Applications (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems. no.281). Beckmann, M. & Krelle, W. (eds.). Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corner, J., Buchanan, J. & Henig, M. (2001, May–June). Dynamic Decision Problem Structuring. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 10(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Couger, J. D. (1995). Creative Problem Solving and Opportunity Finding. Boyd & Fraser Publishing Company, An International Thomson Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delbecq, A. 1., Van de Ven, A. H. & Gustafson, D. H. (1975). Group Techniques for Program Planning: a guide to nominal group and delphi process. Scott, Foresman and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dummett, M. (1984). Voting Procedures. Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiedler, F. E. (1973). The trouble with leadership is that it doesn’t train leaders. Psychology Today. 92. 23–29.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gustafson, D. H., Shukla, R. M., Delbecq, A. L. & Walster, G. W. (1973). A comparative study of differences in subjective likelihood estimates made by individuals, interacting groups, Delphi groups, and Nominal groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 9. 280–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larichev, Oleg I. & Brown, Rex V. (2000). Numerical and Verbal Decision Analysis: Comparison on Practical Cases. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Vol. 9, Issue 6. Nov. 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created “social climate. Journal of Social Psychology. 10. 271–299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linstone, H. A. & Turoff, M. (eds.). (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and applications. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Advanced Book Program.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luce, R.D. & Suppes, P. (1964). Preference, Utility and Subjective Probability.” In Handbook of Mathematical Psychology Vol. 3, New York. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machina M. J. (1987, Summer). Choice under uncertainty: Problems solved and unsolved. Economic Perspectives. (1)1. 121–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marquart, D. I. (1955). Group Problem Solving. Journal of Social Psychology. 41. 103–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyamoto, J. M. (1992). Generic analysis of utility models, in Edwards, N. (ed.). Utility Theories: Measurements and Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary, D. H. & O’Leary, J. H. (1984). The use of conjoint analysis in the determination of goal programming weights for a decision support system, in Y. Y. Haimes and Chankong, V. (eds.) Decision Making with Multiple Objectives. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, A. F. (1957). Applied Imagination. Scribners.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pascale, R. T. (1991, March), “The Two Faces of Learning,” Modern Office Technology. (36)3, 14, 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan-Cirincione, P. (1994). Improving the accuracy of group judgment: A process intervention combining group facilitation, social judgment analysis, and information technology. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 58. 246–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B & Bouyssau, D. (1985). Comparison of multiattribute utility and an outranking model applied to a nuclear power plant siting example. Haimes and Chankong (eds.). Decision Making with Multiple Objectives. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1990). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation, and (2001). Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T.L. (2003). Time Dependent Decision-Making; Dynamic Priorities In AHP/ANP Generalizing From Points To Functions And From Real To Complex Variables. Proceedings of the 7* International Symposium on the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Bali, Indonesia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoemaker, P. J. H. and Waid, C. C. (1982, February). An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models. Management Science. (28)2. 182–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seo, F. (1985). Multiattribute utility analysis and collective choice: A methodological review. Haimes and Chankong (eds.). Decision Making with Multiple Objectives. Springer-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M. E. (1932). A comparison of individuals and small groups in the rational solution of complex problems. American Journal of Psychology. 44. 491–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, H. (1957). Models of Man. New York: John Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Svenson, O. (1998, Nov.). Letter to the Editor. Multi-criteria Decision Aids and Human Decision making: Two Worlds?. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 7(6).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swap, W.C. & Associates (1984). Group Decision Making. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, D. W. and Faust, W. L. (1952). Twenty questions: Efficiency of problem solving as a function of the size of the group. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 44. 360–363.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J. B., McDaniel, Jr., & Dooris, M. J. (1989). Strategic issue analysis: NGT + decision analysis for resolving strategic issues. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. (25)2. 189–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urli, B. & Nadeau, R. (1999, Jan.). Evolution of Multi-criteria Analysis: A Scientometric Analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 8(1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke, P. (1982). Multicriteria Decision Aid. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wensley, R. (1994, January). Making better decisions. International Journal of Research in Marketing. (11)1. 85–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki, A. (1997, March). On the Role of Intuition in Decision Making and Some ways of Multicriteria Aid of Intuition. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 6(2).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Kirti Peniwati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Peniwati, K. (2006). Criteria for Evaluating Group Decision-Making Methods. In: Decision Making with the Analytic Network Process. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 95. Springer, Boston, MA . https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-33987-6_13

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation