Group Decision Making
Although many decisions are made, not by individuals, but in groups such as boards, councils, and committees, the MCDA literature pays little attention to group decision making. Particularly the power relations in groups are overlooked. There is always a power game, however. In national decision-making bodies each member seems to have a weight which is proportional to the size of the organization which he/she represents. In international decision-making bodies the weights of the members are related to the population size or the Gross National Product of the respective countries. Alternatives which are weakly supported by the powerful members have therefore little chance of being adopted by the group, even when MCDA reveals a high degree of support for them under the erroneous assumption that all members have equal weights.
KeywordsGroup Decision Criterion Weight Compromise Solution Impact Score Weighted Vote
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References to Chapter 6
- 2.Barzilai, J., and Lootsma, F.A., “Power Relations and Group Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 6, 155–165, 1997. In the same issue there are comments by O.I. Larichev (p. 166), P. Korhonen (pp. 167–168), and L.G. Vargas (pp. 169–170), as well as a response by F.A. Lootsma and J. Barzilai (pp. 171 — 174).MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 3.Bueno de Mesquita, B., and Stokman, F.N., “European Community Decision Making”. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 1994.Google Scholar
- 4.Galbraith, J.K., “The Anatomy of Power”. Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, 1983.Google Scholar
- 5.Heller, F.A., and Wilpert, B., “Competence and Power in Managerial Decision Making”. Wiley, New York, 1981.Google Scholar
- 9.LaPlante, A., “Nineties Style Brainstorming”. Technology Supplement to Forbes Magazine, October 25, pp. 44–61, 1993.Google Scholar
- 12.Mintzberg, H., “Power in and around Organizations”. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1983.Google Scholar
- 13.Radford, K.J., “Individual and Small Group Decisions”. Springer, New York, 1989.Google Scholar
- 15.Roy, B., and Vanderpooten, D., “The European School of MCDA: Emergence, Basic Features, and Current Works”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 5, 22–37, 1996. In the same volume there is a comment by F.A. Lootsma (pp. 37–39) as well as a response by B. Roy and D. Vanderpooten (pp. 165–166).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Spillman, B., Spillman, R., and Bezdek, J., “A Fuzzy Analysis of Consensus in Small Groups”. In P.P. Wang and S.K. Chang (eds.), “Fuzzy Sets, Theory and Applications to Policy Analysis and Information Systems”. Plenum, New York, 1980, pp. 291–308.Google Scholar
- 18.Walker, W., Abrahamse, A., Bolten, J., Kahan, J.P., Riet, O. van de, Kok, M, and Braber, M. den, “A Policy Analysis of Dutch River Dike Improvements: Trading Off Safety, Cost, and Environmental Impacts”. Operations Research 42, 823–836, 1994.Google Scholar