Skip to main content

Part of the book series: Applied Optimization ((APOP,volume 29))

  • 713 Accesses

Abstract

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.

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

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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 to Chapter 6

  1. Aczél, J., and Saaty, Th.L., “Procedures for Synthesizing Ratio Judgements”. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27, 93–102, 1983.

    Article  MATH  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  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).

    Article  MATH  Google 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 

  6. Hofstede, G., “Management Scientists are Human”. Management Science 40, 4–13, 1994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Honert, R. van den, and Lootsma, F.A., “Group Preference Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP. The Model of the Group Decision Process and Pareto Optimality”. European Journal of Operational Research 96, 363–370, 1996.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Hwang, C.L., and Lin, M.J., “Group Decision Making under Multiple Criteria”. Springer, Berlin, 1987.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  9. LaPlante, A., “Nineties Style Brainstorming”. Technology Supplement to Forbes Magazine, October 25, pp. 44–61, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Lootsma, F.A., “Prospects for MCDA in Groups”. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 7, 121–122, 1998.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Lootsma, F.A., Mensch, T.C.A., and Vos, F.A., “Multi-Criteria Analysis and Budget Reallocation in Long-Term Research Planning”. European Journal of Operational Research 47, 293–305, 1990.

    Article  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 

  14. Ramanathan, R., and Ganesh, L.S., “Group Preference Aggregation Methods employed in the AHP: an Evaluation and an Intrinsic Process for Deriving Members’ Weightages”. European Journal of Operational Research 79, 249–265, 1994.

    Article  MATH  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).

    Article  Google 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 

  17. Taylor, A.D., “Mathematics and Politics”. Springer, New York, 1995.

    MATH  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 

Download references

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1999 Kluwer Academic Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

(1999). Group Decision Making. In: Lootsma, F.A. (eds) Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis via Ratio and Difference Judgement. Applied Optimization, vol 29. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-28008-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-585-28008-0_6

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-5669-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-0-585-28008-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics