Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science

2001 Edition
| Editors: Saul I. Gass, Carl M. Harris

Group decision making

  • Fatemeh Mariam Zahedi
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-0611-X_406

Group decision making focuses on problems in which there is more than one decision maker and more than one choice. The choices or alternatives have multiple attributes. In other words, the decision makers must consider more than one objective or criterion in their decision. Hence, group decisions involve multiple criteria and multiple decision makers. Since preferences and objectives of individual decision makers vary and may be in conflict, arriving at a decision is far more complex in a group setting than in individual cases.

Group decision covers a wide range of collective decision processes and encompasses numerous methods designed under various assumptions and for different circumstances. One can divide the group decision approaches into the following categories: utility theory, group consensus, group analytic hierarchy process, social choice theory, and game theory.


Group utility theory is based on the von Neumann-Morgenstern utility function. This method...

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


  1. [1]
    Arrow, K.J. (1951). “Social Choice and Individual Values,” Cowles Commission Monograph 12, Wiley, New York.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    ACM (1999). “Multiagent Systems on the Net and Agents in E-Commerce,” Special issue of Communications of the ACM, 42(3), 39–114.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    Aczel, J. and Saaty, T.L. (1983). “Procedures for Synthesizing Rational Judgements,” Jl. Mathematical Psychology, 27, 93–102.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    Bodily, S.E. (1979). “A Delegation Process for Combining Individual Utility Function,” Management Science, 25, 1035–1041.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    Boiney, L.G. (1995). “When Efficient is Inefficient: Fairness in Decisions Affecting a Group,” Management Science, 41, 1523–1537.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    Bostrom, R.P., Anson, R., and Clawson, V.K. (1993). “Group Facilitation and Group Support Systems,” in Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S., eds., Macmillan, New York, 146–168.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    Brock, H.W. (1980). “The Problem of Utility Weights in Group Preference Aggregation,” Operations Research, 28, 176–187.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    Dalkey, N.C. (1967). Delphi, Rand Corporation. Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    Delbecq, A.L. and Van de Ven, A.H. (1971). “A Group Process Model for Problem Identification and Program Planning,” Jl. Applied Behavior Sciences, 7, 466–492.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    Dennis, A.R., George, J.F., Jessup, L.M., Nunamaker, Jr, J.F., and Vogel, D.R. (1988). “Information Technology to Support Electronic Meetings,” MIS Quarterly, 12, 591–624.Google Scholar
  11. [11]
    El-Shinnawy, M. and Vinze, A.S. (1998). “Polarization and Persuasive Argumentation: A Study of Decision Making in Group Meetings, MIS Quarterly, 22, 165–193.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    Esser, J.K. (1998). “Alive and Well After 25 Years: A Review of Groupthink Research,” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 73, 116–141.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    Fjermestad, J. and Hiltz, S.R. (1999). “An Assessment of Group Support Systems Experiment Research: Methodology and Results,” Jl. MIS, 15(3), 7–149.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    Gass, S.I. and Rapcsák, T. (1998). “A Note on Synthesizing Group Decisions,” Decision Support Systems, 22, 59–63.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    Harsanyi, J.C. (1963). “A Simplified Bargaining Model for the n-person Cooperative Game,” International Economic Review, 4, 194–220.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    Harsanyi, J.C. (1977). Rational Behavior and Bargaining Equilibrium in Games and Social Situations, Cambridge University Press, England.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    Jessup, L.M. and Valacich, J.S. (1993). Group Support Systems: New Perspectives, Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    Keeney, R.L. and Kirkwood, C.W. (1975). “Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions,” Management Science, 22, 430–437.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    Kersten, G., Michalowski, W., Szpakowicz, S., and Koperczak. Z. (1991). “Restructurable Representations of Negotiation,” Management Science, 37, 1269–1290.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    Krzysztofowicz, R. (1979). “Group Utility Assessment Through a Nominal-Interacting Process,” Unpublished working paper, Department of Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    Maes, P., Guttman, R.H., and Moukas, A.G. (1999). “Agents That Buy and Sell,” Communications of the ACM, 42(3), 81–91.Google Scholar
  22. [22]
    Nash, J. (1950). “The Bargaining Problem,” Econometrica, 18, 155–162.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    Nash, J. (1953). “Two-Person Cooperative Games,” Econometrica, 21, 128.Google Scholar
  24. [24]
    Ortolano, L. (1974). “A Process for Federal Water Planning at the Field Level,” Water Resources Bulletin, 10(4), 776–778.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    Saaty, T.L. (1977). “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Process,” Jl. Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    Shapley, L.S. (1953). “A Value for n-person Games,” in Contributions to the Theory of Games, H.W. Kuhn and A.W. Tucker, eds., Princeton University Press, 307–317. Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    Silver, S.D. (1995). “A Dual-Motive Heuristic for Member Information Initiation in Group Decision Making: Managing Risk and Commitment,” Decision Support Systems, 15, 83–97.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    Sycara, K.P. (1991). “Problem Restructuring in Negotiation,” Management Science, 37, 1248–1268.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    Zahedi, F. (1986a). “Group Consensus Function Estimation When Preferences Are Uncertain,” Operations Research, 34, 883–894.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    Zahedi, F. (1986b). “The Analytic Hierarchy Process — A Survey of the Method and its Applications.” Interfaces, 16(4), 96–108.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fatemeh Mariam Zahedi
    • 1
  1. 1.University of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA