Incorporating stakeholders’ knowledge in group decision-making

International audienc

Development, test and comparison of two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis(MCDA) models: A case of healthcare infrastructure location

When planning a new development, location decisions have always been a major issue. This paper examines and compares two modelling methods used to inform a healthcare infrastructure location decision. Two Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) models were developed to support the optimisation of this decision-making process, within a National Health Service (NHS) organisation, in the UK. The proposed model structure is based on seven criteria (environment and safety, size, total cost, accessibility, design, risks and population profile) and 28 sub-criteria. First, Evidential Reasoning (ER) was used to solve the model, then, the processes and results were compared with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP). It was established that using ER or AHP led to the same solutions. However, the scores between the alternatives were significantly different; which impacted the stakeholders‟ decision-making. As the processes differ according to the model selected, ER or AHP, it is relevant to establish the practical and managerial implications for selecting one model or the other and providing evidence of which models best fit this specific environment. To achieve an optimum operational decision it is argued, in this study, that the most transparent and robust framework is achieved by merging ER process with the pair-wise comparison, an element of AHP. This paper makes a defined contribution by developing and examining the use of MCDA models, to rationalise new healthcare infrastructure location, with the proposed model to be used for future decision. Moreover, very few studies comparing different MCDA techniques were found, this study results enable practitioners to consider even further the modelling characteristics to ensure the development of a reliable framework, even if this means applying a hybrid approach

Informants in Organizational Marketing Research

Organizational research frequently involves seeking judgmental data from multiple informants within organizations. Researchers are often faced with determining how many informants to survey, who those informants should be and (if more than one) how best to aggregate responses when disagreement exists between those responses. Using both recall and forecasting data from a laboratory study involving the MARKSTRAT simulation, we show that when there are multiple respondents who disagree, responses aggregated using confidence-based or competence-based weights outperform those with data-based weights, which in turn provide significant gains in estimation accuracy over simply averaging respondent reports. We then illustrate how these results can be used to determine the best number of respondents for a market research task as well as to provide an effective screening mechanism when seeking a single, best informant.screening;marketing research;aggregation;organizational research;survey research

A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes

Real estate and land management are characterised by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governmental factors. In Europe, Public Administrators must address the complex decision-making problems that need to be resolved, while also acting in consideration of the expectations of the different stakeholders involved in settlement transformation. In complex situations (e.g., with different aspects to be considered and multilevel actors involved), decision-making processes are often used to solve multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses, which support the choices of those who are making the decision. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods are included among the examination and evaluation techniques considered useful by the European Community. Such analyses and techniques are performed using methods, which aim to reach a synthesis of the various forms of input data needed to define decision-making problems of a similar complexity. Thus, one or more of the conclusions reached allow for informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. According to the technical literature on MCDA, numerous methods are applicable in different decision-making situations, however, advice for selecting the most appropriate for the specific field of application and problem have not been thoroughly investigated. In land and real estate management, numerous queries regarding evaluations often arise. In brief, the objective of this paper is to outline a procedure with which to select the method best suited to the specific queries of evaluation, which commonly arise while addressing decision-making problems. In particular issues of land and real estate management, representing the so-called “settlement sector”. The procedure will follow a theoretical-methodological approach by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of the multi-criteria analysis method

A literature review on the use of expert opinion in probabilistic risk analysis

Risk assessment is part of the decision making process in many fields of discipline, such as engineering, public health, environment, program management, regulatory policy, and finance. There has been considerable debate over the philosophical and methodological treatment of risk in the past few decades, ranging from its definition and classification to methods of its assessment. Probabilistic risk analysis (PRA) specifically deals with events represented by low probabilities of occurring with high levels of unfavorable consequences. Expert judgment is often a critical source of information in PRA, since empirical data on the variables of interest are rarely available. The author reviews the literature on the use of expert opinion in PRA, in particular on the approaches to eliciting and aggregating experts'assessments. The literature suggests that the methods by which expert opinions are collected and combined have a significant effect on the resulting estimates. The author discusses two types of approaches to eliciting and aggregating expert judgments-behavioral and mathematical approaches, with the emphasis on the latter. It is generally agreed that mathematical approaches tend to yield more accurate estimates than behavioral approaches. After a short description of behavioral approaches, the author discusses mathematical approaches in detail, presenting three aggregation models: non-Bayesian axiomatic models, Bayesian models, andpsychological scaling models. She also discusses issues of stochastic dependence.Health Monitoring&Evaluation,ICT Policy and Strategies,Public Health Promotion,Enterprise Development&Reform,Statistical&Mathematical Sciences,ICT Policy and Strategies,Health Monitoring&Evaluation,Statistical&Mathematical Sciences,Science Education,Scientific Research&Science Parks