E-Democracy and Knowledge. A Multicriteria Framework for the New Democratic Era

This paper analyses a new framework for decision-making in e-democracies that exploits the power of Internet based public knowledge, which is called briefly e-cognocracy. This is not a procedure to improve technical aspects using the Internet (e.g. e-voting); it is rather a procedure to add a new quality to the democratic system by using the network. This proposed system of e-cognocracy would allow those who are interested to solve highly complex problems by participatory decision-making. Furthermore, we suggest the multicriteria framework for the modelling and resolution of such complex problems. Similarly, using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) approach, we propose decisional (analytic and informatic) tools for searching the knowledge - relevant for the decision-making process. This knowledge of patterns of behaviour, trends, opportunities, decisions and stylised facts will be the starting point of a consensus-reaching process, which is aimed to effectively solve problems of high complexity of the Internet society.E-democracy, Knowledge society, E-cognocracy, Multicriteria, AHP criterion, Consensus

An optimal feedback model to prevent manipulation behaviours in consensus under social network group decision making

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.A novel framework to prevent manipulation behaviour in consensus reaching process under social network group decision making is proposed, which is based on a theoretically sound optimal feedback model. The manipulation behaviour classification is twofold: (1) ‘individual manipulation’ where each expert manipulates his/her own behaviour to achieve higher importance degree (weight); and (2) ‘group manipulation’ where a group of experts force inconsistent experts to adopt specific recommendation advices obtained via the use of fixed feedback parameter. To counteract ‘individual manipulation’, a behavioural weights assignment method modelling sequential attitude ranging from ‘dictatorship’ to ‘democracy’ is developed, and then a reasonable policy for group minimum adjustment cost is established to assign appropriate weights to experts. To prevent ‘group manipulation’, an optimal feedback model with objective function the individual adjustments cost and constraints related to the threshold of group consensus is investigated. This approach allows the inconsistent experts to balance group consensus and adjustment cost, which enhances their willingness to adopt the recommendation advices and consequently the group reaching consensus on the decision making problem at hand. A numerical example is presented to illustrate and verify the proposed optimal feedback model

Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis in participatory forest planning

Forest planning in a participatory context often involves multiple stakeholders with conflicting interests. A promising approach for handling these complex situations is to integrate participatory planning and multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA). The objective of this paper is to analyze strengths and weaknesses of such an integrated approach, focusing on how the use of MCDA has influenced the participatory process. The paper outlines a model for a participatory MCDA process with five steps: stakeholder analysis, structuring of the decision problem, generation of alternatives, elicitation of preferences, and ranking of alternatives. This model was applied in a case study of a planning process for the urban forest in Lycksele, Sweden. In interviews with stakeholders, criteria for four different social groups were identified. Stakeholders also identified specific areas important to them and explained what activities the areas were used for and the forest management they wished for there. Existing forest data were combined with information from interviews to create a map in which the urban forest was divided into zones of different management classes. Three alternative strategic forest plans were produced based on the zonal map. The stakeholders stated their preferences individually by the Analytic Hierarchy Process in inquiry forms and a ranking of alternatives and consistency ratios were determined for each stakeholder. Rankings of alternatives were aggregated; first, for each social group using the arithmetic mean, and then an overall aggregated ranking was calculated from the group rankings using the weighted arithmetic mean. The participatory MCDA process in Lycksele is assessed against five social goals: incorporating public values into decisions, improving the substantive quality of decisions, resolving conflict among competing interests, building trust in institutions, and educating and informing the public. The results and assessment of the case study support the integration of participatory planning and MCDA as a viable option for handling complex forest-management situations. Key issues related to the MCDA methodology that need to be explored further were identified: 1) The handling of place-specific criteria, 2) development of alternatives, 3) the aggregation of individual preferences into a common preference, and 4) application and evaluation of the integrated approach in real case studies

HR Practices and Customer Satisfaction: The Mediating Link of Commitment

This research examined organizational commitment as a mediator between HR practices and customer satisfaction of 35 job groups from 13 service firm business units. Both commitment level and consensus were predicted to influence customer satisfaction. Results found that commitment level mediated the relationship between HR practices and customer satisfaction

The management of academic workloads: improving practice in the sector

Final report of HEFCE projec

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

Structuring the decision process

This chapter includes a discussion of leadership decisions and stress. Many leaders are daily exposed to stress when they must make decisions, and there are often social reasons for this. Social standards suggest that a leader must be proactive and make decisions and not flee the situation. Conflict often creates stress in decision-making situations. It is important for leaders to understand that it is not stress in itself that leads to bad decisions, rather, bad decisions may be the result of time pressure in the sense that leaders have not been able to gather enough relevant information. Thus, it is worthwhile for leaders to be able to prioritize properly in order to cope with stressful situations. In some situations, a leader chooses to delegate the decisions to his/her team and then it is important to guard against «groupthink», a phenomenon where members of a team put consensus before anything else as a result of the peer pressure. A number of methods are presented that enable leaders to avoid this phenomenon. Often leaders are involved in decision-making situations where they are forced to navigate between objectives that are in strong conflict with each other. We are talking about «decision dilemmas». These are characterized by the existence of a conflict between the top leadership's desire to control the activities and their wish to give autonomy and independence to the various units. It is important for leaders to be able to strike a balance in different dilemma situations and understand how to best manage conflicts when they aris