Abstract
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is presented as an eight-stage process of shaping information that satisfies the following criteria. The information should be accessible, differentiable, abstractable, understandable, verifiable, measurable, refinable and usable. For some stages, the decision-advisor should emphasize doing the stage convincingly by carrying out first its technical aspects, then relating to the context of the problem, and finally by taking into account the particular situation of the decision. For others, the decision-advisor should emphasize evincing information from the decision-maker first by relating to the situation of the decision, then seeing it in its context, and finally in its technical aspects. Methods for supporting the first four stages are shown to be personal construct theory for accessing the information, grounded theory for differentiating clusters of constructs, critical realism for abstracting their real meaning, and Nomology to understand how they fit into the criteria tree. An illustration is given.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Keeney RL and Raiffa H (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. John Wiley & Sons: New York.
von Winterfeldt D (1980). Structuring decision problems for decision analysis. Acta Psychol 45: 71–93.
Keeney R (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision-Making. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
von Winterfeldt D and Edwards W (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press: New York.
Hamilton W (1877). Lectures on metaphysics. In: Mansel HL and Veitch J (eds). Lectures on Metaphysics and Logic. William Blackwood and Sons: Edinburgh, London.
Brugha CM (1998). The structure of qualitative decision making. Eur J Opl Res 104 (1): 46–62.
Brugha CM (2001). Decision-maker centred MCDM: some empirical tests and their implications. In: Köksalan M and Zionts S (eds). Multiple Criteria Decision Making in the New Millennium. Springer: Berlin, pp 69–78.
Brugha C (2004). Phased multicriteria preference finding. Eur J Opl Res 158 (2): 308–316.
Twomey C (1998). A decision framework proposal for locating software development operations. Michael Smurfit Graduate School of Business, University College Dublin.
Brugha CM (1998). The structure of adjustment decision-making. Eur J Opl Res 104 (1): 63–76.
Brugha CM (1998). The structure of development decision making. Eur J Opl Res 104 (1): 77–92.
Brugha C (2000). Relative measurement and the power function. Eur J Opl Res 121: 627–640.
Gregory R and Keeney RL (1994). Creating policy alternatives using stakeholder values. Mngt Sci 40 (8): 1035–1048.
Keeney RL and McDaniels TL (1999). Identifying and structuring values to guide integrated resource planning at BC gas. Opns Res 47 (5): 651–662.
Keeney RL (1996). Value-focused thinking: identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. Eur J Opl Res 92 (3): 537–549.
Henig MI and Buchanan JT (1996). Solving MCDM problems: process concepts. J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 5: 3–21.
Leon OG (1999). Valued-focused thinking versus alternative-focused thinking: effects on generation of objectives. Organizational Behav Hum Decision Processes 80 (3): 213–227.
Pitz GF and Riedel S (1984). The content and structure of value tree representations. Acta Psychol 56 (1–3): 59–70.
Kelly GA (1955). The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Norton: New York.
Bannister D and Fransella F (1971). Inquiring Man: The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Croom Helm: London.
Butt T (2001). Social action and personal constructs. Theory Psychol 11 (1): 75–95.
Murray-Prior R (1998). Modelling farmer behaviour: a personal construct theory interpretation of hierarchical decision models. Agricultural Systems 57 (4): 541–556.
Fransella F and Bannister D (1977). A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. Academic Press: London, New York.
Bannister D and Mair JMM (1968). The Evaluation of Personal Constructs. Academic Press: London, New York.
Dargan GSJ, Mansier S and de la Ronciere A (2003). Decision applications study: MCDM practicum and research project. University College Dublin.
Brugha CM (1998). Structuring and weighting criteria in multi criteria decision-making (MCDM). In: Stewart TJ and Van den Honert RC (eds). Trends in Multicriteria Decision-Making: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Multiple Criteria Decision-Making. Springer-Verlag: Cape Town, pp 229–242.
Dictionary TOE (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Peirce C (1867). In: Weiss P (ed). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Haig BD (1995). Grounded theory as scientific method. Philosophy of Education. Publication of the Philosophy of Education Society [www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-yearbook/95_docs.haig.html].
Glaser B and Strauss A (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory. Aldine: New York.
Strauss A (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
Strauss A and Corbin J (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research (Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques). Sage Publications Inc.: London.
Bhaskar R (1978). A realist theory of science. In: Norrie A (ed). Critical Realism: Essential Readings. Harvester: Routledge.
Tsang EWK and Kwan KM (1999). Replication and theory development in organizational science: a critical realist perspective. Acad Mngt Rev 24 (4): 759–780.
Madill A, Jordan A and Shirley C (2000). Objectivity and reliability in qualitative analysis: realist, contextualist and radical constructionist epistemologies. Br J Psychol 91: 1–20.
Yeung HWC (1997). Critical realism and realist research in human geography: a method or a philosophy in search of a method? Prog Hum Geography 21 (1): 51–74.
Mingers J (2000). The contribution of critical realism as an underpinning philosophy for OR/MS and systems. J Opl Res Soc 51 (11): 1256–1270.
Bhaskar R (1978). A Realist Theory of Science. Harvester Press: Hassocks, Sussex.
Mathieson G (2001). Best practice for using assessment hierarchies in operational analysis—principles and practical experiences. OR Insight 14 (2): 3–14.
Pöyhönen M, Vrolijk H and Hämäläinen RP (2001). Behavioral and procedural consequences of structural variation in value trees. Eur J Opl Res 134 (1): 216–227.
Brugha C (2002). Direct interactive structured criteria system. (http://mis.ucd.ie/research/mcdm/disc).
Lootsma FA (2000). Distributed multi-criteria decision making and the role of the participants in the process. J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 9: 45–55.
Brugha C (2000). An introduction to the priority-pointing procedure. J Multi-Criteria Decision Anal 9: 227–242.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Alternatives and constructs
Appendix: Alternatives and constructs
Travel
Provides a break from studying,Contingent upon finding a travelling partner,Might be your last chance to do it,Right of passage,So much to see before you decide where to settle,Meeting new people and experiences,Discovering new places and cultures.
Work (home)
Instant income,No rent if you live at home,Familiar surroundings,Still fresh from college and used to hard work,Contacts,New environment,Use of acquired skills,Put university theories into practice.
Work (abroad)
Instant income,Expensive to set yourself up,Possibility of language barrier,Possibility of different expectations,Qualifications may not be fully recognized.
Study (home)
Very little culture shock,Familiar surroundings and lifestyle,May be hard to motivate yourself,May still be mentally drained from finals,Will have to pay fees,Improved prospects,Meeting new people.
Study (abroad)
Possible language barrier,Expensive to set yourself up,Good growth experience,Chance to learn new language,Improved prospects.
Do nothing
Not a care in the world,May get yourself into the habit,You may be frowned upon,Bad for your prospects.
Work in Washington, DC
Salary and benefits of job opportunities,Experiences to be gained in DC,Presence of friends in DC,Close to family,Potential to have additional family members move to Washington,Cost of living.
Move to Boston
Potential to find suitable living arrangements,Potential to find a job—salary and benefits of job opportunity,Desire to live in big city on the east coast of the US, but not New York,Potential to have additional family members move to Washington,Cost of living.
Live at home
Back-up or last resort if jobs cannot be found,Ability to live with family,Familiarity with the area.
Go to law school
Acceptances based on LSAT scores and past grades,Reputation of institution,High financial burden,Location of the university,Motivation necessary to continue studies,Contingent upon continued interest in being a lawyer.
Work in an investment-banking firm
Overall quality of the job offer,Salary and benefits,The people, that is, co-workers, peers, superiors, etc.,Previous experience required,Reputation—the name and respectability of the investment bank.
Work in an accounting firm
Overall quality of the job offer,Salary and benefits,The people, that is, co-workers, peers, superiors, etc.,Previous experience required,Reputation—the name and respectability of the accounting firm.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brugha, C. Structure of multi-criteria decision-making. J Oper Res Soc 55, 1156–1168 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601777
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601777