Abstract
This paper describes the implementation of a Structured Methodology for Direct-Interactive Structured-Criteria (DISC) Multi-Criteria Decision-Making (MCDM), an eight-stage nomological adjusting cycle of activities that shape the information used to make a decision, requiring it be accessible, differentiable, abstractable, understandable, verifiable, measurable, refinable and usable. It shows, in a major IT strategic investment case, that Structured DISC MCDM provides a robust model that can be used for deep and serious consideration of multi-criteria decisions by a group of decision-makers over a long period. The paper describes the case as it moves through stages of the adjusting cycle and shows that, after completing the cycle, it reverses and becomes an adapting process, starting with refining the information. Refining is shown to be more extensive than previously understood, and to cover ‘alternatives & scores’, ‘criteria & weights’ and ‘set of alternatives’. Next the form of measurement is adapted. As the number of alternatives are reduced it can become more appropriate to directly compare the two or three most preferred alternatives relative to one another rather than objectively. Finally the criteria tree can be adapted using a ‘magnifying glass’ approach. This confines the evaluation to that part of the criteria tree in which the difference between a few preferred alternatives is mainly emphasised.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
A risk (noun) is a hazard, chance, bad consequences, loss, etc. exposure to mischance, Here it is applied in the probabilistic sense of an event occurring or not. OUP (2009).
Uncertainty is when something is ‘not known or definite’, ‘in the balance’, ‘undetermined’, ‘unsure’, and ‘fluctuating’ (Ibid.). Here it is applied in the context of not being able to predict with any certainty the conditions that will prevail in the future.
References
Ackermann F and Belton V (1994). Managing corporate knowledge: Experiences with SODA and V.I.S.A . Brit J Mngt 5: 163–176.
Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, Johnson G, Krupa J, Murphy J and Sorenson K (2001). Guidebook to Decision-Making Methods . US Department of Energy: Washington, DC.
Bana e Costa CA and Correa E (1998). Mapping critical factors for firm sustainable survival: A case-study in the Brazilian Textile Industry . In: Kersten G, Mikolajuk Z, Rais M and Yeh A (eds). Decision Support Systems for Sustainable Development in Developing Countries. Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Correa E and Vansnick JC (1999). Decision Support Systems in action: Integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process . Eur J Opl Res 113(2): 315–335.
Bana e Costa CA, Fernandes TG and Correia P (2006). Prioritisation of public investments in social infrastructures using multicriteria value analysis and decision conferencing: A case study . Int Trans Oper Res 13: 279–297.
Barzilai J (1998). On the decomposition of value functions . Oper Res Lett 22(4–5): 159–170.
Belton V and Stewart TJ (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis – An Integrated Approach . Kluwer Academic Publishers: Dordrecht.
Belton V, Ackermann F and Shepherd I (1997). Integrated support from problem structuring through to alternative evaluation using COPE and V·I·S·A . J of Multi-Criteria Dec Anal 6: 115–130.
Brugha CM (1998a). The structure of qualitative decision-making . Eur J Opl Res 104(1): 42–62.
Brugha CM (1998b). The structure of adjustment decision-making . Eur J Opl Res 104(1): 63–72.
Brugha CM (1998c). The structure of development decision-making . Eur J Opl Res 104(1): 77–92.
Brugha CM (1998d). 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: New York, pp. 229–242.
Brugha CM (2000). Relative measurement and the power function . Eur J Opl Res 121: 627–640.
Brugha CM (2001). Decision-maker centred MCDM: Some empirical tests and their implications multiple criteria decision-making in the new millennium. Lect Notes Econ Math 507: 69–78, Springer.
Brugha CM (2003). Management research: A meta-synthesis of natural science, social studies and management practice. Lect Notes Decision Sci 3,Proceedings of KSS'2003 & MCS'2003, Global-Link.
Brugha CM (2004a). Structure of multiple criteria decision-making . J Opl Res Soc 55: 1156–1168.
Brugha CM (2004b). Phased multicriteria preference finding . Eur J Opl Res 158(2): 308–316.
Brugha CM (2004c). Structure of multi-criteria decision-making . J Opl Res Soc 55(11): 1156–1168.
Brugha CM (2006). A meta system for understanding international conflict. KSS 2006: 7th International Symposium on Knowledge and Systems Science Towards Knowledge Synthesis and Creation Beijing, P.R. China.
Brugha CM and Bowen K (2005). Decision research using cognitive structures . Syst Pract Act Res 18(1): 67–88.
Eden C (1988). Cognitive mapping: A review . Eur J Opl Res 36: 1–13.
Eden C (2004). Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Opl Res 159(3): 673–686.
Henig MI and Buchanan JT (1996). Solving MCDM problems: Process concepts . J Multi-Criteria Dec Anal 5: 3–21.
Keeney RL (1992). Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking . Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.
Keeney RL and Raiffa H (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs . John Wiley & Sons: New York.
Montibeller G, Belton V, Ackermann F and Ensslin L (2008). Reasoning maps for decision aid: An integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation . J Opl Res Soc 59: 575–589.
Morton A, Ackermann F and Belton V (2003). Technology-driven and model-driven approaches to group decision support: Focus, research philosophy, and key concepts . Eur J Inform Syst 12(2): 110–126.
O'Brien DB (2007). Investment decision-making using multiple criteria. College of Business and Law. Dublin, University College Dublin. Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), p 240.
OUP (2009). Compact Oxford English Dictionary. Maidenhead, UK: Oxford University Press.
Reich BH and Benbasat I (2000). Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment between business and information technology objectives . MIS Quart 24(1): 84–114.
Roy B (1996). Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Analysis . Kluwer: Dordrecht.
Sabherwal R and Chan YE (2001). Alignment between business and IS strategies: A study of prospectors, analyzers, and defenders . Inform Sys Res 12(1): 11–33.
Shaw D, Westcombe M, Hodgkin J and Montibeller G (2004). Problem structuring methods for large group interventions . J Opl Res Soc 55: 453–463.
Von Winterfeldt D and Edwards W (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research . Cambridge University Press: New York.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O'Brien, D., Brugha, C. Adapting and refining in multi-criteria decision-making. J Oper Res Soc 61, 756–767 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.82
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2009.82