Owing to this, the need for a systematic group decision support emerges. However, at the same time group decision making also incorporates the danger of possible disadvantages like, for example, the domination of the group interaction by single group members with more assertiveness and vocal strength than other more quiet people (Kreitner and Cassidy 2011). Participation in decision making processes may lead to a better utilization of knowledge as well as to a higher level of individual involvement and responsibility for finding an optimal solution of organizational problems (De Haas and Kleingeld 1999). Compared to single persons’ decision making, also termed as individual decision making (IDM), groups are providing the advantages of a broader amount of information, much more experience and alternatives, a better diversification of the individuals’ cognitive restrictions, less evaluation mistakes, and an increased acceptance of the solution (Sims 2002 Kreitner and Cassidy 2011). Organizations try to use the potential strengths of a collective decision making, assuming that a group of experts makes better or at least more objective decisions than individuals which underlie natural cognitive restrictions. The trend towards more democratic organization structures, global networking and advanced technical possibilities often leads to strategic managerial decisions based on collective decision making and not on single decision makers. Starting from these results, the aggregation techniques adequate to a specific decision context are provided. Therefore, we use four different evaluation scenarios and point out under which assumptions which solution is suitable. The second aim is the conduction of a transparent comparative analysis of selected approaches and methods (geometric/arithmetic aggregation of individual judgments, geometric/arithmetic aggregation of individual priorities, geometric/arithmetic loss function approach and Group AHP model). Owing to the fact that there is a vast number of different methods and further internal possibilities (derivation of means) to aggregate the individual expert preferences to a group consensus, the first aim of this paper is to present a comprehensive literature review on various aggregation possibilities. In order to exploit a broader information basis as well as to achieve a sufficient degree of objectivity strategic decision settings are mostly embedded into a multi-personal decision context to which different individuals with expert status contribute. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and the analytic network process are important multiple criteria decision making methods for supporting complex, discrete strategic management decision problems.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |