A prioritization approach based on VFT and AHP for group decision making: a case study in the military operations

Ygor Logullo; Vinícius Bigogno-Costa; Amanda Cecília Simões da Silva; Mischel Carmen Belderrain

doi:10.1590/0103-6513.20210059

Research Article

A prioritization approach based on VFT and AHP for group decision making: a case study in the military operations

Ygor Logullo; Vinícius Bigogno-Costa; Amanda Cecília Simões da Silva; Mischel Carmen Belderrain

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20210059 Production, vol.32, e20210059, 2022

PDF

Downloads: 0

Abstract

Paper Aims: This paper aims to develop an approach to support group decision making combining methods and tools to a holistic MCDA process.

Originality: Authors have been using Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) for structuring problems with different MCDA methods, but there is a lack of a process that defines a clear transition from VFT to those methods. Here we propose a process to fill this gap.

Research method: Rich Picture and VFT structure the problem and elicit objectives that become criteria within a decision hierarchy. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with ratings supports preference elicitation and sensitivity analysis in the judgment weights of decision-makers.

Main findings: VFT is effective for eliciting the decision structure to AHP; using weight distribution of stakeholders may affect the results, and the multimethodology approach developed here can deal with group decision making.

Implications for theory and practice: The approach developed is effective in complex environments (complex problems and multiple stakeholders) because it focuses on values and defines a process to bring those values into a multicriteria method. Furthermore, sensitivity analysis with the judgment weights of the different stakeholders may be useful in negotiation.

Keywords

MCDA process, Multimethodology, Ranking problematic, Group preference aggregation

References

Abuabara, L., & Paucar-Caceres, A. (2021). Surveying applications of strategic options development and analysis (SODA) from 1989 to 2018. European Journal of Operational Research, 292(3), 1051-1065. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.11.032.

Abuabara, L., Paucar-Caceres, A., & Burrowes-Cromwell, T. (2019). Consumers values and behavior in the Brazilian coffee-in-capsules market: promoting circular economy. International Journal of Production Research, 57(23), 7269-7288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2019.1629664.

Ackermann, F. (2012). Problem structuring methods in the dock: arguing the case for soft OR. European Journal of Operational Research, 219(3), 652-658. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2011.11.014.

Ackermann, F., & Eden, C. (2011). Strategic management of stakeholders: theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 44(3), 179-196. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2010.08.001.

Aguarón, J., Escobar, M. T., Moreno-Jiménez, J. M., & Turón, A. (2019). AHP-group decision making based on consistency. Mathematics, 7(3), 242. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/math7030242.

Almeida, A. T., Cavalcante, C. A. V., Alencar, M. H., Ferreira, R. J. P., Almeida-Filho, A. T., & Garcez, T. V. (2015). Multicriteria and multiobjective models for risk, reliability and maintenance decision analysis (1. ed.). Recife: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17969-8.

Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Boston: Springer US. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1495-4.

Brasil. DCA 11-1: sistemática de planejamento e gestão institucional da aeronáutica. Volume 1 – Planejamento. (2019). Brasília. Retrieved in 2021, May 31, from https://www.fab.mil.br/Download/arquivos/prestacaodecontas/DCA_11_1_2019_SPGIA.pdf

Brasil. DCA 11-45: concepção estratégica força aérea 100. (2018). Brasília. Retrieved in 2021, May 31, from https://www.fab.mil.br/Download/arquivos/DCA%2011-45_Concepcao_Estrategica_Forca_Aerea_100.pdf.

Checkland, P. (1981). Systems thinking, systems practice. New York: John Wiley.

Checkland, P., & Poulter, J. (2020). Soft systems methodology. In M. Reynolds & S. Holwell (Eds.), Systems approaches to making change: a practical guide (pp. 201-253). London: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-7472-1_5.

Dyson, R. G., O’Brien, F. A., & Shah, D. B. (2021). Soft OR and practice: the contribution of the founders of operations research. INFORMS, 69(3), 727-738. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.2020.2051.

Franco, L. A., & Montibeller, G. (2010). Facilitated modeling in operational research. European Journal of Operational Research, 205(3), 489-500. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2009.09.030.

Françozo, R., Paucar-Caceres, A., & Belderrain, M. C. N. (2021). Combining Value-Focused thinking and soft systems methodology: A systemic framework to structure the planning process at a special educational needs school in Brazil. The Journal of the Operational Research Society. In press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01605682.2021.1880298.

Georgiou, I. (2015). Unraveling soft systems methodology. International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 9(4), 415-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJEBR.2015.069680.

Gregory, A. J., Atkins, J. P., Midgley, G., & Hodgson, A. M. (2020). Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions. European Journal of Operational Research, 283(1), 321-340. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2019.10.044.

Keeney, R. L. (1996a). Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. London: Harvard University Press Cambridge.

Keeney, R. L. (1996b). Value-focused thinking: Identifying decision opportunities and creating alternatives. European Journal of Operational Research, 92(3), 537-549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(96)00004-5.

Keeney, R. L. (2007). Developing objectives and attributes. In W. Edwards, R. F. Milles & D. Von Winterfeldt (Eds.), Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications (pp. 104-128). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611308.008.

Keeney, R. L. (2008). Applying value-focused thinking. Military Operations Research, 13(2), 7-17. http://dx.doi.org/10.5711/morj.13.2.7.

Keeney, R. L. (2013). Identifying, prioritizing, and using multiple objectives. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 1(1-2), 45-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40070-013-0002-9.

Midgley, G. (2015). Systemic intervention: research memorandum 95: Hull University of Business School. Retrieved in 2021, May 31, from https://hull-repository.worktribe.com/output/385209

Mingers, J., & Brocklesby, J. (1997). Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega, 25(5), 489-509. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00018-2.

Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 530-554. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0.

Monk, A., & Howard, S. (1998). Methods & tools: the rich picture: a tool for reasoning about work context. Interaction, 5, 21-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/274430.274434.

Montibeller, G., Belton, V., Ackermann, F., & Ensslin, L. (2008). Reasoning maps for decision aid: an integrated approach for problem-structuring and multi-criteria evaluation. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 59(5), 575-589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602347.

Mu, E., & Pereyra-Rojas, M. (2018). Practical decision making using super decisions: an introduction to the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Cham: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68369-0.

Parnell, G. S., & West, P. D. (2008). Value-focused systems decision making. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Symposium of the International Council on Systems Engineering (pp. 1685-1699). Utrecht: INCOSE.

Rosenhead, J. (1989). Rational analysis for a problematic world: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. New York: John Wiley.

Rosenhead, J. (2006). Past, present, and future of problem structuring methods. The Journal of the Operational Research Society, 57(7), 759-765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2602206.

Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria methodology for decision aiding. Boston: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2500-1.

Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5.

Saaty, T. L. (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 9-26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(90)90057-I.

Saaty, T. L. (1994). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Interfaces, 24(6), 19-43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/inte.24.6.19.

Saaty, T. L. (2001, August 2-4). Deriving the AHP 1-9 scale from first principles. In Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Analytical Hierarchy Process. Berna: ISAHP.

Saaty, T. L. (2006). Rank from comparisons and ratings in the analytic hierarchy/network processes. European Journal of Operational Research, 168(2), 557-570. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2004.04.032.

Saaty, T. L. (2008). Decision making with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Scientia Iranica, 9(3), 215-229.

Submitted date:
05/31/2021

Accepted date:
01/10/2022

A prioritization approach based on VFT and AHP for group decision making: a case study in the military operations

Ygor Logullo; Vinícius Bigogno-Costa; Amanda Cecília Simões da Silva; Mischel Carmen Belderrain

Abstract

Keywords

References

Links

Production