The decision makers have made their judgements from comparing criteria and alternatives. The next step is the aggregation of those judgements. There are two main aggregation methods: Aggregation of Individual Judgements (AIJ) and Aggregation of Individual Priorities (AIP). Aggregation of Individual Judgements Given a hierarchy, the decision makers input their judgements in each level. In this kind of aggregation, judgements are aggregated in each level of hierarchy. Forman and Peniwati (1998) state that “individual identities are lost with every stage of aggregation and a synthesis of the hierarchy produces the group’s priorities.” N decision makers will generate at least N judgement matrices. A judgement matrix is the matrix that contains the pairwise comparisons of criteria and alternatives. In this type of aggregation, the pairwise comparison matrices are aggregated using Geometric Mean. Aggregation of Individual Priorities Each decision maker input his/her own judgment in the judgment matrix for each level of the decision tree. In the end, the final priorities of the alternatives are calculated. Those final priority matrices are aggregated and give the final group ranking of alternatives. Escobar and Moreno-Jimenez (2007) suggested another method called Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures (AIPS). In this type of aggregation the decision problem is solved N times. This means that the priorities of each decision maker are computed. Those priorities are aggregated using Geometric mean. The figure below shows the difference between the two methods of aggregation. DM1 DM2 DMn DM1 DM2 DMn Figure 2-4. Aggregation using AIJ and AIP 2.8.2 Aggregation of judgements in ... ... middle of paper ... ...ble alternatives should be clearly declared 3. The group members should be aware of the positive outcomes from the implementation of each alternative. The decision makers should exactly know the positive effects of each alternative. 4. The negative effects of each alternative should be clearly declared. The decision makers should understand what exactly the negative results are of each alternative. Hirokawa (1985) conducted research upon functional perspective in discussion formats n order to check where the quality of decision is increased. The discussion formats are the following: 1. Reflective – thinking format 2. Ideal – Solution format 3. Single – Question format 4. Free Discussion format Hirokawa (1985) showed that the effectiveness of the group decision making is totally influenced by the functional perspective regardless of the discussion format.
These data affect the consumer decision-making process through alternative evaluation, the consumer compares the different choices to best meet their individuals need. The consumer decides the criteria for judging the alternative products or services by evaluative criteria. Consumers use tangible and intangible criteria, and when evaluating alternatives, determine qualities that are important and evaluate the alternatives.
Snow, David. “Collective Identity and Expressive Forms.” University of California, Irvine eScholarship Repository 26.7 (2009) . Print.
Roy, B. (1993). Decision science or decision-aid science? European journal of operational research , 66 (2), 184-203.
Paul and Elder’s eight elements of thought directly support the Army officers as they work through the Army Problem Solving Process by expanding their ability to think critically and creatively. The following eight elements enhance a problem’s solvers perspective on what is important; making the best possible decision the same goal as the Army Problem Solving Process. The eight elements of thought are Point of view; Purpose; Question or problem; Information; Inferences and conclusions; Concepts and theories; Assumptions; and Implications/Consequences. Point of view-Drs. Paul and Elder suggested this as a starting point in the Army officers thought process. Drs. Paul and Elder believe that within the Point of View, decision makers should look at their view through the follow-on analysis of frames of reference, Perspectives, and Orientations . While combining the totality of the Point of View, Army leaders look at a problem from a “place which they are viewing the problem.” Furthermore, the Point of View element brings to the Army Problem Solving Process the leader’s ability to “reflect of who the people are inside, what they use to make their assumptions and their decision.” Utilizing the Point of view element assists in the Problem Solving Process by providing leaders with guidance from commanders to the problem solvers to create alternatives to solve a problem. According to US Army ATTP 5-01, 2001, par. 11-25, 2-14, alternatives and possible unpopular ideas or
Boje, D. M. , Luhman, J. T. , and Cunliffe, A. L. “ A Dialectic Perspective on the Organization
Brewer, M.B., & Gardener, W. (1996). Who is this “We”? Levels of Collective Identity and Self
In order to address the above components, five decision making steps have to be put in place, these are; being attentive, being intelligent, being reasonable, being responsible, and being reflective. The first step, being attentive, involves evaluating the whole situation and coming up with the data and information about the problem at hand. In so doing the following questions are viewed; what facts to bear in mind, what direction to take so as to get the expected solution, and what is the main issue to work on. In the second step, being intelligent, the information is clearly studied to determine whether the collected data is revealing the correct details concerning the problem. Determine the stakeholde...
Within the paper, both authors discuss how a leader or team can balance the need for open discussion early in the decision-making process with the need for unity at the end. By using an Inquiry style decision-making process, teams can openly express their own interest and ideas. The teams stay away from trying to persuade others to take any one individuals point of view, but to decide on what is the overall best course of action. This process allows the team to express their ideas without the bickering and fighting that comes with an Advocacy style process. The team stays unified and satisfied that their opinions were heard and put into consideration.
"In the day to day business of organizational life, decision making is seldom the logical, rational, systematic process suggested by the management textbooks. It does not unfold in identifiable stages where a problem is defined, alternative solutions are generated, the alternatives are weighed against a known criterion, and a choice is made (1998, p. 50)."
The relationship between leader or the leading ideology to the group members and the relationship from person to person within the group. Firstly, the first element or relationship of a group, the relationship between the leader or leading ideology, Freud clarifies using the Oedipus Complex. Through the Oedipus Complex we can then see that this where identification is formed. This is where we are able to call ourselves our own through trying to be like or father or mother, which ever the individual primarily identifies with, wanting to be like them and take their place or succeed them. Now the leader and ideology becoming like a father figure the individual aspires to be like them. This forms this like mindedness and shared reality so to speak of the group. In congruence with recognizing the leader as the primary identifier to then keep all the group members at bay and together there is this illusion that is formed to keep the members of the group together. This myth created is that all the members are loved equally because if there are favorites, that can cause conflict and disband the group. This notion of being loved equally ties them to the leader
Evaluate solutions on the basis of quality, acceptability, and standards: solutions should be judged on two major criteria: how good they are, and how acceptable they will be to those who have to implement them.
The three primary types of decision-making systems are: the transactional support system, the management information system, and the decisions support system (FreeTutes.com, 2014).
Working in groups is challenging at times. Other times it is very rewarding. We are so focused on life that we do not take time to reflect on things as much as we should. Being in a Groups class has opened my eyes to a whole new world. I have begun to question, explore, and even understand how things work. I even get how they work sometimes. Not only is there a process involved in making individual decisions, process is involved in group decisions as well. This paper attempts give insight into my reflection of my group decision process.
Effective decision making involves the ability to identify consistently and select the best choice among multiple options. This is true both personally and professionally. For the decision making process one may use a decision making model. A decision making mo...
In conclusion, decision making is an important concept in everyday life because it is linked to success and effectiveness in various situations. This process is usually carried out based on various concepts and models such as WRAP model. The ability of an individual to make the most appropriate decision in a particular decision is based on his/her ability to choose the best possible concept or process for decision making. However, one should not be rigid when using a particular decision making model or concept.