Skip to main content
Top

2023 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

2. Robust Stakeholder-Based Group-Decision Making Framework: The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) with the Integration of Best-Worst Method (BWM)

Author : He Huang

Published in: Advances in Best-Worst Method

Publisher: Springer Nature Switzerland

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes. To address this need, Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) has emerged as a group decision-making framework that takes into account the preferences of key stakeholders. MAMCA provides a flexible structure that aims to capture the various points of view of stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. After the group evaluation, MAMCA encourages stakeholders to engage in discussions and negotiations to reach a consensus solution. However, sometimes it is challenging to reach a consensus solution as stakeholders normally hold conflict interests. Furthermore, during the evaluation, stakeholders may struggle to understand the weight elicitation methods, which can lead to elicitation results that do not reflect their preferences or expectations. Consequently, the Best-Worst Method (BWM) effectively addresses these challenges by simplifying the elicitation process and promoting consistency among judgments, ultimately enhancing the reliability and robustness of decision-making outcomes. This paper proposes a robust group decision-making framework based on MAMCA that incorporates BWM as the weight elicitation method. The proposed framework integrates elicited criteria weights and their consistency ratios from BWM into the consensus-reaching model to further increase the consistency of the results and identify consensual solutions that all stakeholders can accept. The effectiveness of the proposed framework is demonstrated through a logistics study.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Lindenau, M., & Böhler-Baedeker, S. (2014). Citizen and stakeholder involvement: A precondition for sustainable urban mobility. Transportation Research Procedia, 4, 347–360.CrossRef Lindenau, M., & Böhler-Baedeker, S. (2014). Citizen and stakeholder involvement: A precondition for sustainable urban mobility. Transportation Research Procedia, 4, 347–360.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Barfod, M. B. (2018). Supporting sustainable transport appraisals using stakeholder involvement and MCDA. Transport, 33(4), 1052–1066.CrossRef Barfod, M. B. (2018). Supporting sustainable transport appraisals using stakeholder involvement and MCDA. Transport, 33(4), 1052–1066.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Macharis, C. (2005). The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport. Macharis, C. (2005). The importance of stakeholder analysis in freight transport.
4.
go back to reference Hwang, C.-L., & Lin, M.-J. (2012). Group decision making under multiple criteria: Methods and applications (Vol. 281). Springer. Hwang, C.-L., & Lin, M.-J. (2012). Group decision making under multiple criteria: Methods and applications (Vol. 281). Springer.
5.
go back to reference Yager, R. R. (1993). Non-numeric multi-criteria multi-person decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(1), 81–93.CrossRef Yager, R. R. (1993). Non-numeric multi-criteria multi-person decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 2(1), 81–93.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Liu, W., Dong, Y., Chiclana, F., Cabrerizo, F. J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2017). Group decision-making based on heterogeneous preference relations with self-confidence. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 16, 429–447.CrossRef Liu, W., Dong, Y., Chiclana, F., Cabrerizo, F. J., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2017). Group decision-making based on heterogeneous preference relations with self-confidence. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, 16, 429–447.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kabak, Ö., & Ervural, B. (2017). Multiple attribute group decision making: A generic conceptual framework and a classification scheme. Knowledge-Based Systems, 123, 13–30.CrossRef Kabak, Ö., & Ervural, B. (2017). Multiple attribute group decision making: A generic conceptual framework and a classification scheme. Knowledge-Based Systems, 123, 13–30.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kilgour, D. M., Chen, Y., & Hipel, K. W. (2010). Multiple criteria approaches to group decision and negotiation. In Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis (pp. 317–338). Kilgour, D. M., Chen, Y., & Hipel, K. W. (2010). Multiple criteria approaches to group decision and negotiation. In Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis (pp. 317–338).
9.
go back to reference Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186.CrossRef Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of multi-criteria decision analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Macharis, C., De Witte, A., & Ampe, J. (2009). The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 43(2), 183–202.CrossRef Macharis, C., De Witte, A., & Ampe, J. (2009). The multi-actor, multi-criteria analysis methodology (MAMCA) for the evaluation of transport projects: Theory and practice. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 43(2), 183–202.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Macharis, C. (2007). Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: The MAMCA method. In Transport project evaluation: Extending the social cost-benefit approach (pp. 115–131). Edward Elgar. Macharis, C. (2007). Multi-criteria analysis as a tool to include stakeholders in project evaluation: The MAMCA method. In Transport project evaluation: Extending the social cost-benefit approach (pp. 115–131). Edward Elgar.
12.
go back to reference Huang, H., Mommens, K., Lebeau, P., & Macharis, C. (2021). The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) for mass-participation decision making. In Decision Support Systems XI: Decision Support Systems, Analytics and Technologies in Response to Global Crisis Management: 7th International Conference on Decision Support System Technology, ICDSST 2021, Proceedings, Loughborough, UK, May 26–28, 2021 (pp. 3–17). Springer Huang, H., Mommens, K., Lebeau, P., & Macharis, C. (2021). The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA) for mass-participation decision making. In Decision Support Systems XI: Decision Support Systems, Analytics and Technologies in Response to Global Crisis Management: 7th International Conference on Decision Support System Technology, ICDSST 2021, Proceedings, Loughborough, UK, May 26–28, 2021 (pp. 3–17). Springer
13.
go back to reference Huang, H., Lebeau, P., & Macharis, C. (2020). The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA): New software and new visualizations. In Decision Support Systems X: Cognitive Decision Support Systems and Technologies: 6th International Conference on Decision Support System Technology, ICDSST 2020, Proceedings, Zaragoza, Spain, May 27–29, 2020 (Vol. 6, pp. 43–56). Springer. Huang, H., Lebeau, P., & Macharis, C. (2020). The multi-actor multi-criteria analysis (MAMCA): New software and new visualizations. In Decision Support Systems X: Cognitive Decision Support Systems and Technologies: 6th International Conference on Decision Support System Technology, ICDSST 2020, Proceedings, Zaragoza, Spain, May 27–29, 2020 (Vol. 6, pp. 43–56). Springer.
14.
go back to reference Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.CrossRef Rezaei, J. (2015). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega, 53, 49–57.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Mohammadi, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model. Omega, 96, 102075.CrossRef Mohammadi, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Bayesian best-worst method: A probabilistic group decision making model. Omega, 96, 102075.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Huang, H., De Smet, Y., Macharis, C., & Doan, N. A. V. (2021). Collaborative decision-making in sustainable mobility: Identifying possible consensuses in the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis based on inverse mixed-integer linear optimization. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(1), 64–74.CrossRef Huang, H., De Smet, Y., Macharis, C., & Doan, N. A. V. (2021). Collaborative decision-making in sustainable mobility: Identifying possible consensuses in the multi-actor multi-criteria analysis based on inverse mixed-integer linear optimization. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 28(1), 64–74.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Macharis, C., Turcksin, L., & Lebeau, K. (2012). Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: State of use. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 610–620.CrossRef Macharis, C., Turcksin, L., & Lebeau, K. (2012). Multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) as a tool to support sustainable decisions: State of use. Decision Support Systems, 54(1), 610–620.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Chakhar, S., & Saad, I. (2014). Incorporating stakeholders’ knowledge in group decision-making. Journal of Decision Systems, 23(1), 113–126. Chakhar, S., & Saad, I. (2014). Incorporating stakeholders’ knowledge in group decision-making. Journal of Decision Systems, 23(1), 113–126.
19.
go back to reference Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modeling processes. Integrated Assessment, 3(1), 3–14.CrossRef Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Participative and stakeholder-based policy design, evaluation and modeling processes. Integrated Assessment, 3(1), 3–14.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Dean, M. (2021). Participatory multi-criteria analysis methods: Comprehensive, inclusive, transparent and user-friendly? An application to the case of the london gateway port. Research in Transportation Economics, 88, 100887.CrossRef Dean, M. (2021). Participatory multi-criteria analysis methods: Comprehensive, inclusive, transparent and user-friendly? An application to the case of the london gateway port. Research in Transportation Economics, 88, 100887.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Huang, H., Canoy, R., Brusselaers, N., & Te Boveldt, G. (2023). Criteria preprocessing in multi-actor multi-criteria analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Huang, H., Canoy, R., Brusselaers, N., & Te Boveldt, G. (2023). Criteria preprocessing in multi-actor multi-criteria analysis. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis.
22.
go back to reference Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1993). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1993). Decision analysis and behavioral research.
23.
go back to reference Simos, J. (1989). L’évaluation environnementale. Technical report, EPFL. Simos, J. (1989). L’évaluation environnementale. Technical report, EPFL.
24.
go back to reference Brans, J.-P., & De Smet, Y. (2016). Promethee methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 187–219). Brans, J.-P., & De Smet, Y. (2016). Promethee methods. In Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (pp. 187–219).
25.
go back to reference Saaty, T. L. (1989). Group decision making and the AHP. In The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies (pp. 59–67). Saaty, T. L. (1989). Group decision making and the AHP. In The analytic hierarchy process: Applications and studies (pp. 59–67).
26.
go back to reference Rezaei, J., Arab, A., & Mehregan, M. (2022). Analyzing anchoring bias in attribute weight elicitation of smart, swing, and best-worst method. International Transactions in Operational Research. Rezaei, J., Arab, A., & Mehregan, M. (2022). Analyzing anchoring bias in attribute weight elicitation of smart, swing, and best-worst method. International Transactions in Operational Research.
27.
go back to reference Rezaei, J. (2022). The balancing role of best and worst in best-worst method. In Advances in Best-Worst Method: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Best-Worst Method (BWM2021) (pp. 1–15). Springer. Rezaei, J. (2022). The balancing role of best and worst in best-worst method. In Advances in Best-Worst Method: Proceedings of the Second International Workshop on Best-Worst Method (BWM2021) (pp. 1–15). Springer.
28.
go back to reference Edwards, W. (1977). How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 7(5), 326–340.CrossRef Edwards, W. (1977). How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 7(5), 326–340.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Barua, A. (2013). Methods for decision-making in survey questionnaires based on Likert scale. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 3(1), 35–38. Barua, A. (2013). Methods for decision-making in survey questionnaires based on Likert scale. Journal of Asian Scientific Research, 3(1), 35–38.
30.
go back to reference Liang, F., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega, 96, 102175.CrossRef Liang, F., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2020). Consistency issues in the best worst method: Measurements and thresholds. Omega, 96, 102175.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Zhang, H., Dong, Y., Chiclana, F., & Yu, S. (2019). Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design. European Journal of Operational Research, 275(2), 580–598.CrossRef Zhang, H., Dong, Y., Chiclana, F., & Yu, S. (2019). Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design. European Journal of Operational Research, 275(2), 580–598.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Jia, J., Fischer, G. W., & Dyer, J. S. (1998). Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 85–105.CrossRef Jia, J., Fischer, G. W., & Dyer, J. S. (1998). Attribute weighting methods and decision quality in the presence of response error: A simulation study. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 11(2), 85–105.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Barron, F. H., & Barrett, B. E. (1996). The efficacy of smarter-simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychologica, 93(1–3), 23–36.CrossRef Barron, F. H., & Barrett, B. E. (1996). The efficacy of smarter-simple multi-attribute rating technique extended to ranking. Acta Psychologica, 93(1–3), 23–36.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Roland, J., Figueira, J. R., & De Smet, Y. (2016). Finding compromise solutions in project portfolio selection with multiple experts by inverse optimization. Computers & Operations Research, 66, 12–19.CrossRef Roland, J., Figueira, J. R., & De Smet, Y. (2016). Finding compromise solutions in project portfolio selection with multiple experts by inverse optimization. Computers & Operations Research, 66, 12–19.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Insua, D. R., & French, S. (1991). A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 54(2), 176–190.CrossRef Insua, D. R., & French, S. (1991). A framework for sensitivity analysis in discrete multi-objective decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 54(2), 176–190.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Doan, N. A. V., & De Smet, Y. (2018). An alternative weight sensitivity analysis for PROMETHEE II rankings. Omega, 80, 166–174.CrossRef Doan, N. A. V., & De Smet, Y. (2018). An alternative weight sensitivity analysis for PROMETHEE II rankings. Omega, 80, 166–174.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.CrossRef Rezaei, J. (2016). Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega, 64, 126–130.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Liang, F., Verhoeven, K., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2021). Inland terminal location selection using the multi-stakeholder best-worst method. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1–23. Liang, F., Verhoeven, K., Brunelli, M., & Rezaei, J. (2021). Inland terminal location selection using the multi-stakeholder best-worst method. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 1–23.
Metadata
Title
Robust Stakeholder-Based Group-Decision Making Framework: The Multi-Actor Multi-Criteria Analysis (MAMCA) with the Integration of Best-Worst Method (BWM)
Author
He Huang
Copyright Year
2023
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-40328-6_2

Premium Partner