The structure of development decision-making

Brugha, Cathal M.

doi:10.1016/s0377-2217(97)00248-8

Cited by 34 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Brugha (1998b) showed that qualitative structuring divides into adjustment and development. A qualitative structuring approach to de6elopment type problems is considered elsewhere (Brugha, 1998d). The PPP is not appropriate for them.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An introduction to the Priority-Pointing Procedure

Brugha

2000

J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An introduction to the Priority-Pointing Procedure

Brugha

2000

J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Theoretical frameworks that treat decision development at a more general level (see, for example, Brugha, 1998), while relevant to our subject of study, are beyond the scope of this paper and thus will be excluded from the discussion that follows.…”

Section: Conceptualisations Of Decision Development In the Fm Traditionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

Franco

Rouwette

2011

European Journal of Operational Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: Netherlands ABSTRACT While the facilitated modelling literature recognises the importance of the group process within facilitated modelling workshops, published empirical research rarely examines their dynamic nature. In this paper, we address this gap in the literature in two ways. First, we propose to locate facilitated modelling workshops as the main focus of investigation, and adopt decision development as the analytical lens. Second, we provide guidance regarding how to implement a research strategy that is informed by such a focus. We start by mapping the different conceptualisations of decision development that seem embedded within the facilitated modelling tradition, and contrast them with theoretical models from the group communication field. Our analysis identifies a number of potentially useful areas for the study of facilitated modelling workshops from a decision development perspective, and articulates a number tentative research questions and testable propositions amenable to empirical research. Central to our proposal are research methods for the study of dynamic group processes. We thus discuss the steps required to extract group process data from facilitated modelling workshops that are usable and open to analysis. This includes a review of issues regarding research design, coding scheme development, data coding and choice of analytical techniques. Finally, we offer conclusions and briefly discuss some feasibility issues related to the implementation of our proposal.

show abstract

“…Nomology (Brugha 1998a(Brugha , 1998b(Brugha and 1998c Consider the structuring that was done for the house choice. The hierarchy in Figure 3 shows that the biggest qualitative distinction is at the top of the hierarchy with the issue of financing determining whether or not one can afford the house or not.…”

Section: Relevance Of Nomologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This article develops from work by the author on the structure of qualitative decision-making (Brugha 1998a(Brugha , 1998b(Brugha and 1998c which is determined by Nomology (Hamilton, 1877), the science of the laws of the mind. It provides a basis for modelling the way people might differentiate multiple criteria.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Structuring and Weighting Criteria in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

Brugha

1998

Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The implications of qualitative distinctions between multiple criteria are considered. Some contributions to theory about the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) are challenged. Experiments on alternative criteria structures are reported. These suggest that confusing structures are bad, but good structures are better than none. Guidelines on how to develop a structure are given for a well known case of the purchase of a house. It is suggested that differences between decision alternatives should provide a first phase basis for discovering criteria. A criteria tree should be structured 'top down' as a second phase by clustering criteria on the basis of qualitative difference. On any level the differences between criteria should follow relatively simple patterns. The rules used suggest the relevance of work on the structure of qualitative decision-making which is determined by Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind. Implications are considered for weighting trade-offs between homogeneous clusters of criteria.This should be done as a later 'bottom up' phase. The AHP scoring system is challenged. Some tests of alternative scoring methods are reported.

show abstract

The structure of development decision-making

Cited by 34 publications

References 3 publications

An introduction to the Priority-Pointing Procedure

An introduction to the Priority-Pointing Procedure

Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops

Structuring and Weighting Criteria in Multi Criteria Decision Making (MCDM)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About