Group Decis Negot (2014) 23:5–29 DOI 10.1007/s10726-012-9326-2
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support in Public Strategic Planning: The Pernambuco PPA Case Carlos A. Bana e Costa · João Carlos Lourenço · Mónica Duarte Oliveira · João C. Bana e Costa
Published online: 12 January 2013 © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013
Abstract This article describes a socio-technical approach to public strategic planning. A multi-methodological framework with decision support systems (DSS) of problem structuring, multi-criteria decision analysis and strategic thinking was used in a decision conferencing process to support the key-players of the Pernambuco State Department of Social Development and Human Rights, in Brazil, to elaborate its 2008–2011 Multi-Annual Plan (PPA). This interactive process took place in June 2007, with thirty technical and political actors meeting in 5 consecutive days to discuss what should be the fundamental objectives/development axes of the PPA and to generate, assess and classify intervention programmes to achieve the objectives. Structuring objectives and programmes started by a group causal mapping session supported by the Decision Explorer DSS. Then, a multi-criteria group value model, created on-the-spot by means of the M-MACBETH DSS, helped the politicians in evaluating the overall benefit of each programme. The doability of the programmes was also appraised with MACBETH and, finally, the programmes were classified into four benefit versus doability categories defined in a 2×2 strategic graph: “pearls” (programmes with high benefit value and easy to implement), “oysters” (high benefit but difficult to implement), “bread and butter” (easy to implement but of low added value) and “white elephants” (low benefit and difficult to implement). The group agreed that at least all pearls and oysters should be selected. The programmes were prioritised based on their value-for-effort and the robustness of the selection was analysed with the PROBE DSS a posteriori.
C. A. Bana e Costa (B) · J. C. Lourenço · M. D. Oliveira CEG-IST, Centre for Management Studies of IST, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Av. Rovisco Pais, 1049-001 Lisbon, Portugal e-mail:
[email protected] J. C. Bana e Costa BANA Consulting, Lda., R. Prof. Bento Jesus Caraça, 33, 1600-600 Lisbon, Portugal
123
6
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
Keywords Strategic planning · Decision conferencing · Causal mapping · Multi-criteria decision analysis · Prioritisation · MACBETH.
1 Introduction In 2007 the Government of Pernambuco, a State in the Northeast region of Brazil with about 8.8 million inhabitants, asked the various State Departments to prepare their programmes to the 2008–2011 Multi-Annual Plan (PPA—“Plano Plurianual”). The Head of the new State Department of Social Development and Human Rights (SEDSDH—“Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Social e Direitos Humanos”) saw this as an opportunity to gather the senior decision-makers and technical staff of the previously autonomous and heterogeneous entities that had been recently integrated into SEDSDH. His goal was to get them aligned and committed to SEDSDH strategic objectives and translate these objectives into agreed intervention programmes for the PPA. The social challenge was presented as “to formulate, execute, monitor and evaluate, along with society and other governmental entities, integrated public policies in the field of social development and human rights which will enable, in a conscientious and desired way, the transformation of the social reality of the Pernambucans living in a situation of vulnerability and risk” (SEDSDH 2007). Such a setting—in which several stakeholders or representatives, who have different views and potentially opposed interests in the decision outcome, face the challenges of generating corporate strategic plans, reaching consensus or compromise, and prioritising complex issues—is typical in group support system applications (Lewis 2010). It is well-documented that groups encounter obstacles when attempting to work together to make decisions and solve problems (Lewis 2010) and decision support systems (DSS) have proven to play a key role in overcoming such difficulties by effectively assisting groups, namely in the generation and organization of ideas and in the use of voting to promote the achievement of consensus (Vogel and Coombes 2010). With these expectations, it was suggested that SEDSDH follow a socio-technical approach for group decision support, which builds upon lessons learned from several public strategic planning processes with the direct involvement of politicians [as in developing a strategic plan for the city of Barcelos (Bana e Costa et al. 2002)] and other actors [as in developing a vision for Puerto Rico where more than 150 stakeholders participated (Puerto Rico 2025 2004)]. By focusing on support systems aimed at facilitating a group in the structuring, analysis and negotiation of decisions, the proposed approach is within the scope of the facilitated group decision and negotiation branch of the group decision and negotiation literature (Kilgour and Eden 2010). It has the components of a group support system by integrating technology, a group of participants and facilitation (Ackermann et al. 2005). The political actors agreed to participate in open discussion sessions together with technical actors. These sessions were decision conferences (Phillips 2007; Phillips and Bana e Costa 2007; Lewis 2010) developed under the principles of process consultation (Schein 1999), in such a way that the effects of preferences and choices taken by participants during the sessions were quickly reported in a friendly way, and so that those effects could be easily understood by all the participants, thus enabling collective
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
7
learning and the generation and debate of new ideas (Bana e Costa et al. 2002). In short, a group learning strategic thinking process developed taking the view that, as well stated by Bryson (2004), “what matters most is strategic thinking, acting, and learning” (p. iii). Such a type of learning and collaborative process has also been highlighted as central for decision implementation (DeSanctis and Gallupe 1987), which was a primary concern of SEDSDH’s Head. This article describes how the combined use of several techniques and methods of problem structuring, multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) and strategic thinking enabled the participants in the socio-technical process to: identify what should be the SEDSDH fundamental objectives (development axes); generate, assess and classify intervention programmes to achieve the objectives; and, to reach an agreement on which programmes should be proposed to integrate the 2008–2011 Multi-Annual Plan (PPA) of Pernambuco. More specifically, this multi-methodological framework (Mingers and Brocklesby 1997) integrated cognitive mapping and analysis of interconnected decision areas (Mingers and Rosenhead 2004), value-focused thinking (Keeney 1992) and multi-criteria value modelling (Belton and Stewart 2002) with MACBETH (Bana e Costa and Vansnick 1999), and strategic graph analysis (Matheson and Matheson 1998) and portfolio decision analysis (Salo et al. 2011) for project prioritisation. It is a “methodology enhancement” (Mingers and Brocklesby 1997) of MCDA with contributions of other decision support methodologies, “under a single paradigm—the learning paradigm—that guaranteed the theoretical and practical cohesion and consistency of the process at all stages of development (Midgley 1997)” (Bana e Costa et al. 2002, p. 435). Multi-modelling applications are not common in the group decision and negotiation literature and are a priority in the research agenda (Salo and Hämäläinen 2010). Although strategy workshops are common in formal strategic planning processes, most of them rely on discursive rather than on analytical approaches and MCDA is seldom used (Hodgkinson et al. 2006). This paper provides an empirical validation of the effectiveness of MCDA and decision conferencing to support group decision-making in a strategic workshop setting, if appropriately tailored (Montibeller and Franco 2011a). In particular, it suggests the enhancement of MACBETH with a voting procedure to ease the interactive generation of group compromise judgements about the desirability and doability of intervention programmes. It also shows how the concept of value-for-effort—which differs from the traditional value-for-money perspective (Phillips and Bana e Costa 2007)—is useful for programme prioritisation. The context of the SEDSDH case is addressed at the beginning of Sect. 2, from which the analytical approach was tailored and the intervention process designed. Having in mind the importance of reporting how facilitators design collaboration processes (Kolfschoten et al. 2007), the second part of Sect. 2 offers an overview of the structure of the group decision support process. Sections 3–5 then offer a detailed description of the methods and procedures followed to structure objectives and programmes (Sect. 3), evaluate programme benefits (Sect. 4) and develop a value-for-effort prioritisation of the programmes and analyse its robustness in face of disagreements on the relative importance of improving the current situation of Pernambuco on the fundamental objectives (Sect. 5). Section 6 reflects upon the experience at SEDSDH, discusses issues related with the use of DSS in this study, as well as suggests topics for further research.
123
8
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
2 The Socio-technical Approach 2.1 Application Context and Decision Support Techniques The proposed socio-technical approach for group decision support was detailed in a kick-off meeting with top managers of SEDSDH and discussed at the light of the Government directives to prepare the PPA (Governo do Estado de Pernambuco 2007), the “integrated model for social development and human rights” (SEDSDH 2007) and several questions that arose during the meeting. The most critical methodological challenge was to alter the subordination of objectives to programmes inherent to the Government “logic for the construction of a programme”: “Problem → Programme → Objective + Indicator” (Governo do Estado de Pernambuco 2007). A brief introduction to the principles of “value-focused thinking” (Keeney 1992) and its advantages over the “alternative-focused thinking” logic, led to a crucial agreement on reverting the sequence “Programme → Objective” to: Objectives followed by Programmes to achieve them. Value-focused thinking also helped to make clear the difference and relationship between “strategic” objectives of the SEDSDH and “fundamental” objectives for the PPA (Keeney 2007). Under this methodological perspective, it was then possible to discuss the questions posed: How to articulate the actions of the eight administrative units of the SEDSDH and structure them into coherent programmes? How to define the PPA objectives? How to obtain more efficient programmes – greater synergy, avoid overlapping of actions/activities, duplication of effort, and “quixotic” and isolated actions? How to make the programmes more effective at achieving the objectives? How to assess the benefits (positive or negative contributions to achieve the objectives) of the programmes and the implications of their prioritisation? What is the best portfolio of programmes in the light of the objectives? How to involve the various actors in a participatory and structured process to achieve their commitment towards the resulting prioritisation? Some of these questions bear on the problem of identifying, understanding and structuring key issues, for which several approaches have been proposed in the literature (see description in Bryson 2004). Among them, a causal mapping approach (Bryson et al. 2004; Eden 2004; Eden and Ackermann 1998) was followed, as interpreted in Bana e Costa et al. (1999b) and Bana e Costa et al. (2006), to support the identification of objectives and the definition of intervention programmes. Other questions are concerned with appraising the extent to which programmes achieve objectives. The strategy literature has given little attention to formal and explicit ex ante appraisal, in the eyes of the problem-owners and with their direct engagement, of the contribution of proposed actions to achieve the objectives. Or ad hoc evaluation procedures violating basic principles of decision analysis are suggested, such as weighted sums of ordinal ratings and direct importance weights (Thompson and Strickland 2003; Xu and Yeh 2012). To evaluate the programmes, an additive value model was constructed using MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique), which has proven to be effective to avoid those common scoring and weighting pitfalls in a wide variety of real-world cases reported in the literature (Bana e Costa et al. 2012b). The combined use of causal mapping and MACBETH in strategic planning cases goes back to 1994 in the public context
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
9
(Bana e Costa et al. 2002) and to 1996 in the private context (Bana e Costa et al. 1999a). An innovation in the SEDSDH’s case was the use of a voting procedure in the input stage of MACBETH value-elicitation, according to which the participants expressed individual qualitative judgements about the relative attractiveness of programmes. These judgements were subsequently discussed by the group, revised through an interactive and learning process, until compromise judgements were agreed by the group. Besides the evaluation of programmes’ benefits, an adequate answer to the question posed at the kick-off meeting regarding the prioritisation of programmes required also the appraisal of their doability, which also followed MACBETH voting. Ultimately, the concept of value-for-effort (being effort the complement of doability) was seen as more adequate for programmes’ prioritisation in the specific strategic setting than the traditional value-for-money approach previously used in more operational resource allocation contexts in local government (Bana e Costa et al. 2002) (see also Montibeller and Franco 2011b). The robustness of the selection made was analysed using PROBE, a multi-criteria DSS for portfolio robustness evaluation (Lourenço et al. 2012). In short, a multi-modelling application was developed under an integrated perspective in which evaluation was taken as “an activity embedded in the planning process and supporting many other activities in that process” (Cerreta 2010, p. 383). Figure 1 presents a summary of the main decision support techniques and tools used at different stages of the socio-technical process: Decision Explorer (Banxia Software Limited 2002), AIDA (Friend and Hickling 2005), M-MACBETH (Bana e Costa et al. 2005) and PROBE (Lourenço et al. 2012). As said in Sect. 1, decision conferencing was the participative framework used to apply those techniques to facilitate “social interaction, mutual learning, and communication” (De Montis 2007, p. 473), in view of achieving “a shared understanding of the issues, a sense of common purpose and a mutual commitment to action” (Phillips and Phillips 1993, p. 533). This and other related social aspects relevant for model building are discussed in Sect. 2.2.
Structuring objectives and programmes (section 3)
Fundamental objectives
Evaluating programmes (section 4)
↑
Cognitive mapping with Decision Explorer
Programmes ↑
Programmes ↑
Analysis of Interconnected Decision Areas
Prioritising programmes (section 5)
MACBETH with voting procedure Weights ↑
MACBETH with voting procedure
Programme doability ↑
MACBETH with voting procedure
Benefit-to-effort categories ↑
Strategic graph & robustness of the selection with PROBE
Fig. 1 Decision support stages and tools
123
10
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
Table 1 Tasks of the two work teams Teams
Tasks
Technical team (“T-team”): Representatives from the planning and budget teams of the Executive Offices for Management Coordination (SECOGE), Development and Social Action (SEDAS), Re-socialisation (SERES), Assistance for the Person with Disability (SEAD) and Justice and Human Rights (SEJUDH), and from the Children’s and Adolescent’s Foundation (FUNDAC), the Institute of Weights and Measurements (IPEM) and the Ombudsman’s Office (DPPE) Decision-making team (“DM-team”): The Secretary of State and the Executive Secretaries and the Directors and Superintendents of the eight administrative units of SEDSDH (SECOGE, SEDAS, SERES, SEAD, SEJUDH, FUNDAC, IPEM and DPPE)
Structuring tasks: Days 1–2: Structure objectives underpinning SEDSDH mission Day 3: Design and analyse actions and structure them into coherent intervention programmes Day 3: Organise factual information about the contribution of the programmes to the objectives
Day 4: Define PPA fundamental objectives Day 4: Validate and integrate programmes Evaluation and prioritisation tasks: Day 4: Evaluate the contribution of the programmes to achieve the fundamental objectives Day 4: Weight the fundamental objectives Day 5: Assess the doability of the programmes Day 5: Classify and prioritise the programmes
2.2 Designing the Social Process The social process consisted of a series of decision conferences, designed at the start of the engagement to develop the strategic planning. The participants were thirty political and technical problem-owners covering the different perspectives within the SEDSDH. They were grouped into two work teams, the decision-making team (the “DM-team”) and the technical team (the “T-team”), respectively, with distinct but complementary tasks (see Table 1). Estimates of duration of tasks and their sequence crossed with the availability of politicians for at most 2 full days gave rise to a 5 days schedule, from 11 to 15 June 2007. During the first 3 days, the T-team structured objectives and programmes. In the further 2 days, the DM-team, based on the T-team work, defined and weighted the fundamental objectives, evaluated the programmes and, finally, classified them also taking into account their perceived doability. The two teams met in the first session and on the afternoon of the third day and one technician from each administrative unit also took part in the DM-team’s sessions, assisting their senior decision-makers. Besides the problem-owners, two external experts in the intervention areas of SEDSDH were also present as advisors. Sections 3 and 4 detail the activities developed by the T-team and DM-team, respectively. To guarantee full concentration of the participants, the decision conferences took place in a retreat setting far from SEDSDH offices. Particular care was devoted to the arrangement of the conferencing environment, motivated by previous experience on its profound influence on the effectiveness of group working (Bana e Costa et al. 2002) (see also Hickling 1990; Phillips and Phillips 1993). The layout of the conferencing room (see Fig. 2) ensured easy eye-to-eye contact between participants and
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
11
Participants
Participants
Post-its wall
Participants
Facilitator
Analyst
Analyst
Screen
Screen
Fig. 2 Layout of the decision conferencing room
visual access to computer-projected information. Two screens were used to aid the undertaking of the tasks, one of them to display factual data, the other one to show the computer-based models, which were created on-the-spot, integrating objective data and group judgements. The facilitation was guided by the ten principles of process consultation explained by Schein, in particular principle 5 (Schein 1999): “It is the client who owns the problem and the solution” (p. 20). Thus, the process consultants led the teams in “how to think about the issues, not what to think, which is the responsibility of the participants” (Phillips and Bana e Costa 2007, p. 55).
3 Structuring Objectives and Programmes The structuring phase began with a discussion about the main challenges and concerns of the SEDSDH, which enabled the T-team to reach a shared understanding about the SEDSDH mission. Afterwards, a “Post-it session” (Belton and Stewart 2002; Bryson et al. 2004) was held, developed from the core strategic question “where do you want Pernambuco to be in 2011?”. First, each participant wrote down up to five ideas on Post-it notes, one idea per note, which they believed underpinned the mission of SEDSDH. Next they stuck up their Post-it notes on the wall, trying to place them next to other notes that contained similar ideas; a few new ideas emerged from reading others’ notes and duplications were eliminated, which reduced the initial 60 notes to around 40 that were clustered by similar topics. Then, the meaning and pertinence of each idea were clarified and discussed by the T-team and links with other ideas were identified. Ideas considered relevant and relationships between them were inserted into a Decision Explorer model, gradually giving rise to the group causal
123
12
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
Fig. 3 The group causal map
Fig. 4 The simplified map (ends-objectives are in bold)
map shown in Fig. 3. Discussion around the map enabled successive simplifications and by the end of the second day the T-team had identified the main ends-objectives and means-objectives and their relationships, shown in the simplified map depicted in Fig. 4. Meanwhile, for part of the third day of work, the T-team was engaged in an actiongeneration session on “how to improve the current situation of Pernambuco?”. Actions suggested by the various entities of SEDSDH and other actions that emerged from the “tails” of the causal map (Fig. 3) were clustered into 40 intervention programmes. The technicians were instructed with basic concepts of AIDA—the Analysis of Interconnected Decision Areas included in the Strategic Choice approach (Friend and Hickling
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
13
2005) (see also, Friend 2001; Hickling 2001)—which helped them to analyse interconnections between actions, systematise major compatibilities and incompatibilities between actions and take them into consideration in clustering the actions into coherent intervention programmes. Finally, the T-team organised factual information about how the programmes would contribute to improve the Pernambuco current situation in a given end-objective. The most important distinction was between a direct and an indirect contribution. As a matter of fact, one of the “requirements for the constitution of a programme” was its classification according to a typology that distinguishes “finalistic” from “support” programmes: “A programme is considered finalistic if it contains actions that result in goods or services supplied directly to society” (Governo do Estado de Pernambuco 2007, p. 10). For example, programmes 3.1–3.4 in Table 2 are typical support programmes. In the late afternoon of the third day a joint meeting of the two teams was held. The technicians presented the politicians with the causal maps and the programmes and respective contributions that resulted from their structuring sessions. The fourth day started by the visual analysis of the simplified map in Fig. 4. Assisted by their internal and external advisors, the politicians discussed this “means-ends objectives network” (Keeney 1992) to validate those objectives classified as ends by the technicians. In fact “it may be that what initially appear to be objectives or goals in fact end up being issues (or opportunities or threats) that are means for achieving (or not) a particular goal or objective. Recognizing that something is an issue rather than a goal can help clarify which goals the issue actually affects, along with the determining action needed to effect the goal” (Bryson et al. 2004, p. 84). The discussion gave rise to an agreement on three fundamental objectives: “To promote the social inclusion and protection of people and families” (O1), “to promote human rights, making sure they are universal and guaranteed” (O2), and “to socialise adolescents in conflict with the law and re-socialise the prison population” (O3). Initially, “to improve the management of SEDSDH” was also retained as a fundamental objective of the PPA. However, later on, on the dynamics of the process, it would be considered by the DM-team as part of the organization objective of carrying out the SEDSDH mission, not a fundamental objective contributing to it (Keeney 2006). Next, the DM-team reviewed the programmes and identified inter-sector programmes that could generate synergies between services and a more efficient and effective management. At the end of the structuring phase, at lunchtime on the fourth day, the 40 initial programmes were consolidated into 25 integrated programmes (see Table 2).
4 The Evaluation Phase 4.1 Evaluating the Programmes on Each Fundamental Objective In an intensively participated decision conferencing session, held in the afternoon of the fourth day, politicians defined and weighted the fundamental objectives and evaluated the contribution of the programmes to achieve them, using MACBETH. Founded on multiattribute value theory (von Winterfeldt and Edwards 1986), the additive value
123
14
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
Table 2 The integrated programmes Administrative unit responsible for programme implementation
1. Executive Office for Development and Social Action (SEDAS)
2. Institute of Weights and Measurements (IPEM) 3. Executive Office for Management Coordination (SECOGE)
4. The Ombudsman’s Office (DPPE) 5. Children’s and Adolescent’s Foundation (FUNDAC) 6. Executive Office for Assistance for the Person with Disability (SEAD) 7. Executive Office for Re-socialization (SERES)
8. Executive Office for Justice and Human Rights (SEJUDH) (1+8). Responsibility shared by& SEJUDH SEDAS
Programme Code
Designation
1.1
Pernambuco caring for the street population
1.2
Food on the Table
1.3
Social productive insertion
1.4
Social mobilisation and control
1.5
Management of social assistance system
2.1
IPEM and Society
2.2
IPEM + Services
3.1
Administrative modernisation of SEDSDH
3.2
Development of SEDSDH staff
3.3
Infra-structure adequacy
3.4
Communication management at SEDSDH
4.1
Legal, Judicial and out-of-court Service
4.2
New DPPE
5.1
Institutional Accommodation (FUNDAC)
5.2
Socio-educative
6.1
Guarantee of rights for people with disabilities
6.2
Universal accessibility
7.1
Work to re-socialise
7.2
Safe Prison
7.3
Partnerships to re-socialise
7.4
Transparency to re-socialise
7.5
Re-socialisation: The great challenge
8.1
Consumer rights
8.2
State policy for human rights
(1+8).1
Centre for Defence of Life
model constructed with the DM-team was then explored to appraise the overall benefits of the programmes and rank them. The method promoted the generation of a compromise within the DM-team through a process of convergent thinking (as defined by Kaner et al. 2007), a key feature for group support (Vogel and Coombes 2010). Following the sequence “present and discuss arguments, vote, then discuss the disparities on the votes if they occur, and then vote again”, initial individual judgements gave rise to group compromise judgements. In typical applications of MACBETH (see, for example, Bana e Costa and Chagas 2004; Bana e Costa et al. 2008, 2012a) judgement
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
15
Fig. 5 Evaluation of the contribution of the 25 integrated programmes to objective O1: “To promote the social inclusion and protection of people and families” (the programmes 6.1–8.1 in the group ranking were considered to provide typical good contributions). A similar process was followed for objectives O2 and O3
elicitation is done with the M-MACBETH DSS. In the SEDSDH’s case, to ease the interaction, a complementary visual aid display was used—the display specifically used for scoring programmes on objective O1 (“To promote the social inclusion and protection of people and families”) is shown in Fig. 5. After an initial brainstorm, each of the nine participants was invited to give a qualitative judgement about the perceived contribution of each of the 25 programmes towards improving the current situation of Pernambuco on objective O1. Whenever a contribution of a programme was not null, each one had to judge its strength, giving an individual “vote” by selecting one of the following MACBETH qualitative categories (Bana e Costa et al. 2011): very weak, weak, moderate, strong, very strong, or extreme contribution. It is worthwhile noting
123
16
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
that such a vote corresponds to a judgement of the difference in attractiveness between the consequences of implementing the programme and doing nothing to change the status quo (SQ). The nine individual votes received by each programme are registered in the central columns of the visual display (depicted in Fig. 5), enabling an immediate appraisal of their disparities. These were then subject to group discussion, giving rise to a better understanding of the merits of the programmes and to the eventual revision of individual judgements. This discussion converged to a compromise on group judgements, which are presented already ordered in the column labelled “Difference to Status Quo” in Fig. 5. For example, programme 1.3 (“Social productive insertion”)— aiming to promote the social productive inclusion of the large number of Pernambucans living in extreme poverty—obtained three votes on “very strong” contribution and six votes on “extreme” contribution (see first row of the table in Fig. 5) that converged to “very strong to extreme”. The majority rule was adopted in more controversial cases. Then the differences of attractiveness between consecutive programmes in the group ranking were elicited by a similar voting, registered in the column labelled “Difference to next” in Fig. 5. For example, the “strong” in the first row indicates a strong difference between the two best programmes (1.3 and 6.2) in objective O1. Other MACBETH judgements (not registered in Fig. 5) between programmes were formulated for consistency testing (Bana e Costa et al. 2012b), for example, about differences between the best programme and other programmes. The visual support of the MACBETH group voting procedure was first used and successfully tested in 15 decision conferences involving each one about 10 participants, held in San Juan to appraise long term strategies for Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico 2025 2004). Once all the final voting was carried out (as depicted in the last two columns of Fig. 5, for objective O1), the set of all group judgments were inputted into MMACBETH (Bana e Costa et al. 2005)—the DSS that supports the application of the MACBETH approach. A score of 100 was arbitrarily assigned to programmes with good contributions (and, of course, zero to null contributions) to improve the SQ in each objective. Note that this corresponds to making explicit and fixing what is meant by a good added value on each objective—not an intrinsically good level of performance or reference targets (as done, for instance, in Bana e Costa and Vansnick 1999 or in Bana e Costa et al. 2012a, respectively). M-MACBETH generated quantitative value scores for the programmes that reconcile all judgments (these scores are generated by linear programming—a detailed and intuitive account of the MACBETH algorithm is available in Bana e Costa et al. 2012b). The DM-team was afterwards asked to analyse the realism of the value scores, and adjust the differences in scores if need be, so that they measure the relative attractiveness of the programmes with regard to objective O1. The scoring process was then repeated for objectives O2 and O3. Figure 6 shows the final value scores, validated by the DM-team, measuring the contributions of the programmes to improve the SQ in the three fundamental objectives. An analysis of the contribution profiles of the programmes was then carried out by the DM-team. For example, it was observed that programme 1.1 (“Pernambuco caring for the street population”) offers a good contribution simultaneously in the three objectives, and programmes 1.3, 1.5, 4.1 and (1+8).1, each one dominating 1.1, are surely at the top of a ranking of the programmes by overall benefit, whatever the
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
17
Fig. 6 Scores of the programmes in the objectives: (a) O1—to promote the social inclusion and protection of people and families; (b) O2—to promote human rights, making sure they are universal and guaranteed; (c) O3—to socialise adolescents in conflict with the law and re-socialise the prison population
relative importance of the objectives. This result was in accordance with the intuitions of the decision-makers. On the other hand, programmes 3.1–3.4 should be at the bottom of the ranking, given their low scores, a conclusion that was not shared by the Executive Secretary of SECOGE, promoter of these programmes (see discussion in Sect. 5.1). However, to produce a complete ranking and identify the most beneficial programmes, the contribution scores in the three objectives should be commensurate and this called for the weighting of the objectives. 4.2 Weighting the Fundamental Objectives The MACBETH weighting process took place late in the afternoon of the fourth day. Three hypothetical programmes (labelled [O1], [O2] and [O3]) were presented by the facilitator to the DM-team, each one assumed to give a good contribution, similar to the one of programme 1.1, to improve the SQ in one fundamental objective and no contribution in the others: [O1]—A good contribution “to promote the social inclusion and protection of people and families” and no contributions in O2 and O3. [O2]—A good contribution “to promote human rights, making sure they are universal and guaranteed” and no contributions in O1 and O3. [O3]—A good contribution “to socialise adolescents in conflict with the law and re-socialise the prison population” and no contributions in O1 and O2.
123
18
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
Table 3 The DM-team’s weighting judgments [O1] Good contribution to promote the social inclusion and protection of people and families; no further contributions
[O2] Good contribution to promote human rights, making sure they are universal and guaranteed; no further contributions
[O3] Good contribution to socialise adolescents in conflict with the law and re-socialise the prison population; no further contributions
Individual votes of overall attractiveness Extreme
1
Very strong
8
2
Very strong or Strong
2
Strong
5
Group judgements and ranking Very strong or extreme Strong or very strong 1st
2nd
4 5 Strong or very strong 2nd
Fig. 7 Weighting process using the M-MACBETH DSS: value tree with the SEDSDH’s objectives, matrix of weighting judgements, and set of weights validated by the DM-team. “No”, “strg-vstrg” and “vstrg-extr” are abbreviations of, respectively, “no difference”, “strong or very strong” and “very strong or extreme” difference in attractiveness
Each of the nine members of the DM-team judged the overall attractiveness of [O1], [O2], and [O3] by giving individual MACBETH votes, as displayed in Table 3. This is equivalent to “qualitative swing weighting” (Bana e Costa et al. 2012b), consisting in judging the “importance” of a good improvement to the SQ (i.e. a good swing) in one objective at a time. Note that all individual judgments were at least set as “strong”, an evidence of shared commitment to achieving all objectives. The subsequent discussion led to the compromise judgements shown in the last row of Table 3. [O1] was unanimously considered the most beneficial of the three hypothetical programmes, and [O2] and [O3] were at the end agreed as indifferent. Next, the DM-team was invited to judge the difference between [O1] and [O2], which was taken as moderate. These judgments were used to populate the weighting matrix in Fig. 7, from which M-MACBETH proposed relative weights for the objectives, which were discussed and adjusted by the DM-team. It is interesting to note that the participant that had voted “extreme” for [O1] argued in favour of taking objective O1 “as important as the other
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support Table 4 Scores of the programmes and weights of the fundamental objectives
Ranking
Overall benefit
19 Contribution scores O1
O2
O3
1.3
135
169
112
100
(1+8).1
128
133
147
100
4.1
127
128
135
118
6.2
123
141
135
82
4.2
104
100
124
91
1.5
103
100
112
100
7.1
103
69
100
164
8.2
102
69
159
100
1.1
100
100
100
100
7.5
96
54
100
164
5.1
91
62
112
118
6.1
89
100
124
36
7.3
87
59
59
164
1.2
85
100
100
45
5.2
85
54
59
164
8.1
79
100
112
9 164
7.4
68
21
53
3.2
62
72
35
73
7.2
60
3
53
164
1.4
48
54
41
45
3.4
28
15
41
36
3.1
23
18
18
36
3.3
19
8
12
45
2.1
18
26
24
0
2.2
11
10
24
0
46
27
27
Weights (%):
two together”, implying a weight of 50 % to objective O1. This is outside the interval, highlighted by M-MACBETH in the bar chart in Fig. 7, within which the weight of O1 can vary keeping the judgements unchanged. After discussion, the group decided for the final weights of 46 % for O1 and 27 % for the other two objectives.
4.3 Overall Benefits and Ranking of the Programmes Table 4 summarises the outputs of the MACBETH additive value model constructed with the DM-team, in which the programmes were ranked by decreasing order of overall benefits, obtained by weighted summation of the respective contribution scores in the three objectives. In the last decision conferencing day, the participants started by confronting the outputs of the model with their intuitions. Extensive sensitivity
123
20
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
analyses showed that many individual judgemental disagreements made no significant difference to the resulting most beneficial programmes, namely the nine programmes with good or better than good overall benefits (in italics in Table 4). Occasionally, participants did not agree with this classification because, they said, “some programmes are not realistic given that they are difficult to implement”. This misunderstanding between benefit value and difficulty of implementation gave to the facilitator an excellent opportunity to introduce the concept of “doability” and motivate the group to engage into the next task. 5 The Prioritisation Phase 5.1 Benefit Versus Doability Analysis The prioritisation needed to consider not only the benefits of programmes, but also their perceived “doability”, that is, the extent to which the group envisaged, or not, significant difficulties or obstacles to the implementation of each programme. The greater these difficulties or obstacles, whatever their nature might be (political, technical, financial, administrative, logistical, legal, etc), the higher the effort required to implement a programme is expected to be and, consequently, the lower its perceived doability tends to be. This is in line with the concept of “implementability” proposed in other contexts (see for example, Iivari and Ervasti 1994; Shiffman et al. 2005). Figure 8 synthesises the MACBETH process followed by the DM-team to assess the doability of the programmes, based on judgements from “no” to “extreme” doability, from which the doability scores were derived with M-MACBETH, in a 0–100 scale, respectively. As before, the results were discussed, compared with intuitions, adjusted when desired and finally validated by the DM-team. Finally, the DM-team, together with the internal and external advisors, debated the tensions between overall benefit and doability, with the visual support of the 2 × 2 strategic graph shown in Fig. 9. The programmes were classified into four categories according to their location in the graph quadrants (Matheson and Matheson 1998): “Pearls” (in quadrant II)—very beneficial programmes that have high doability. These are certainly the best candidates to integrate into the 2008–2011 PPA. “Oysters” (in quadrant I)—programmes of high benefit but difficult to implement. If it was possible to take measures to eliminate the main blockages to its implementation, an “oyster” programme can turn out to be a “pearl” programme. “Bread and butter’s” (in quadrant IV)—programmes with low benefits but which can be easily implemented; they can be important complements to other programmes and are interesting to produce some short-term results (on this point see the discussion on “quick wins” in Eden and Ackermann 1998). “White elephants” (in quadrant III)—programmes of low doability and low benefit. They require effort that could be alternatively allocated to implement the “oysters”.
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
21
Fig. 8 Doability assessment of the programmes
The DM-team particularly appreciated this classification of the programmes and was satisfied with a simple prioritisation: pearls ranked first, then oysters and bread and butter’s. However, the DM-team agreed with the arguments of the Executive Secretary of SECOGE against classifying programmes 3.1–3.4 in this category, for “they are crucial for the success of the SEDSDH mission”, he said. Therefore, the “support” nature of these four programmes could eventually justify their selection. At the end, an alignment with a way forward was reached: at least all pearls and oysters should be selected. A period of reflection before making a final recommendation on the portfolio
123
22
C. A. Bana e Costa et al. 150
Oysters
Pearls
Benefit
100
Bread and butter
White elephants
0 0
50
100
Doability
Fig. 9 Benefit versus doability graph
of programmes to be included in the PPA was agreed. Indeed, “some time is usually needed to digest fully the results, to prepare briefings of recommendations to the decision makers, and to explore the effects of new information that might alter the results in crucial areas” (Phillips and Bana e Costa 2007, p. 66). The SEDSDH’s Head considered the objectives of the process fully achieved and thanked all the participants and consultants before closing the meeting. 5.2 Robustness of Programme Prioritisation An analysis of the robustness of the programmes’ classification and prioritisation was performed after the decision conferencing process. An effort score was defined as 100 minus the doability score. In Table 5 the programmes are already prioritised by their value-for-effort, defined as the ratio between the benefit and the effort scores. As can be observed, to select all pearls and oysters, as desired by the DM-team, and at the same time respect the prioritisation, the five most efficient bread and butter’s (but no white elephants) should also be selected. The resulting portfolio, constituted by the first 14 programmes in Table 5, provides almost 70 % of the total cumulative benefit, but demanding a cumulative effort of around 50 % of the total effort that would be required to implement all programmes. Using the PROBE DSS (Lourenço et al. 2012), it was found out that, coincidently, the same 14 programmes constitute the best portfolio (i.e. the portfolio providing the highest cumulative benefit) for a limit of 50 % of cumulative effort. Given that the weights of the objectives were agreed after some controversy during the weighting decision conferencing (see Sect. 4.2), it is pertinent to analyse the extent to which a change in the set of weights would not affect the best portfolio. The robustness analysis with PROBE revealed that it would be necessary to change the weight of objective O1 by at least −10 or +10% (with the corresponding changes in O2 and O3) to alter the composition of the best portfolio. However, this
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
23
Table 5 Programmes prioritised by decreasing value-for-effort Programme
Benefit value
Effort
Benefit/effort
Category
Cumulative benefit (%)
Cumulative effort (%)
1.3
135
20
6.75
Pearl
6.8
1.7
4.2
104
20
5.20
Pearl
12.1
3.5
7.1
103
30
3.43
Pearl
17.3
6.1
4.1
127
50
2.54
Pearl
23.8
10.4
1.1
100
40
2.50
Pearl
28.8
13.9
7.4
68
30
2.27
Bread and butter
32.3
16.5
6.1
89
40
2.23
Bread and butter
36.8
20.0
7.3
87
40
2.18
Bread and butter
41.2
23.5
(1+8).1
128
60
2.13
Oyster
47.7
28.7
6.2
123
60
2.05
Oyster
53.9
33.9
2.1
18
10
1.80
Bread and butter
54.8
34.8
1.5
103
60
1.72
Oyster
60.0
40.0
1.2
85
50
1.70
Bread and butter
64.3
44.3
8.2
102
60
1.70
Oyster
69.5
49.6
1.4
48
30
1.60
Bread and butter
71.9
52.2
7.5
96
60
1.60
White elephant
76.8
57.4
5.1
91
60
1.52
White elephant
81.4
62.6
7.2
60
40
1.50
Bread and butter
84.4
66.1
5.2
85
60
1.42
White elephant
88.8
71.3
8.1
79
60
1.32
White elephant
92.8
76.5
2.2
11
10
1.10
Bread and butter
93.3
77.4
3.2
62
70
0.89
White elephant
96.5
83.5
3.4
28
50
0.56
Bread and butter
97.9
87.8
3.1
23
60
0.38
White elephant
99.0
93.0
3.3
19
80
0.24
White elephant
100.0
100.0
variation of the weights is far from being compatible with the qualitative judgements expressed by the DM-team (see Fig. 7).
6 Discussion Developing a tool to assist public strategic planning at SEDSDH confronted us with methodological and practice related difficulties and challenges. The most time consuming activity in the socio-technical process described in this paper was to achieve an agreement on the fundamental objectives driving the selection of the programmes to be proposed by SEDSDH as part of the 2008–2011 Multi-Annual Plan of Pernambuco. This is not at all surprising in light of the great diversity of points of view and concerns defended by the representatives of the different entities that constitute SEDSDH. To get them aligned with agreed fundamental objectives and intervention programmes to
123
24
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
achieve these objectives was, indeed, a significant achievement of the process. The crucial methodological shift was from an approach centred on discussing alternatives before objectives to a value-focused thinking approach (Keeney 1992), in which the separation of means from ends in the causal mapping sessions was of utmost importance. Once the fundamental objectives were defined, that is the “why” of the SEDSDH’s strategy, the generation of coherent intervention programmes, the “what to do”, was eased. Indeed, we agree with Phillips (2011) that strategy is “about what and why”. Different modelling paths could have been adopted to evaluate the programmes, all having pros and cons (see Bana e Costa et al. 2008). Consistent with our experience, direct paired comparisons of programmes can help generate a sense of common purpose within a group, in particular when applied in a decision conferencing setting, both in scoring the programmes and weighting the objectives. The same applies to the assessment of the doability of programmes, that enabled to account in the model for the multiple tangible and intangible aspects related to programme implementation and introduced another dimension into the analysis. The “benefit versus doability” graph proved to be a simple yet pragmatic tool to classify the programmes. It may be interesting to observe the structural analogy between the value-for-money and valuefor-effort concepts. Note that benefit and effort were both measured in ratio scales with fixed zeros equal to null added-value to the status quo and null implementation effort, respectively. Independently of the technique used for cardinal value measurement, if the value scale built is an interval numerical scale, then, by definition, the scale of differences in value (or added-value) is a ratio scale. This is the case of the benefit scale built (the numerator of the value-for-effort ratio) because it numerically measures added-value to (i.e., contribution to improve) the status quo. So, the fixed numerical score of 0 contribution must be assigned to the status quo and this is guaranteed by including a do nothing option (SQ) in the MACBETH matrix of judgments and fix the score of SQ equal to 0 (see Fig. 6). The same applies to the effort scale, obviously because the effort of doing nothing is null. Regarding participation issues, although a new way of deciding was adopted at SEDSDH, within a time demanding working-program, initial concerns in that SEDSDH’s staff could not reach a compromise or feel reluctant in accepting the methods in use or the outcomes from the evaluation model were not justified. At the end of the decision conferencing process, the participants had developed a sense of ownership of the final model, a sense of common purpose, as well as a mutual commitment to action (Phillips and Phillips 1993). The participation of the political and technical key players and of external advisors was determinant for the success of the group dynamic. The MACBETH voting procedure aided the group process to converge into a final agreement, promoting the acceptability of the outcome, as the Head of SEDSDH envisaged. In fact, we agree with Mintzberg (1994) that “managers with a committing style engage people in a journey. They lead in such a way that everyone on the journey helps shape its course. As a result, enthusiasm inevitably builds along the way. (…) strategies take on value only as committed people infuse them with energy.” (p. 109) When invited to revisit the case in a recent interview, three participants—the Head and two top managers of SEDSDH at that time—reported that the participative process
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
25
had enabled higher integration between the several entities within SEDSDH. This was because a balance was reached between the social and technical components of the process, with participants’ interaction developing within a clear and constructive evaluation system. This balance was successful in combining knowledge, transparency and communication, which are, following Alexander (2006), “challenges that many evaluations in planning fail to meet, even when their methods and procedures represent the best practices we know” (pp. 272–273). Despite its complexity, interactive evaluation led to a reduction in the differences encountered beforehand among the participants’ views and judgements. These results are in line with previous studies highlighting the role of “removing common communication barriers, providing techniques for structuring decisions and systematically directing pattern, timing and content of the discussion” in group decision making (DeSanctis and Gallupe 1987, p. 598). The level of model complexity did not affect communication and understanding by the group, with the multi-methodological approach contributing to an inclusive learning process that promoted legitimacy of the outputs and a sustained justification of the selection made. It was therefore not at all surprising to hear from the three participants interviewed that, at the end, the strategic objectives and programmes defined in the workshop, evaluated in terms of benefit and doability, determined the set of programmes and actions that was inserted in the 2008–2011 PPA, and were agreed by the Governor of Pernambuco to have the highest priority for SEDSDH. Programmes were implemented by the responsible administrative units, to different extents. The interviewees also emphasised that the contact with an innovative decision support method made them better equipped as public managers. It can be inferred that the outcome of the SEDSDH’s decision conferencing sessions was quite successful in terms of, using Lewis terminology (Lewis 2010), meeting effectiveness, meeting efficiency, user satisfaction and quality of decision, with quality of the decision viewed as the success of the decision support process in effectively providing satisfactory “elements of responses to questions” (Roy 2005, p. 5) that motivated the intervention and drove the design of the process (see Sect. 2.1). In spite of this, it should be noted that the multicriteria evaluation model constructed did not explicitly associate descriptors of impacts (“attributes”, Keeney 1992) of the programmes on the objectives. At the eyes of one of the executive managers, “this was not a methodological gap, it just was not included in the working-program because of time and other resource constraints”. But, a consequence was the impracticality of formally analysing and modelling preference dependences between attributes. An alternative pragmatic modelling path would consist in using a constructed descriptor of impacts common to all objectives and with some levels accounting for synergies, as done in Bana e Costa et al. (2002). One should however recognise that this is only a way of bypassing the dependence issue, not of facing it explicitly. A promising line of research in this direction is to explore a feasible way of integrating in a multiattribute modelling framework a complementary tool to capture interdependencies between attributes, compatible with MACBETH—for instance, learning from recent developments in the area of performance measurement of industrial systems (Clivillé et al. 2007). It is also worthwhile to note that the programme prioritisation and selection approach presented in Sect. 5.2 assumed as working hypothesis the validity of the independence conditions (Golabi et al. 1981) common in portfolio decision analysis (Kirkwood 1997; Kleinmuntz 2007; Phillips and Bana e Costa 2007; Salo et al. 2011).
123
26
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
The relevant discussion is whether the individual contribution of programmes to improve the status quo can be simply summed up. This is theoretically significant, for programme benefits are measured in a scale with a fixed zero (Clemen and Smith 2009), and it is also substantively significant (French 1986) in the specific context of the SEDSDH, for taking the programmes as value independent sounded reasonable to the SEDSDH’s decision-makers. However, programme additivity may not always hold, but the PROBE DSS is now able to model programmes’ interactions (Lourenço et al. 2012) within the methodological frame described in this paper. Finally, one should research the extent to which the MACBETH questioning-answering mode for qualitative value assessment is prone to behavioural biases (Fasolo et al. 2011). Acknowledgments The authors thank Acácio Carvalho, Alec Morton, Edgard Távora, Ivan Melo, Márcio Galvão and Roldão Joaquim dos Santos for their helpful comments and all the participants of the SEDSDH that took part in the decision conferencing process for their collaboration and enthusiasm. The authors acknowledge the support of UFPE (the Federal University of Pernambuco) and FCT (the Portuguese National Science Foundation).
References Ackermann F, Franco LA, Gallupe B, Parent M (2005) GSS for multi-organizational collaboration: reflections on process and content. Group Decis Negot 14(4):307–331. doi:10.1007/s10726-005-0317-4 Alexander ER (2006) Problems and prospects: dilemmas in evaluation and directions for the future. In: Alexander ER (ed) Evaluation in planning evolution and prospects. Ashgate, Hampshire, pp 267–276 Bana e Costa CA, Vansnick JC (1999) The MACBETH approach: Basic ideas, software, and an application. In: Meskens N, Roubens MR (eds) Advances in decision analysis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 131–157 Bana e Costa CA, Chagas MP (2004) A career choice problem: an example of how to use MACBETH to build a quantitative value model based on qualitative value judgments. Eur J Oper Res 153(2):323–331. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00155-3 Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Corrêa EC, Vansnick JC (1999a) Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multicriteria decision aid process. Eur J Oper Res 113(2):315–335. doi:10.1016/ S0377-2217(98)00219-7 Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Corrêa EC, Vansnick JC (1999b) Mapping critical factors for the survival of firms: a case-study in the Brazilian textile industry. In: Kersten GE, Mikolajuk Z, Yeh AG (eds) Decision support systems for sustainable development: a resource book of methods and applications. Kluwer, Boston, pp 197–213 Bana e Costa CA, Costa-Lobo ML, Ramos IAJ (2002) Multicriteria approach for strategic town planning: the case of Barcelos. In: Bouyssou D, Jacquet-Lagrèze E, Perny P, Slowinsky R, Vanderpooten D, Vincke P (eds) Aiding decisions with multiple criteria: essays in honour of Bernard Roy. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 429–456 Bana e Costa CA, De Corte JM, Vansnick JC (2005) M-MACBETH version 1.1 user’s guide Bana e Costa CA, Fernandes TG, Correia PVD (2006) Prioritisation of public investments in social infrastructures using multicriteria value analysis and decision conferencing: a case study. Int Trans Oper Res 13(4):279–297. doi:10.1111/j.1475-3995.2006.00549.x Bana e Costa CA, Lourenço JC, Chagas MP, Bana e Costa JC (2008) Development of reusable bid evaluation models for the Portuguese Electric Transmission Company. Decis Anal 5(1):22–42. doi:10.1287/deca. 1080.0104 Bana e Costa CA, De Corte JM, Vansnick JC (2011) MACBETH (measuring attractiveness by a categorical based evaluation technique). In: Cochran JJ (ed) Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science, vol 4. Wiley, London, pp 2945–2950. doi:10.1002/9780470400531.eorms0970 Bana e Costa CA, Carnero MC, Oliveira MD (2012a) A multi-criteria model for auditing a predictive maintenance programme. Eur J Oper Res 217(2):381–393. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2011.09.019 Bana e Costa CA, De Corte JM, Vansnick JC (2012b) MACBETH. Int J Inf Technol Decis Making 11(2):359–387. doi:10.1142/S0219622012400068
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
27
Banxia Software Limited (2002) Decision explorer—user’s guide version 3.2. Banxia Software Limited, Kendal Belton V, Stewart TJ (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer, Boston Bryson JM (2004) Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: a guide to strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement, 3rd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Bryson JM, Ackermann F, Eden C, Finn CB (2004) Visible thinking: unlocking causal mapping for practical business results. Wiley, Chichester Cerreta M (2010) Thinking through complex values. In: Cerreta M, Concilio G, Monno V (eds) Making strategies in spatial planning. Springer, Berlin, pp 381–404 Clemen RT, Smith JE (2009) On the choice of baselines in multiattribute portfolio analysis: a cautionary note. Decis Anal 6(4):256–262. doi:10.1287/deca.1090.0158 Clivillé V, Berrah L, Mauris G (2007) Quantitative expression and aggregation of performance measurements based on the MACBETH multi-criteria method. Int J Prod Econ 105(1):171–189. doi:10.1016/j. ijpe.2006.03.002 De Montis A (2007) Participative and interactive evaluation: a review of the methodologies. In: Deakin M, Mitchell G, Nijkamp P, Vreeker R (eds) Sustainable urban development Volume 2: the environmental assessment methods. pp 473–491 DeSanctis G, Gallupe B (1987) A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Manage Sci 33(5):589–609. doi:10.1287/mnsc.33.5.589 Eden C (2004) Analyzing cognitive maps to help structure issues or problems. Eur J Oper Res 159(3): 673–686. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00431-4 Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Making strategy: the journey of strategic management. Sage Publications, London Fasolo B, von Winterfeldt D, Morton A (2011) Behavioural issues in portfolio decision analysis. In: Salo A, Keisler J, Morton A (eds) Portfolio decision analysis: improved methods for resource allocation. Springer, New York, pp 149–168 French S (1986) Decision theory: an introduction to the mathematics of rationality. Ellis Horwood, Chichester Friend J (2001) The strategic choice approach. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 115–150 Friend J, Hickling A (2005) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 3rd edn. Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Golabi K, Kirkwood CW, Sicherman A (1981) Selecting a portfolio of solar energy projects using multiattribute preference theory. Manage Sci 27(2):174–189. doi:10.1287/mnsc.27.2.174 Governo do Estado de Pernambuco (2007) Manual para elaboração do Plano Plurianual 2008–2011 Hickling A (1990) ‘Decision spaces’: a scenario about designing appropriate rooms for group decision management. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. SAGE Publications, London, pp 169–177 Hickling A (2001) Gambling with frozen fire? In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 151–180 Hodgkinson GP, Whittington R, Johnson G, Schwarz M (2006) The role of strategy workshops in strategy development processes: formality, communication, co-ordination and inclusion. Long Range Plann 39(5):479–496. doi:10.1016/j.lrp.2006.07.003 Iivari J, Ervasti I (1994) User information satisfaction: IS implementability and effectiveness. Inf Manag 27(4):205–220. doi:10.1016/0378-7206(94)90049-3 Kaner S, Lind L, Toldi C, Fisk S, Berger D (2007) Facilitator’s guide to participatory decision-making, 2nd edn. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco Keeney RL (1992) Value-focused thinking: a path to creative decisionmaking. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Keeney RL (2006) Eliciting knowledge about values for public policy decisions. Int J Info Technol Decis Making 5(4):739–749. doi:10.1142/S0219622006002295 Keeney RL (2007) Developing objectives and attributes. In: Edwards W, Miles RF Jr, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 104–128
123
28
C. A. Bana e Costa et al.
Kilgour DM, Eden C (2010) Introduction to the handbook of group decision and negotiation. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Berlin, pp 1–7 Kirkwood CW (1997) Strategic decision making: multiobjective decision analysis with spreadsheets. Duxbury Press, Belmont Kleinmuntz DN (2007) Resource allocation decisions. In: Edwards W, Miles RF, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 400–418 Kolfschoten GL, Den Hengst-Bruggeling M, De Vreede GJ (2007) Issues in the design of facilitated collaboration processes. Group Decis Negot 16(4):347–362. doi:10.1007/s10726-006-9054-6 Lewis LF (2010) Group support systems: overview and guided tour. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Berlin, pp 249–268 Lourenço JC, Morton A, Bana e Costa CA (2012) PROBE—a multicriteria decision support system for portfolio robustness evaluation. Decis Support Syst 54(1):534–550. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2012.08.001 Matheson J, Matheson D (1998) The smart organization: creating value through strategic R&D. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Midgley G (1997) Mixing methods: developing systemic intervention. In: Mingers J, Gill A (eds) Multimethodology: the theory and practice of combining management science methodologies. Wiley, Chichester, pp 249–290 Mingers J, Brocklesby J (1997) Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25(5):489–509. doi:10.1016/S0305-0483(97)00018-2 Mingers J, Rosenhead J (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152(3):530–554. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00056-0 Mintzberg H (1994) The fall and rise of strategic planning. Harv Bus Rev 72(1):107–114. doi:10.1225/ 94107 Montibeller G, Franco LA (2011a) Raising the bar: strategic multi-criteria decision analysis. J Oper Res Soc 62(5):855–867. doi:10.1057/jors.2009.178 Montibeller G, Franco LA (2011b) Resource allocation in local government with facilitated portfolio decision analysis. In: Salo A, Keisler J, Morton A (eds) Portfolio decision analysis: improved methods for resource allocation. Springer, New York, pp 259–281 Phillips LD (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles RF Jr, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 375–399 Phillips LD (2011) What is strategy? J Oper Res Soc 62(5):926–929. doi:10.1057/jors.2010.127 Phillips LD, Bana e Costa CA (2007) Transparent prioritisation, budgeting and resource allocation with multi-criteria decision analysis and decision conferencing. Ann Oper Res 154(1):51–68. doi:10.1007/ s10479-007-0183-3 Phillips LD, Phillips MC (1993) Facilitated work groups: theory and practice. J Oper Res Soc 44(6): 533–549. doi:10.1057/jors.1993.96 Puerto Rico 2025 (2004) Stakeholders’ plan for achieving the Puerto Rico 2025 vision. (Report prepared by A.T. Kearney, Inc.: September 2004), San Juan, Puerto Rico. http://kinesispr.org/ StakeholdersPlanforAchieving2025.pdf Roy B (2005) Paradigms and challenges. In: Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. Springer, Boston, pp 3–24 Salo A, Hämäläinen RP (2010) Multicriteria decision analysis in group decision processes. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Berlin, pp 269–283 Salo A, Keisler J, Morton A (eds) (2011) Portfolio decision analysis: improved methods for resource allocation. Springer, New York Schein EH (1999) Process consultation revisited: building the helping relationship. Addison-Wesley, Reading SEDSDH (2007) Plano de ação 2007. SEDSDH—Secretaria de Desenvolvimento Social e Direitos Humanos, Recife, Brazil Shiffman RN, Dixon J, Brandt C, Essaihi A, Hsiao A, Michel G, O’Connell R (2005) The guideline implementability appraisal (GLIA): development of an instrument to identify obstacles to guideline implementation. BMC Med Inform Decis Making 5(23). doi:10.1186/1472-6947-5-23 Thompson AA, Strickland AJ (2003) Strategic management: concepts and cases, 13th edn. McGrawHill/Irwin, Boston
123
A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support
29
Vogel D, Coombes J (2010) The effect of structure on convergence activities using group support systems. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, pp 301–311 von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Xu Y, Yeh C-H (2012) An integrated approach to evaluation and planning of best practices. Omega 40(1):65– 78. doi:10.1016/j.omega.2011.03.007
123