IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v24y1996i5p523-538.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates

Author

Listed:
  • Tavana, M.
  • Kennedy, D. T.
  • Joglekar, P.

Abstract

In many developed countries, today's socioeconomic environment has expanded the role of the technical manager. Organizations capable of recruiting technical managers with adequate management education and interpersonal skills, in addition to technical expertise, are more likely to be successful in managing their limited resources. A technical manager's success is also dependent on the manager's acceptance by his/her subordinates, peers, and superiors, and the decision to hire a technical manager should be made with their participation. Many of these individuals have little background or experience in hiring, and they need appropriate decision support. This paper presents a framework to help a group of decision makers define and articulate a hierarchy of hiring criteria and subcriteria and rate each of the candidates on that hierarchy. To improve consistency among group members, the proposed group decision support system (GDSS) combines the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) with the Delphi principles of anonymous feedback and iteration. Given the decision makers' desire for a consensus choice, the framework deviates from the normal practice of AHP, and uses the Maximize Agreement Heuristic (MAH) to arrive at the final ranking of the candidates. An application to the ranking of nurse manager candidates at a hospital in the United States is presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:24:y:1996:i:5:p:523-538
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(96)00030-8
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    2. Thomas L. Saaty, 1986. "Axiomatic Foundation of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(7), pages 841-855, July.
    3. John F. Preble, 1984. "The selection of delphi panels for strategic planning purposes," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 5(2), pages 157-170, April.
    4. Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1990. "A decision aid in the public debate on nuclear power," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 66-76, September.
    5. Nicholas G. Hall & John C. Hershey & Larry G. Kessler & R. Craig Stotts, 1992. "A Model for Making Project Funding Decisions at the National Cancer Institute," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1040-1052, December.
    6. J. M. Blin & A. B. Whinston, 1974. "Note--A Note on Majority Rule under Transitivity Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 20(11), pages 1439-1440, July.
    7. Iqbal Ali & Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1986. "Note---Ordinal Ranking and Intensity of Preference: A Linear Programming Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(12), pages 1642-1647, December.
    8. Robert L. Winkler & Robert T. Clemen, 1992. "Sensitivity of Weights in Combining Forecasts," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(3), pages 609-614, June.
    9. V. J. Bowman & C. S. Colantoni, 1973. "Majority Rule Under Transitivity Constraints," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(9), pages 1029-1041, May.
    10. Pinsonneault, Alain & Kraemer, Kenneth L., 1990. "The effects of electronic meetings on group processes and outcomes: An assessment of the empirical research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 46(2), pages 143-161, May.
    11. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    12. Brockhoff, Klaus, 1983. "Group processes for forecasting," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 115-127, June.
    13. Taylor, Frederick Winslow, 1911. "The Principles of Scientific Management," History of Economic Thought Books, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought, number taylor1911.
    14. Patrick T. Harker & Luis G. Vargas, 1987. "The Theory of Ratio Scale Estimation: Saaty's Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 33(11), pages 1383-1403, November.
    15. Belton, Valerie, 1986. "A comparison of the analytic hierarchy process and a simple multi-attribute value function," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 7-21, July.
    16. Jonathan Barzilai & Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1986. "A Generalized Network Formulation of the Pairwise Comparison Consensus Ranking Model," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(8), pages 1007-1014, August.
    17. Norman Dalkey & Olaf Helmer, 1963. "An Experimental Application of the DELPHI Method to the Use of Experts," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 458-467, April.
    18. Winkler, Robert L., 1989. "Combining forecasts: A philosophical basis and some current issues," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 605-609.
    19. Ryan Cook, D. & Staschak, Sandra & Green, William T., 1990. "Equitable allocation of livers for orthotopic transplantation: An application of the Analytic Hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 49-56, September.
    20. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pin-Ju Juan & Shin-Yi Lin, 2013. "Selecting Resort Locations," Tourism Economics, , vol. 19(6), pages 1249-1272, December.
    2. Moez Limayem & Gerardine DeSanctis, 2000. "Providing Decisional Guidance for Multicriteria Decision Making in Groups," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 386-401, December.
    3. Kengpol, Athakorn, 2004. "Design of a decision support system to evaluate the investment in a new distribution centre," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(1), pages 59-70, July.
    4. Morais, Danielle C. & de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira, 2012. "Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 42-52, January.
    5. Vieira, Ana C.L. & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Bana e Costa, Carlos A., 2020. "Enhancing knowledge construction processes within multicriteria decision analysis: The Collaborative Value Modelling framework," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    6. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    7. Kengpol, Athakorn & Tuominen, Markku, 2006. "A framework for group decision support systems: An application in the evaluation of information technology for logistics firms," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 101(1), pages 159-171, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lai, S-K., 1995. "A preference-based interpretation of AHP," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(4), pages 453-462, August.
    2. Macharis, Cathy & Springael, Johan & De Brucker, Klaas & Verbeke, Alain, 2004. "PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 153(2), pages 307-317, March.
    3. Leung, Lawrence C. & Cao, Dong, 2001. "On the efficacy of modeling multi-attribute decision problems using AHP and Sinarchy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 132(1), pages 39-49, July.
    4. Ardalan Bafahm & Minghe Sun, 2019. "Some Conflicting Results in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(02), pages 465-486, March.
    5. Bentes, Alexandre Veronese & Carneiro, Jorge & da Silva, Jorge Ferreira & Kimura, Herbert, 2012. "Multidimensional assessment of organizational performance: Integrating BSC and AHP," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 65(12), pages 1790-1799.
    6. Saul I. Gass, 2005. "Model World: The Great Debate—MAUT Versus AHP," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 35(4), pages 308-312, August.
    7. Kumar, N. Vinod & Ganesh, L. S., 1996. "A simulation-based evaluation of the approximate and the exact eigenvector methods employed in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 95(3), pages 656-662, December.
    8. Belton, Valerie & Goodwin, Paul, 1996. "Remarks on the application of the analytic hierarchy process to judgmental forecasting," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 155-161, March.
    9. Jain, Bharat A. & Nag, Barin N., 1996. "A decision-support model for investment decisions in new ventures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 473-486, May.
    10. Stam, Antonie & Duarte Silva, A. Pedro, 2003. "On multiplicative priority rating methods for the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(1), pages 92-108, February.
    11. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.
    12. Ossadnik, Wolfgang, 1996. "AHP-based synergy allocation to the partners in a merger," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 42-49, January.
    13. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    14. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    15. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    16. M Tavana & M A Sodenkamp, 2010. "A fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis model for advanced technology assessment at Kennedy Space Center," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(10), pages 1459-1470, October.
    17. Kevin Kam Fung Yuen, 2022. "Decision models for information systems planning using primitive cognitive network process: comparisons with analytic hierarchy process," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 1759-1785, July.
    18. Kelin Luo & Yinfeng Xu & Bowen Zhang & Huili Zhang, 2018. "Creating an acceptable consensus ranking for group decision making," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 307-328, July.
    19. Sandeep Singh & Jaimal Singh Khamba & Davinder Singh, 2023. "Study of energy-efficient attributes of overall equipment effectiveness in Indian sugar mill industries through analytical hierarchy process (AHP)," International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, Springer;The Society for Reliability, Engineering Quality and Operations Management (SREQOM),India, and Division of Operation and Maintenance, Lulea University of Technology, Sweden, vol. 14(1), pages 374-384, March.
    20. Zahir, Sajjad, 1999. "Geometry of decision making and the vector space formulation of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 112(2), pages 373-396, January.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:24:y:1996:i:5:p:523-538. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.