IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wsi/ijitdm/v17y2018i06ns0219622018500384.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Interactive Visualization for Group Decision Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • S. Bajracharya

    (Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • G. Carenini

    (Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • B. Chamberlain

    (#x2020;Landscape Architecture and Environmental Planning, Utah State University, USA)

  • K. Chen

    (Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • D. Klein

    (#x2021;Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • D. Poole

    (Department of Computer Science, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • H. Taheri

    (#x2021;Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, Canada)

  • G. Öberg

    (#x2021;Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z4, Canada)

Abstract

Identifying the best solutions to large infrastructure decisions is a context-dependent multi-dimensional multi-stakeholder challenge in which competing objectives must be identified and trade-offs made. Our aim is to identify and explore features in an interactive visualization tool to help make group decision analysis more participatory, transparent, and comprehensible. We extended the interactive visualization tool ValueCharts to create Group ValueCharts. The new tool was introduced in two real-world scenarios in which stakeholders were in the midst of wrestling with decisions about infrastructure investment. We modeled the alternatives under consideration, for both scenarios, using prescribed criteria identified by domain experts. Participants in both groups were given instructions on how to use the tool to represent their preferences. Preferences for all participants were then displayed and discussed. The discussions were audio-recorded and the participants were surveyed to evaluate usability. The results indicate that participants felt the tool improved group interaction and information exchange and made the discussion more participatory. They expressed that visualizing individual preferences improved the ability to analyze decision outcomes based on everyone’s preferences. Additionally, the participants strongly concurred that the tool revealed disagreements and agreements and helped identify sticking points. These results suggest that a group decision tool that allows group members to input their individual preferences and then collectively probe into any differences makes the process of decision-making more participatory, transparent, and comprehensible and increases the quality and quantity of information exchange.

Suggested Citation

  • S. Bajracharya & G. Carenini & B. Chamberlain & K. Chen & D. Klein & D. Poole & H. Taheri & G. Öberg, 2018. "Interactive Visualization for Group Decision Analysis," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(06), pages 1839-1864, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wsi:ijitdm:v:17:y:2018:i:06:n:s0219622018500384
    DOI: 10.1142/S0219622018500384
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0219622018500384
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1142/S0219622018500384?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. Ben Ewing & Erin Baker, 2009. "Development of a Green Building Decision Support Tool: A Collaborative Process," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 172-185, September.
    2. Kou, Gang & Ergu, Daji & Shang, Jennifer, 2014. "Enhancing data consistency in decision matrix: Adapting Hadamard model to mitigate judgment contradiction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 236(1), pages 261-271.
    3. I. Linkov & F. K. Satterstrom & G. Kiker & T. P. Seager & T. Bridges & K. H. Gardner & S. H. Rogers & D. A. Belluck & A. Meyer, 2006. "Multicriteria Decision Analysis: A Comprehensive Decision Approach for Management of Contaminated Sediments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(1), pages 61-78, February.
    4. Dias, Luis C. & Climaco, Joao N., 2005. "Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 291-307, January.
    5. Martin S. Schilling & Nadine Oeser & Cornelius Schaub, 2007. "How Effective Are Decision Analyses? Assessing Decision Process and Group Alignment Effects," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 227-242, December.
    6. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    7. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    8. Jay F. Nunamaker & Amit V. Deokar, 2008. "GDSS Parameters and Benefits," International Handbooks on Information Systems, in: Handbook on Decision Support Systems 1, chapter 20, pages 391-414, Springer.
    9. Isaac M. Lipkus, 2007. "Numeric, Verbal, and Visual Formats of Conveying Health Risks: Suggested Best Practices and Future Recommendations," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(5), pages 696-713, September.
    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. Hela Ltifi & Emna Benmohamed & Christophe Kolski & Mounir Ben Ayed, 2020. "Adapted Visual Analytics Process for Intelligent Decision-Making: Application in a Medical Context," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 19(01), pages 241-282, February.

    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. Eleonora Bottani & Piera Centobelli & Teresa Murino & Ehsan Shekarian, 2018. "A QFD-ANP Method for Supplier Selection with Benefits, Opportunities, Costs and Risks Considerations," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 911-939, May.
    2. Viral Gupta & P. K. Kapur & Deepak Kumar, 2019. "Prioritizing and Optimizing Disaster Recovery Solution using Analytic Network Process and Multi Attribute Utility Theory," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 171-207, January.
    3. Qian Qian & Yang Yang & Zong-Fang Zhou, 2019. "Research on Trade Credit Spreading and Credit Risk within the Supply Chain," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 389-411, January.
    4. Ricardo J. G. Mateus & João C. Bana e Costa & Pedro Verga Matos, 2017. "Supporting Multicriteria Group Decisions with MACBETH Tools: Selection of Sustainable Brownfield Redevelopment Actions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 495-521, May.
    5. Rakesh K. Sarin & L. Robin Keller, 2013. "From the Editors ---Group Decisions, Preference Elicitation, Experienced Utility, Survival Probabilities, and Portfolio Value of Information," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 10(2), pages 99-102, June.
    6. David M. Goldberg & Jason K. Deane & Cliff T. Ragsdale, 2018. "Integrating Spatial Analytics in Global Sourcing Decisions," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 709-739, May.
    7. Adrian Castro-Lopez & Javier Puente & Rodolfo Vazquez-Casielles, 2018. "e-Service Quality Model for Spanish Textile and Fashion Sector: Positioning Analysis and B2C Ranking by F-Topsis," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 485-512, March.
    8. Wanying Xie & Zeshui Xu & Zhiliang Ren & Hai Wang, 2018. "Probabilistic Linguistic Analytic Hierarchy Process and Its Application on the Performance Assessment of Xiongan New Area," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(06), pages 1693-1724, November.
    9. Ali Ebrahimnejad & Madjid Tavana & Seyed Hadi Nasseri & Omid Gholami, 2019. "A New Method for Solving Dual DEA Problems with Fuzzy Stochastic Data," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 147-170, January.
    10. L. Robin Keller, 2010. "From the Editor..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 7(3), pages 235-237, September.
    11. Meimei Xia & Jian Chen & Xiao-Jun Zeng, 2018. "Decision Analysis on Choquet Integral-Based Multi-Criteria Decision-Making with Imprecise Information," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 677-704, March.
    12. 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.
    13. Zhang, Huanhuan & Kou, Gang & Peng, Yi, 2019. "Soft consensus cost models for group decision making and economic interpretations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 277(3), pages 964-980.
    14. S. Ghobadi & G. R. Jahanshahloo & F. Hosseinzadeh Lotfi & M. Rostamy-Malkhalifeh, 2018. "Efficiency Measure Under Inter-Temporal Dependence," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 657-675, March.
    15. Mohammad Amirkhan & Hosein Didehkhani & Kaveh Khalili-Damghani & Ashkan Hafezalkotob, 2018. "Measuring Performance of a Three-Stage Network Structure Using Data Envelopment Analysis and Nash Bargaining Game: A Supply Chain Application," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(05), pages 1429-1467, September.
    16. Alper Ozcan & Sule Gunduz Oguducu, 2019. "Multivariate Time Series Link Prediction for Evolving Heterogeneous Network," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 18(01), pages 241-286, January.
    17. Shen-Tsu Wang, 2018. "An Analysis of the Optimal Customer Clusters Using Dynamic Multi-Objective Decision," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(02), pages 547-582, March.
    18. Animesh Debnath & Jagannath Roy & Kajal Chatterjee & Samarjit Kar, 2018. "Measuring Corporate Social Responsibility Based on Fuzzy Analytic Networking Process-Based Balance Scorecard Model," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(04), pages 1203-1235, July.
    19. Yelda Ayrim & Kumru Didem Atalay & Gülin Feryal Can, 2018. "A New Stochastic MCDM Approach Based on COPRAS," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 857-882, May.
    20. L. Robin Keller, 2009. "From the Editor..," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 6(3), pages 121-123, September.

    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:wsi:ijitdm:v:17:y:2018:i:06:n:s0219622018500384. 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: Tai Tone Lim (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.worldscinet.com/ijitdm/ijitdm.shtml .

    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.