Toward Quality Criteria for Collective Judgments
نویسندگان
چکیده
While most organizational and social decision making is done in a group or collective mode. there are few guides or evaluative criteria for judging when a high-quality outcome has been reached. Most past studies of group decision making have been conducted in laboratories using student subjects and factual problems with correct answers as means for judging outcome quality. Such proxies are rough approximations at best of real-world conditions where value differences can be intense and problems have no correct or best answer. Drawing upon the existing literature. evaluative criteria are proposed including process. content, and outcome concerns. An instrument based upon these criteria is then applied retrospectively to six cases of ad hoc collective decision making. Using dimensional analyses, a set of more detailed evaluative factor-s is derived from actual participant responses. The results provide some insights into the nature of high-quality collective judgments as well as the most effective procedures for their achievement. i 19x5 Academic Pre,,. Inc
منابع مشابه
Strategic Evaluation of Sustainable Projects based on Hybrid Group Decision Analysis with Incomplete Information
– Sustainable evaluation of construction projects in strategy-focused condition is the main issue for municipalities to appropriately improve public sector services. In this respect, the group decision-making methods could help experts to select suitable sustainable projects and to schedule them regarding their ranking results. Therefore, the objective of this study is to present a hybrid group...
متن کاملThe Influence of Collective Opinion on True-False Judgment and Information-Sharing Decision
The purpose of the current work is to examine when and how knowing collective opinion influences people’s judgments and decisions in social media environments. In particular, the present work focuses on people’s true-false judgment of statements found on websites and the likelihood of sharing these statements. The results from Experiment 1 revealed that, for false statements, collective opinion...
متن کاملA fuzzy MCDM model with objective and subjective weights for evaluating service quality in hotel industries
This paper presents a fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making (FMCDM) model by integrating both subjective and objective weights for ranking and evaluating the service quality in hotels. The objective method selects weights of criteria through mathematical calculation, while the subjective method uses judgments of decision makers. In this paper, we use a combination of weights ob...
متن کامل[Proceeding] A new technique based on the Law of Comparative Judgment for quality-related problems
A common problem in the field of Quality Engineering/Management concerns the fusion of multiple subjective judgments, expressed by a group of individuals, into a collective judgment [1]; possible examples are: (i) judgments by customers on the importance of a set of product requirements, (ii) judgments by reliability and maintenance engineers on the severity of a set of (presumed) process failu...
متن کاملThe (Im)Possibility of a Paretian Rational
We consider situations in which a group takes a collective decision by aggregating individual’s judgments on a set of criteria according to some agreed-upon decision functions. Assuming the criteria and the decision to be binary, we demonstrate that, except when the aggregation rule is dictatorial or the decision rule is particularly simple, such reason-based social choice must violate the Pare...
متن کامل