Analytical Group Decision Making in Natural Resources: Methodology and Application

Group decision making is becoming increasingly important in natural resource manage- ment and associated scientific applications, because multiple values are treated coincidentally in time and space, multiple resource specialists are needed, and multiple stakeholders must be included in the decision process. Decades of social science research on decision making in groups have provided insights into the impediments to effective group processes and on techniques that can be applied in a group context. Nevertheless, little integration and few applications of these results have occurred in resource management decision processes, where formal groups are integral, either directly or indirectly. A group decision-making methodology is introduced as an effective approach for temporary, formal groups (e.g., workshops). It combines the following three components: (1) brainstorming to generate ideas; (2) the analytic hierarchy process to produce judgments, manage conflict, enable consensus, and plan for implementation; and (3) a discussion template (straw document). Resulting numerical assessments of alternative decision priorities can be analyzed statistically to indicate where group member agreement occurs and where priority values are significantly different. An application of this group process to fire research program development in a workshop setting indicates that the process helps focus group deliberations; mitigates groupthink, nondecision, and social loafing pitfalls; encourages individual interaction; identifies irrational judgments; and provides a large amount of useful quantitative information about group preferences. This approach can help facilitate scientific assessments and other decision-making processes in resource management. For. Sci. 46(1):62-75.

[1]  Norman R. F. Maier,et al.  The Contribution of a Discussion Leader to the Quality of Group Thinking: The Effective Use of Minority Opinions , 1952 .

[2]  N. Dalkey,et al.  An Experimental Application of the Delphi Method to the Use of Experts , 1963 .

[3]  N. Maier Assets and liabilities in group problem solving: the need for an integrative function. , 1967, Psychological review.

[4]  Jay Hall,et al.  The Effects of a Normative Intervention on Group Decision-Making Performance , 1970 .

[5]  A. Delbecq,et al.  Nominal Versus Interacting Group Processes for Committee Decision-Making Effectiveness , 1971 .

[6]  I. Steiner Group process and productivity , 1972 .

[7]  Helmut Lamm,et al.  Group versus individual performance on tasks requiring ideational proficiency , 1973 .

[8]  David W. Johnson,et al.  Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills , 1975 .

[9]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[10]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation , 1990 .

[11]  K. Williams,et al.  Identifiability as a deterrant to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. , 1981 .

[12]  Philip Yetton,et al.  Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy , 1982 .

[13]  Luis G. Vargas Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients , 1982 .

[14]  G. W. Hill Group versus individual performance: are n + 1 heads better than one?" psychological bulletin , 1982 .

[15]  W. Armbruster,et al.  Efficient, Anonymous, and Neutral Group Decision Procedures , 1983 .

[16]  J. McGrath Groups: Interaction and Performance , 1984 .

[17]  J. K. Esser,et al.  Groupthink: Effects of cohesiveness and problem-solving procedures on group decision making , 1984 .

[18]  P. D. Jong A statistical approach to Saaty's scaling method for priorities , 1984 .

[19]  C. Moore,et al.  Enhancing Local Government Capacity in Budget Decision Making: The Use of Group Process Techniques , 1984 .

[20]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[21]  P M Wortman,et al.  Group decision making by experts: field study of panels evaluating medical technologies. , 1985, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  Carrie R. Leana A Partial Test of Janis' Groupthink Model: Effects of Group Cohesiveness and Leader Behavior on Defective Decision Making , 1985 .

[23]  G. Crawford,et al.  A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices , 1985 .

[24]  W. Edwards,et al.  Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research , 1986 .

[25]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process—A Survey of the Method and its Applications , 1986 .

[26]  Fatemeh Zahedi,et al.  Group Consensus Function Estimation When Preferences are Uncertain , 1986, Oper. Res..

[27]  Charles E. Miller,et al.  Group decision making and normative versus informational influence: Effects of type of issue and assigned decision rule. , 1987 .

[28]  Philip Yetton,et al.  Improving Group Performance by Training in Individual Problem Solving , 1987 .

[29]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[30]  Reuben R. McDaniel,et al.  Strategic Issue Analysis: NGT + Decision Analysis for Resolving Strategic Issues , 1989 .

[31]  Guillermo A. Mendoza,et al.  Forest planning and decision making under fuzzy environments: an overview and illustration , 1989 .

[32]  Indrani Basak,et al.  Testing for the rank ordering of the priorities of the alternatives in Saaty's ratio-scale method , 1990 .

[33]  E. Sundstrom,et al.  Work teams: Applications and effectiveness. , 1990 .

[34]  D. Schmoldt,et al.  Applying knowledge-based methods to design and implement an air quality workshop , 1991 .

[35]  Frances J. Milliken,et al.  Strategic Decision-Making Tasks and Group Effectiveness: Insights from Theory and Research on Small Group Performance , 1991 .

[36]  Jonathan F. Bard,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS WITH MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY THEORY: A CASE STUDY , 1992 .

[37]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A decision theoretic approach applied to goal programming of forest management. , 1992 .

[38]  D. Peterson,et al.  Guidelines for evaluating air pollution impacts on Class I wilderness areas in California. Forest Service general technical report (Final) , 1992 .

[39]  Ernest H. Forman,et al.  Group decision support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1992, Decis. Support Syst..

[40]  D. J. Atkinson,et al.  An Application of Decision Conferencing to strategic Planning for a Voluntary Organization , 1992 .

[41]  Joanne Vining,et al.  Environmental Emotions and Decisions , 1992 .

[42]  D. Peterson,et al.  Guidelines for evaluating air-pollution impacts on Class I wilderness areas in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Service general technical report , 1992 .

[43]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  Multiple‐use planning of forest resources by using the analytic hierarchy process , 1992 .

[44]  Steven G. Rogelberg,et al.  The Stepladder Technique: An Alternative Group Structure Facilitating Effective Group Decision Making , 1992 .

[45]  Ramon J. Aldag,et al.  Beyond fiasco: A reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes. , 1993 .

[46]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process , 1993 .

[47]  Keith M. Reynolds,et al.  Relative importance of risk factors for spruce beetle outbreaks , 1994 .

[48]  Daniel L. Schmoldt,et al.  Developing inventory and monitoring programs based on multiple objectives , 1994 .

[49]  E. Suh,et al.  Analytic hierarchy process: it can work for group decision support systems , 1994 .

[50]  Daniel L. Schmoldt,et al.  A case study of resources management planning with multiple objectives and projects , 1994 .

[51]  Mauno Pesonen,et al.  Non-industrial private forest landowners’ choices of timber management strategies and potential allowable cut. , 1995 .

[52]  Christopher P. Neck,et al.  Groupthink Remodeled: The Importance of Leadership, Time Pressure, and Methodical Decision-Making Procedures , 1995 .

[53]  Daniel L. Schmoldt,et al.  A HIERARCHICAL MODEL AND ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE ADOPTION OF TIMBER AS A BRIDGE MATERIAL , 1995 .

[54]  C. Carlsson,et al.  AHP in Political Group Decisions: A Study in the Art of Possibilities , 1995 .

[55]  Daniel L. Schmoldt,et al.  A HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS OF BRIDGE DECISION MAKERS: THE ROLE OF NEW TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION IN THE TIMBER BRIDGE MARKET: SPECIAL PROJECT FISCAL YEAR 1992 , 1995 .

[56]  C. Madu,et al.  Stability analyses of group decision making , 1995 .

[57]  N. Bryson Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: exploring the consensus-relevant information content , 1996 .

[58]  Jyrki Kangas,et al.  A Method for Integrating Risk and Attitude Toward Risk into Forest Planning , 1996, Forest Science.

[59]  Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson,et al.  Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content , 1996, Comput. Oper. Res..