Group Decision Methods

Group decision-making is widely used in organizations to solve problems. In this process, people work together, evaluate the situation, speculate on different options, and choose the most appropriate one. According to several authors, many approaches can be used in group decision-making, but the AHP and Delphi approaches are more structured and aim mostly at achieving agreement. This discussion will present these two methods, explaining their similarities and differences. 

The Rand Corporation developed the Delphi technique in the 1940s. It is a systematic, interactive forecasting method that relies on a panel of experts. The process is done in several rounds. The first round involves sending questionnaires to the experts to seek their opinions, and the experts' identities are kept anonymous. 

As the rounds progress, a facilitator collates all the responses and edits the answers they provided during the previous round, thus moving toward a conclusion (Hsu et al., 2022). This method is helpful because the knowledge base is obscure or intricate, and some individuals understand the subject matter more than the average population (Zamora, 2020). The Delphi method is also widely used in other spheres, such as business process management, where it helps define key performance indicators and decision-making frameworks (AbouGrad et al., 2019). 

While Delphi may seek to find consensus in opinion, the same cannot be said of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). AHP uses analytical hierarchy to tackle decision-making. It is best described as an analytical hierarchy, as it allows a person to break down complex issues into valuable pieces that are better managed. Moreover, AHP uses pairwise comparisons of required elements and even alternatives so that decision-makers can specify their preferential desires (Xu & Wu, 2011). This technique is particularly beneficial for multi-criteria decision-making since it allows for the interplay of different objectives that must be satisfied simultaneously (Brunelli, 2018). AHP minimizes the hassle of confusing or leading against the norm explanations by being objective about the criteria for possible alternatives. 

First, both approaches seek to improve the quality of the management process by integrating multiple points of view and more knowledge into decisions (Goswamy et al., 2021). The focus is on shared decision-making, which aims to be more effective than decisions made by individuals alone. Second, both methods underline the need for reaching a consensus. The Delphi method uses rounds and rounds of feedback, and the AHP method helps achieve consensus through logical preference ordering using pairwise comparisons (Zamora, 2020). Third, both methods have the advantage that they can be designed for different purposes, thus facilitating decision-makers from various areas of applications of the methods (Yu & Wei, 2010). 

However, the methods do have some other distinguishing features. The Delphi method is set forward as an iterative feedback process focusing on obtaining expert opinions to reach a consensus and simultaneously being subject to numerous ambiguities in the end decision-making (Hsu et al., 2022).  AHP is represented best in its quantitative approach to prioritization, thereby ranking and giving numbers to preferences, making the decision-making process more transparent and objective regarding potential quality (Xu & Wu, 2011). The process of feedback by rounds through the Delphi method is inevitably long and time-consuming as feedback may be done multiple times and around the same question. On the contrary, once the hierarchy and criteria for analysis are established, AHP can be carried out reasonably quickly (Ziotti & Leoneti, 2020). 

In conclusion, the Delphi Technique and the Analytic Hierarchy Process, can be concluded to be useful in group decision-making because they all have particular requirements that can be favorable to the group. However, some of these techniques don't suit groups. 

There are various ways to approach decision-making. Understanding the problem and the results one hopes to achieve are key factors in choosing among these methods. Comprehending the similarities and distinctions of these methods can help them cope with the challenges of working together in a decision-making process. 

References

AbouGrad, H., Warwick, J., & Desta, A. (2019). Developing the business process management performance of an information system using the Delphi study technique. In W. Karwowski & T. Ahram (Eds.), Advances in manufacturing, production management and process control (pp. 195–210). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02242-6_15

Brunelli, M. (2018). A survey of inconsistency indices for pairwise comparisons. International Journal of General Systems, 47(8), 751–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2018.1523156

Goswamy, P., Kashyap, S., Bhardwaj, N., Kameswari, V., & Kushwaha, G. (2021). Development and validation of group decision making index: A measure of collective decision making among self-help groups. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension, Economics & Sociology, 39(7), 71–80. https://doi.org/10.9734/ajaees/2021/v39i730610

Hsu, A., Wei, C., & Hsu, A. (2022). Critical success factors study for Taiwan bakery shops. Advances in Management & Applied Economics, 12(3), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.47260/amae/1316

Xu, J., & Wu, Z. (2011). A discrete consensus support model for multiple attribute group decision making. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(8), 1196–1202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2011.05.007

Yu, X., & Wei, Z. (2010). Research on services oriented group decision support system integrated platform—Multiple attribute group services based system. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 44–47, 388–393. https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.44-47.388

Zamora, Y. (2020). Consensus building in a group decision-making process. Pesquisa Operacional, 40, e235350. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2020.040.00235350

Ziotti, V., & Leoneti, A. (2020). Improving commitment to agreements: The role of group decision-making methods in the perception of sense of justice and satisfaction as commitment predictors. Pesquisa Operacional, 40, e230300. https://doi.org/10.1590/0101-7438.2020.040.00230300