Technical Safety BC, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
UCLA Anderson School of Management, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2021 Jan;17(1):27-41. doi: 10.1002/ieam.4316. Epub 2020 Sep 17.
We compare how several forms of multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) can enhance the practice of alternatives assessment (AA). We report on a workshop in which 12 practitioners from US corporations, government agencies, NGOs, and consulting organizations applied different MCDA techniques to 3 AA case studies to understand how they improved the decision process. Participants were asked to select a preferred alternative in each case using a different decision analysis approach: their unaided decision-making method, individual or lightly facilitated group multiattribute value theory (MAVT), and more extensively facilitated group structured decision making (SDM). Surveys conducted after each exercise revealed that participants were positive toward the use of formal decision-making methods for AA, reporting meaningful increases in their understanding of the trade-offs involved and their own values. Participants also reported challenges with each approach. While the MCDA techniques were reported to enhance transparency and communication, they did not consistently lead to higher satisfaction with a decision and/or outcome, and they were not more likely to be adopted within their organizations than unaided approaches. More formal decision-making methods have promise in the context of AA, but practitioners will need more guidance to use such tools successfully. Practitioners will also need to define what "success" constitutes; different approaches may be called for depending on whether the objective is increased understanding, satisfaction with the outcome, satisfaction with the process, or something else. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2021;17:27-41. © 2020 SETAC.
我们比较了几种多准则决策分析(MCDA)形式如何增强替代方案评估(AA)的实践。我们报告了一个研讨会的情况,在该研讨会上,来自美国公司、政府机构、非政府组织和咨询组织的 12 名从业者将不同的 MCDA 技术应用于 3 个 AA 案例研究,以了解它们如何改善决策过程。要求参与者使用不同的决策分析方法在每种情况下选择首选替代方案:他们自己的决策方法、个人或轻度协助的群体多属性价值理论(MAVT),以及更广泛的协助群体结构化决策(SDM)。每项练习后进行的调查显示,参与者对使用正式决策方法进行 AA 持积极态度,报告说他们对所涉及的权衡和自己的价值观有了更深入的了解。参与者还报告了每种方法所面临的挑战。虽然 MCDA 技术被报告为增强了透明度和沟通,但它们并没有始终导致对决策和/或结果的更高满意度,并且它们在组织内的采用率并不高于非辅助方法。更正式的决策方法在 AA 背景下具有很大的潜力,但从业者需要更多的指导才能成功使用这些工具。从业者还需要定义“成功”的含义;根据目标是提高理解、对结果的满意度、对过程的满意度还是其他方面,可能需要采用不同的方法。《综合环境评估与管理》2021 年;17:27-41。©2020 SETAC。