Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Usability of Nomology-based methodologies in supporting problem structuring across cultures: the case of participatory decision-making in Tanzania rural communities

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Central European Journal of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper, we present the results of an empirical study that was conducted to demonstrate how the Structured MCDM methodology which is based on Nomology, the science of the laws of the mind, could be used to support problem structuring and improve rural community participation in a developing country in Africa. The results support the view that a model which is based on a generic structure is flexible and transferable to similar problem contexts and various situations across cultures and beyond national borders; and that it can easily support distributed participatory decision-making or be integrated into a Participatory Decision Support System.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ackermann F, Belton V (1994) Managing corporate knowledge experiences with SODA. Br J Manag 5(Special Edition):163–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1978) The art of problem solving, accompanied by Ackoff’s fables. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Ackoff RL (1979) The future of operations research is past. J Oper Res Soc 30(2):93–104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ai S, Du R, Brugha CM, Wang H (2016) Pointing to priorities for multiple criteria decision making—the case of a MIS-based project in China. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 15:683–702

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bamberger M (2000) Integrating qualitative and quantitative research in development projects. directions in development. World Bank, Washington, DC

  • Bana e Costa C, Corrêa E, Ennslin L, Vansnick J-C (1998) Mapping critical factors for firm sustainable survival: a case-study in the Brazilian Textile Industry. In: Kersten G, Mikolajuk Z, Rais M, Yeh A (eds) Decision support systems for sustainable development in developing countries. Kluwer, Ottawa, pp 197–213

    Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Correa EC, Vansnick J-C (1999) Decision support systems in action: integrated application in a multi-criteria decision aiding process. Eur J Oper Res 113:315–335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Costa AP (1998a) Structuring the process of choosing rice varieties at the South of Brazil. In: Beinat E, Nijkamp P (eds) Multi-criteria evaluation in land use management. Kluwer, Ottawa, pp 33–45

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bana e Costa CA, Ensslin L, Zanella IJ (1998b) A real-world MCDA applications in cellular telephony systems. In: Stewart TJ, van den Honert RC (eds) Trends in multicriteria decision making. Springer, New York, pp 412–423

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bass S, Dalal-Clayton B, Petty J (1995) Participation in strategies for sustainable development. Environmental planning Issues No. 7. IIED, International Institute for Environment and Development. No. 7

  • Brownlow SA, Watson SR (1987) Structuring multi-attribute value hierarchies. J Oper Res Soc 38(4):309–317

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha CM (1974) The appraisal and alleviation of transportation needs in a conurbation MBA. Trinity College, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Brugha CM (1998a) Structuring and weighting criteria in multi criteria decision-making (MCDM). In: Trends in multi-criteria decision-making: Proceedings of the 13th international conference on multiple criteria decision-making, Cape Town, Springer-Verlag

  • Brugha CM (1998b) The structure of qualitative decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 104(1):46–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha CM (1998c) The structure of adjustment decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 104(1):63–76

  • Brugha CM (1998d) The structure of development decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 104(1):77–92

  • Brugha CM (2000) An introduction to the priority-pointing procedure. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 9:227–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha CM (2004) Structure of multi-criteria decision-making. J Oper Res Soc 55(11):1156–1168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha CM (2015) Foundation of Nomology. Eur J Oper Res 240(3):734–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha CM, Du R, Ai S (2008) An integrated knowledge management development system (IKMDS). Int J Knowl Syst Sci 5(1):12

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant J (2003) The six dilemmas of collaboration. Willey, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryman A (2008) Social research methods. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Chase LC, Decker DJ, Lauber TB (2004) Public participation in wildlife management: What do stakeholders want? Soc Natl Resour 17(7):629–639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P, Scholes J (1990) Soft systems methodology in action. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Colfer CJP, Brocklesby MA, Diaw C, Etuge P, Gunter M, Harwell E, McDougal C, Porro NM, Porro R, Prabhu R, Salim A, Sardjono MA, Tchikangwa B, Tiani AM, Wadley R, Woelfed J, Wollenberg E (1999) The grab bag: supplimentary methods for assessing human well being the criteria and indicators toolbox series, vol 6. Centre for International Forestry Research-CIFOR, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  • Cropper S (1990) Variety, formality and style: choosing amongst decision support methods. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 92–98

    Google Scholar 

  • Du R, Ai S, Brugha CM (2008) How does the Chinese school of management go towards the world: its problems and strategy. Chin J Manag 5(4):473–477

  • Du R, Ai S, Brugha CM (2009a) Priority pointing procedure: a normative research method for management sciences to bridge academic research and managerial practice. Chin J Manag 6(4):432

    Google Scholar 

  • Du R, Ai S, Brugha CM (2009b) Priority-pointing procedure and its applications to an intercultural trust project. In: Yong S, Shouyang W, Yi P, Jiomping L, Yong Z (eds) Communications in computer and information science, vol 35. Springer, New York, pp 296–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Du R, Ai S, Brugha CM (2009c) The priority pointing procedure and its application to an intercultural trust project. In: Shi Y, Wang S, Peng Y, Li J, Zeng Y (eds) Cutting-edge research topics on multiple criteria decision making, vol 35. Springer, New York

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Du R, Ai S, Brugha CM (2011) Integrating Taoist Yin-Yang thinking with western Nomology: a moderating model of trust in conflict management. Chin Manag Stud 5(1):55–67

  • Eden C (1988) Cognitive mapping. Eur J Oper Res 36:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (1998) Strategic decision making: the journey of strategic management. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2001) SODA: the principles. In: Rosenhead JV, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world. Wiley, Chichester Revised

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards W (1971) Social utilities. Engineering economist. Summer Symposium Series No 6

  • FAO (1989) Guidelines for designing and evaluating surface irrigation systems. Natural Resource Management and Environment Department, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiorino DJ (1990) Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci Technol Hum Values 15(2):226–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fischhoff B (1977) Decision analysis. Clinical art or Clinical Science. Defence Technical Information Centre: 58

  • Franco A (2006) Forms of conversation and problem structuring methods: a conceptual development. J Oper Res Soc 57(7):813–821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend J, Hickling A (2005) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach. Elsevier, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton W (1877) Lectures on metaphysics. In: Lectures on metaphysics and logic, vols 1 and 2, 6th edn. William Blackwood and Sons, Edinburgh

  • Henig MI, Buchanan JT (1996) Solving MCDM problems: process concepts. J Multi-Criteria Anal 5:3–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IUCN (2003) Pangani Basin: a situation analysis. IUCN-The World Conservation Union, Nairobi

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakeneno JR (2014) Participatory multi-criteria decision-making in rural communities in Tanzania. Ph.D. University College Dublin (UCD), Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakeneno JR, Brugha CM (2014) Usability of the structured MCDM methodology in supporting problem structuring and improving participation in Tanzania rural communities. In: International conference on OR for development, ICORD (2014) University of Lleida. Catalonia, Spain

  • Kant I (1987) Critique of judgement. Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (1992) Value focused thinking: a path to creative decision making. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly GA (1955) The psychology of personal constructs. Norton, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Laird FN (1993) Participatory analysis, democracy and technological decision-making. Sci Technol Hum Values 18(3):341–361

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam T (1999) Adaptive analysis of local complex systems in a globally complex world. Conserv Ecol 3(2):13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynam T (2001) Participatory systems analysis: an introductory guide. IES Special Report 22. Bogor-Indonesia, Instititute of Environmental Sciences (IES); University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe

  • Lynam T, de Jong W, Sheil D, Kusumanto T, Evans K (2007) A review of tools for incorporating community knowledge, preferences and values into decision-making in Natural Resources Management. Ecol Soc 12(1):5. http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss11/art15

  • Mackenzie A, Pidd M, Rooksby J, Sommerville I, Warren I, Combe MW (2006) Wisdom decision support and paradigms of decision making. Eur J Oper Res 170(1):156–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mascarenhas J (1991) Participatory rural appraisal and participatory learning methods: recent experiences from Myrada and South India. RRA Notes 13:26–32

    Google Scholar 

  • Mbonile MJ (2008) Population, migration and water conflicts in the Pangani river Basin, Tanzania. Environmetal change and security programme, Report No. 12 for 2006–2007

  • Mingers J, Brocklesby MA (1997) Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 25(5):489–509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers J, Rosenhead JV (2004) Problem structuring methods in action. Eur J Oper Res 152:530–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan DL (2007) Paradigms lost and pragmatism regained. methodological implications of combining qualitative and quantitative methods. J Mixed Methods Res 1:48–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nordstrom E-M, Eriksson LO, Ohman K (2010) Integrating multiple criteria decision analysis into participatory forest planning: experience from northern Sweeden. For Policy Econ 12(8):562–574

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien DB (2007) Investment decision making using multi-criteria decison making. Ph.D. University College Dublin, Dublin

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien DB, Brugha CM (2010) Adapting and refining in multi-criteria decision-making. J Oper Res Soc 61(5):756–767

  • Reed JF (1998) Contributions to adaptive estimation. J Appl Stat 25(5):651–669

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed MS (2008) Stakeholder participation for environmental management: a literature review. Biol Conserv 141(10):2417–2431

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Richards C, Blackstock KL, Carter CE (2004) Practical approaches to participation. SERG Policy Brief No. 1. Aberdeen, Macanley Land Use Research Institute, Aberdeen

  • Rosenhead JV (1994) One sided practice: Can we do better? In: Wallace WA (ed) Ethics in modelling. Pegamon, Oxford, pp 195–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead JV (1996) What’s the problem? An introduction to problem structuring methods. Interfaces 26(6):117–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead JV, Mingers J (2001) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity. Uncertainty and conflict. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1980) The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990a) Decision making for leaders. RWS, Pittsburg

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL (1990b) How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 48:9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott L (2005a) Unpacking developmental local government using soft systems methodology and MCDA tools. Orion 21(2):173–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scott L (2005b) Participatory multi-criteria decision analysis: a new tool for integrated development planning. Dev South Afr 22(5):695–716

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheil D, Puri R, Basuki I, van Heist M, Rukmiyat S, Sardjono MA, Samsoedin I, Sidiyasa K, Chrisandini E, Permana E, Angi F Gatzweiler, Wijaya A (2002) Exploring biological diversity, environment and local people’s perspectives in forest landscape. Centre for International Forestry Research (CIFOR); Ministry of Forestry and International Tropical Timber Organisation, Bogor

    Google Scholar 

  • Silverman D (2006) Interpreting qualitative data: methods for analyzing talk, text and interaction. Sage Publications, London

  • Stewart TJ, Joubort A, Janssen R (2010) MCDA framework for fishing rights allocation in South Africa. Group Decis Negot 19(3):247–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strauss A (1987) Quantitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tappan HP (1855) Elements of logic together with an introductory view of philosophy in general and preliminary view of the reason. New York, D-Appleton and Co. (NY, 1844); Wiley & Pitman (London-1855)

  • Tippett J, Handley JF, Ravets J (2007) Meeting the challenges of sustainable development—a conceptual appraisal of new methodology for participatory ecological planning. Prog Plan 67:9–98

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolman EC (1948) Cognitive maps in rats and men. Psychol Rev 55(4):189–208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vennix J (1996) Group model building: facilitating team learning using systems dynamics. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt D (1980) Structuring decision problems for decision analysis. Acta Psychol 45(1–3):71–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Winterfeldt D, Edwards W (1986) Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tanzania Ports Authority, P.O. Box 9184, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

    Joseph R. Kakeneno

  2. Centre for Business Analytics, University College Dublin Quinn School of Business, Q228, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland

    Cathal MacSwiney Brugha

Authors
  1. Joseph R. Kakeneno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cathal MacSwiney Brugha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph R. Kakeneno.

Appendix

Appendix

figure a

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kakeneno, J.R., Brugha, C.M. Usability of Nomology-based methodologies in supporting problem structuring across cultures: the case of participatory decision-making in Tanzania rural communities. Cent Eur J Oper Res 25, 393–415 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-016-0460-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10100-016-0460-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation