Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Towards a holistic strategic framework for applying robust facilitated approaches in political decision making

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Operational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Political decisions (e.g. economic, fiscal, development) are often complex and multifaceted and involve many different stakeholders with different objectives and priorities. Very often decision-makers, when confronted with such problems, attempt to use intuitive or heuristic approaches to simplify the complexity until the problem seems more manageable. In this process, important information may be lost, opposing points of view may be discarded, and elements of uncertainty may be ignored. A crucial issue, when dealing with political decisions, is the radical uncertainty about the present (e.g. lack or poor quality of information) and also about the future. The latter one addresses the seeming paradox—how can we evaluate the rationality of our decisions today if the most important fact that we know about future conditions is that they are unknowable? In the literature it is mentioned that robustness analysis is a way of supporting government decision making when dealing with uncertainties and ignorance. However, so far no framework to deal with robustness in policy making, in a concrete and comprehensive manner, has been proposed. In the present research we discuss the different definitions and approaches of Robustness Analysis in government decision-making concerning the present and the future as a way to support the identification of potential robust strategies in policy circles. We also initiate the discussion on how facilitated forms of MCDA could tackle different aspects associated with government decision making and provide effective support in dealing with robustness of strategic decisions in designing complex policies with long-term consequences. We finally present some of our proposals introducing a holistic framework to deal with robustness issues in government decision-making.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Option Appraisal: Making informed decisions in government, 2011, National Audit Office, www.nao.org.uk.

  2. GORS: http://www.operational-research.gov.uk/recruitment.

  3. RAND: http://www.rand.org/.

  4. ODI: http://www.odi.org/.

  5. Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/science/life-and-physics/2013/may/04/no-alternative-bayes-penalties-philosophy-thatcher-merkel. Accessed 13 September 2014.

References

  • Ackermann F, Eden C (2001) Contrasting single user and networked group decision support systems for strategy making. Group Decis Negot 10(1):47–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aggarwal A, Sundar G, Thakur M (2013) Techniques of performance appraisal—a review. Int J Eng Adv Technol IJEAT 2(3):234–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Aissi H, Roy B (2010) Robustness in multi-criteria decision aiding. In: Ehrgott M, Figueira JR, Greco S (eds) Trends in multiple criteria decision analysis, chapter 4. Springer, New York, pp 87–121

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Andersson A, Grönlund A, Åström J (2012) “You can’t make this a science!”—analyzing decision support systems in political contexts. Gov Inf Q 29:543–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • André FJ, Cardenete MA (2008) Economic and environmental efficient policies in an applied general equilibrium framework. Ekonomiaz: revista vasca de economía, Vitoria-Gasteiz: Servicio Central de Publ. del Gobierno Vasco 67(1):72–91 (in Spanish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Stewart T (2002) Multiple criteria decision analysis: an integrated approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2008) Managing performance, international comparisons. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouyssou D, Marchant T, Pirlot M, Tsoukiàs A, Vincke P (2006) Evaluation and decision models with multiple criteria: stepping stones for the analyst. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynard P (2003) Policy-making in the Okavango River basin. In: Turton A, Ashton P, Clete E (eds) Transboundary rivers, sovereignty and development: Hydropolitical drivers in the Okavango River basin, chapter 14. Green Cross International, Geneva, pp 303–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney P (2015a) How can policy theory have an impact on policymaking? The role of theory-led academic–practitioner discussions. Teach Public Adm 33(1):22–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Cairney P (2015b) The politics of evidence based policymaking. Palgrave Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Checkland P (1981) Systems thinking, systems practice. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherns A (1976) The principles of sociotechnical design. Hum Relat 29(8):783–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christodoulakis N (2015) Analytical methods and decision support systems under uncertainty. Ph.D. thesis, University of Piraeus, Pireaus (in Greek)

  • David FR (2009) Strategic management: concepts and cases, 12th edn. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • De Marchi G, Lucertini G, Tsoukiàs A (2014) From evidence-based policy making to policy analytics. Ann Oper Res. doi:10.1007/s10479-014-1578-6

    Google Scholar 

  • Dente B (2014) Understanding policy decisions. Applied science and technology. Springer, Boston

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dunn WN (2008) Public policy analysis: an introduction, 4th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C (1990) The unfolding nature of group decision support: two dimensions of Skill. In: Eden C, Radford J (eds) Tackling strategic problems: the role of group decision support. Sage, London, pp 48–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Eden C, Ackermann F (2004) Use of ‘Soft OR’ models by clients: what do they want from them? In: Pidd M (ed) Systems modeling: theory and practice. Wiley, Chichester, pp 146–163

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferlie E, Ashburner L, Fitzgerald L, Pettigrew A (1996) The new public management in action. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) State-of-art of multiple criteria decision analysis. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dortrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher F, Miller GJ, Sidney MS (2007) Handbook of public policy analysis: theory, politics, and methods. CRC Press, Boca Raton

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2010) Facilitated modelling in operational research. Eur J Oper Res 205:489–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Montibeller G (2011) Problem structuring for multi-criteria decision analysis interventions. In: Cochran JJ (ed) Wiley encyclopedia of operations research and management science. Wiley, New York, pp 1–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Franco LA, Rouwette E (2011) Decision development in facilitated modelling workshops. Eur J Oper Res 212(1):164–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend J (1993) Searching for appropriate theory and practice in multi-organizational fields. J Oper Res Soc 44:585–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friend J, Hickling A (2005) Planning under pressure: the strategic choice approach, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldmann K (2005) Appropriateness and consequences: the logic of neo-institutionalism. Governance 18(1):35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin P, Wright G (2001) Enhancing strategy evaluation in scenario planning: a role for decision analysis. J Manag Stud 38(1):1–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haasnoot M, Kwakkel JH, Walker Warren E, Maat J (2013) Dynamic adaptive policy pathways: a method for crafting robust decisions for a deeply uncertain world. Glob Environ Change 23(2):485–498

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hites R, De Smet Y, Risse N, Salazar-Neumann M, Vincke P (2006) About the applicability of MCDA to some robustness problems. Eur J Oper Res 174(1):322–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogwood BW, Gunn LA (1984) Policy analysis for the real world. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Hood C (1991) A public management for all seasons. Public Adm 69:3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunleavy P, Hood C (1994) From old public administration to new public management, public money and management. July–Sep. pp 9–16

  • Howlett M, Mukherjee I, Woo JJ (2015) From tools to toolkits in policy design studies: the new design orientation towards policy formulation research. Policy Politics 43(2):291–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hurson C, Siskos Y (2014) A synergy of multicriteria techniques to assess additive value models. Eur J Oper Res. doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2014.03.047

    Google Scholar 

  • Kasa K (2002) Model uncertainty, robust policies, and the value of commitment. Macroecon Dyn 6(01):145–166

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Keeney RL (2013) Identifying, prioritizing, and using multiple objectives. EURO J Decis Process 1(1–2):45–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keisler JM (2002) Attribute-based differentiation of alternatives. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 11:315–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiker G, Bridges T, Varghese A, Seager T, Linkov I (2005) Application of multicriteria decision analysis in environmental decision making. Integr Environ Assess Manag 1(2):95–108

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kouvelis P, Yu G (1997) Robust discrete optimisation and its applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lagrèze EJ, Siskos Y (2001) Preference disaggregation: 20 years of MCDA experience. Eur J Oper Res 130:233–245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell HD (1956) The decision process: seven categories of functional analysis. University of Maryland Press, College Park

    Google Scholar 

  • Lempert RJ, Collins MT (2007) Managing the risk of uncertain threshold responses: comparison of robust, optimum, and precautionary approaches. Risk Anal 27(4):1009–1026

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luptacik M (2010) Mathematical optimization and economic analysis. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer I, van Daalen E, Bots P (2004) Perspectives on policy analyses: a framework for understanding and design. Int J Technol Policy Manag 4(2):169–191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDaniels TL, Gregory RS, Fields D (1999) Democratizing risk management: successful public involvement in local water management decisions. Risk Anal 19:497–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Mónica G, Barberis F (2006) Robustness analysis: a powerful tool in the multiple criteria decision making field. Newsletter of the European working group “Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding”, Series 3, No. 13, pp 9–13

  • Montibeller G, Franco A (2010) Multi-criteria decision analysis for strategic decision making. In: Zopounidis C, Pardalos PM (eds) Handbook of multicriteria analysis. Springer, New York, pp 25–48

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Franco A (2011) Raising the bar: strategic multi-criteria decision analysis. J Oper Res Soc 62:855–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montibeller G, Gummer H, Tumidei D (2006) Combining scenario planning and multi-criteria decision analysis in practice. J Multicriteria Decis Anal 14(1–3):5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Philippidou S, Soderquist K, Prastacos G (2004) Towards new public management in Greek public organizations: leadership vs Management and the path to implementation. Public Organ Rev Glob J 4(4):317–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phillips L (2007) Decision conferencing. In: Edwards W, Miles R Jr, von Winterfeldt D (eds) Advances in decision analysis: from foundations to applications. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 375–399

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pollitt C, Bouckaert G (2011) Public management reform: a comparative analysis—new public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard JL (1983) Aide à la Décision Stratégique en PME. In: Jacquet-Lagrèze E, Siskos J (eds) Méthode de Décision Multicritère. Hommes et Techniques, Paris, pp 119–142 (in French)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritchey T (2011) Wicked problems—social messes: decision support modelling with morphological analysis. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J (2002) Robustness analysis. Newsletter of the European working group “Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding”, Series 3, No. 6, pp 6–10

  • Rosenhead J, Mingers J (2001) A new paradigm of analysis. In: Rosenhead J, Mingers J (eds) Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty, and conflict. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenhead J, Elton M, Gupta SK (1972) Robustness and optimality as criteria for strategic decisions. Oper Res Q 23(4):413–430

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (1985) Méthodologie Multicritère d’Aide à la Décision. Springer, Paris (in French)

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (2005) Paradigms and challenges. In: Figueira JR, Greco JS, Ehrgott S (eds) Multiple criteria decision analysis—state of the art surveys. Springer, New York, pp 3–24

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B (2010) Robustness in operational research and decision aiding: a multi-faceted issue. Eur J Oper Res 200:629–638

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy B, Bouyssou D (1993) Aide multicritère à la décision: Méthodes et cas. Economica, Paris (in French)

    Google Scholar 

  • Roy B, Słowiński R (2013) Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO J Decis Process 1(1–2):69–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salo A, Hamalainen RP (2010) Multicriteria decision analysis in group decision processes. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–23

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos Y (2008) Decision models. New Technologies Publications, Athens (in Greek)

    Google Scholar 

  • Siskos Y, Grigoroudis E (2010) New trends in aggregation-disaggregation approaches. In: Zopounidis C, Pardalos PM (eds) Handbook of multicriteria analysis. Springer, New York, pp 189–214

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Sylvan DA, Goel A, Chandrasekaran B (1990) Analyzing political decision making from an information-processing perspective: JESSE. Am J Polit Sci 34(1):74–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukias A, Montibeller G, Lucertini G, Belton V (2013) Policy analytics: an agenda for research and practice. EURO J Decis Process 1(1–2):115–134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Dooren W, Bouckaert G, Halligan J (2015) Performance management in the public sector, 2nd edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Velasquez M, Hester PT (2013) An analysis of multi-criteria decision making methods. Int J Oper Res 10(2):56–66

    Google Scholar 

  • Vincke P (1999) Robust and neutral methods for aggregating preferences into an outranking relation. Eur J Oper Res 112:405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincke P (2003) About robustness analysis. Newsletter of the European Working Group “Multiple Criteria Decision Aiding”, Series 3, No. 8, pp 7-9

  • Williams T (2008) Management science in practice. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang K, Holzer M (2006) The performance-trust link: implications for performance measurement. Public Manag Rev 66(1):114–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Young J, Mendizabal E (2009) Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs. ODI briefing paper 53

  • Zopounidis C, Pardalos PM (2010) Handbook of multicriteria analysis. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the Ministry of Education, Religious Affairs, Culture and Sports of Greece and the European Social Fund, under the Grant THALIS, MIS 377350 “Methodological approaches for studying robustness in multiple criteria decision making projects” for the first in order author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Piraeus, 80, Karaoli and Dimitriou Str., 18534, Piraeus, Greece

    Nikos Tsotsolas & Spiros Alexopoulos

Authors
  1. Nikos Tsotsolas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Spiros Alexopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nikos Tsotsolas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tsotsolas, N., Alexopoulos, S. Towards a holistic strategic framework for applying robust facilitated approaches in political decision making. Oper Res Int J 19, 501–541 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-017-0295-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-017-0295-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation