Everyone is interested in making good decisions. More precisely, decision makers are interested in making decisions that have good outcomes. Will good outcomes be more "likely" if a good decision making process is used? What is a good decision making process?

These are some of the questions that quickly appear when one considers a study of decision making. My research focuses on individual decision making and seeks to compare prescriptive models (how people should make decisions) with descriptive models (how people do make decisions). I have also undertaken considerable experimental work to evaluate the performance of interactive MCDM solution methods.

My collaborators include:

• Mordecai Henig - Tel Aviv University 
• Jim Corner - Waikato University 
• Lorraine Gardiner - Auburn University 
• Daniel Vanderpooten - LAMSADE

Recent and ongoing work includes:

• MCDM 2000 - Ankara
  Three presentations at this conference
  • Information Overload: A Decision Making Perspective
    • Paper
    • Presentation
  • Project Ranking with ELECTRE III
    • Presentation
  • Dynamic Process Model for Structuring Decision Problems
    • Paper
    • Presentation

    
    

• Process Concepts in MCDM - with Mordecai Henig and Jim Corner. This work addresses the question of what comprises good process in decision making and argues for a high level conception of the decision making process. We consider the separation of the decision making process into subjective and objective components and are now addressing how these concepts can be integrated from a problem structuring perspective.
  • Process Concepts Paper. (1996)  The initial work on good process.
  • Subjective-Objective Working Paper. (1998)The difference between objective and subjective conceptions of a decision problem are discussed. This paper lays some of the foundational concepts and should have come before the Process Concepts paper.

• Reference Point Methods and Scalarizing Functions - with Lorraine Gardiner. Most scalarizing functions are based on the Tchebycheff min-max function; which means reaching down from an ideal solution. Here we compare this approach with that of reaching up from the nadir or worst solution. We combine theoretical results with an experiment to analyse which approach decision makers prefer.

• Descriptive Decision Making - with Jim Corner. This project focuses initially on the descriptive literature on decision making. Stuart Dillon, has recently completed his Masters Thesis on the topic of "A Descriptive Study of the Decision Processes of Managers" and is now progressing with his PhD study.  There are two components to this research: a survey of descriptive decision making and, secondly, implications for prescriptive decision making.
  • INFORMS Israel '98 Presentation (June 30-July 03, 1998)
  • DSI Athens Presentation.pdf (July, 1999)

  
  

• ELECTRE. An attempt, as a non-European, to come to grips with the ELECTRE philosophy in a practical way. Background advice from Daniel Vanderpooten. This research has been extended and applied in a practical setting for ranking major and minor projects for the Electricity Corporation of New Zealand (ECNZ - Northern Generation), using ELECTRE. With success.
  • Working Paper. In .pdf format explaining both the application and details of the ELECTRE philosophy.

  
  

Publications on MCDM

• Buchanan, John, Mordecai Henig and Jim Corner (1999), "Comment on 'Rethinking value elicitation for personal consequential decisions,'; by G. Wright and P. Goodwin,"; Journal of Multi-criteria Decision Analysis, 8(1), 15-17.
• Buchanan, John T., Erez J. Henig and Mordecai I. Henig (1998), "Objectivity and subjectivity in the decision making process", Annals of Operations Research (Issue on Preference Modelling),80, 333-345.
• Buchanan, John T. and James L. Corner (1997), "The effects of anchoring in interactive MCDM solution methods", Computers and Operations Research, 24(10), 907-918.
• Corner, James L. and John T. Buchanan (1997), "Capturing decision maker preference: Experimental comparison of decision analysis and MCDM techniques", European Journal of Operational Research, 98(1), 85-97.
• Henig, Mordechai I. and John Buchanan (1997), "Tradeoff directions in multiobjective optimization", Mathematical Programming, 78(3),357-374.
• Buchanan, John (1997), "A naive approach for solving MCDM problems: The GUESS method", Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(2), 202-206. 
• Henig, Mordechai I. and John T. Buchanan (1996), Response to comments on "Solving MCDM problems: Process concepts", Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 5(1), pp. 19-21.
• Henig, Mordechai I. and John T. Buchanan (1996), "Solving MCDM problems: Process concepts", Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 5(1), pp. 3-12.
• Corner, J.L. and J.T. Buchanan (1995), "Experimental consideration of preference in decision making under certainty", Journal of Multi Criteria Decision Analysis, 4(2), pp.107-121.
• Buchanan, John (1994), "An experimental evaluation of interactive MCDM methods and the decision making process", Journal of the Operational Research Society, 45(9), pp 1050-1059.
• Henig, Mordechai I. and John Buchanan (1994), "Generalized tradeoff directions in multiobjective optimization problems", in: Multiple Criteria Decision Making: Expand and Enrich the Domains of Thinking and Application, G-H. Tzeng, H-F. Wang, U-P. Wen and P.L. Yu (Eds), Springer Verlag, New York, pp 47-56.
• Buchanan, John (1992) "A hybrid approach to multi-objective optimization", Journal of the Operational Research Society , 43(9), pp 928-931. 
• Buchanan, John (1991), "A two-phase interactive solution method for multiple-objective programming problems", IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 21(4), pp 743-749.
• Daellenbach, H.G. and J.T. Buchanan (1989) "Desirable properties of interactive multi-objective programming methods", in: Improving Decision Making in Organisations, A.G. Lockett and G. Islei (Eds), Springer Lecture Notes In Economics and Mathematical Systems, Vol. 335, pp 212-223. 
• Buchanan, J.T. and H.G. Daellenbach (1987), "A comparative evaluation of interactive solution methods for multiple objective decision models", European Journal of Operational Research, 24(3), pp 353-359. 
• Buchanan, J.T. (1986), "Multiple objective mathematical programming: A review", New Zealand Operational Research, 14(1), pp 1-27.

Page updated: 06 May, 1999 - JTB