Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Contingency Approach to Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: A Search for Validity Through Rigor and Relevance

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
New Perspectives in Operations Research and Management Science

Part of the book series: International Series in Operations Research & Management Science ((ISOR,volume 326))

  • 479 Accesses

Abstract

Addressing the contingent dimensions (content and context) in multi-criteria decision-making is very important to ensure the validity of a study. While this approach is widely accepted in the strategic decision-making community, it is argued here that this practice is not properly addressed and/or reported in many cases and that it must be applied in all MCDM decisions to ensure the rigor and relevance of the outcome. To explore the extent to which contingent factors are addressed in the literature, a sample of 46 MCDM group decision-making papers from a single year of publication was examined with regard to a well-known contingent dimension: group decision-making. More specifically, the following four critical variables were examined: group membership, group process, aggregation of perspectives, and group engagement. The study found that the percentage of papers that addressed these variables in a reasonable way was 23.9%, 17.4%, 26.1%, and 19.6%, respectively. These results suggest that MCDM analysts are not, for the most part, properly addressing (or reporting) group decision-making and similar contingent dimensions. For this reason, this research is a call to authors and journal editors to include and properly address all MCDM applicable contingent dimensions to improve MCDM rigor and relevance; that is, the overall validity of MCDM studies.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    One of the methods was the Analytic Network Process (ANP) because the sample used for this study was a sample of convenience, which constituted a subset of an original larger ANP dataset corresponding to 2015, the year of the data collection.

  2. 2.

    Snowball sampling is a nonprobability sampling technique that is used when participants are hard to obtain. Participants are recruited from prior participants social and professional networks.

References

  • Abdollahi, M., Arvan, M., & Razmi, J. (2015). An integrated approach for supplier portfolio selection: Lean or agile? Expert Systems with Applications, 42(1), 679–690.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadi, H., Nilashi, M., & Ibrahim, O. (2015). Organizational decision to adopt hospital information system: An empirical investigation in the case of Malaysian public hospitals. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 84(3), 166–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akyuz, E. (2015). A hybrid accident analysis method to assess potential navigational contingencies: The case of ship grounding. Safety Science, 79, 268–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allen, V. L., & Levine, J. M. (1969). Consensus and conformity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5(4), 389–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baldridge, D., Floyd, S., & Markoczy, L. (2004). Are managers from Mars and academicians from Venus? Strategic Management Journal, 25, 1063–1074.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, G., Bromley, P., & Bryson, J. (1998). Spinning a complex web between strategic decision making context, content, process and outcome. In V. Papadakis & P. Barwise (Eds.), Strategic decisions. Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, J. M. (2004). What to do when stakeholders matter: Stakeholder identification and analysis techniques. Public Management Review, 6(1), 21–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, J., Alves, P., Marreiros, G., & Novais, P. (2021). Group decision support systems for current times: Overcoming the challenges of dispersed group decision-making. Neurocomputing, 423, 735–746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, D. S., Chen, S. H., Hsu, C. W., Hu, A. H., & Tzeng, G. H. (2015). Evaluation framework for alternative fuel vehicles: Sustainable development perspective. Sustainability, 7(9), 11570.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chang, K. L., Liao, S. K., & Chen, Y. C. (2015). A hybrid MCDM approach for Taiwanese tour guides selection. Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic & Soft Computing, 25(6), 605–621.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chao, X., Kou, G., Peng, Y., & Viedma, E. H. (2021). Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: An application in financial inclusion. European Journal of Operational Research, 288(1), 271–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, J. K., & Chen, I. S. (2015). The assessment of intellectual capital for the information and communication technology industry in Taiwan applying a hybrid MCDM model. European Journal of International Management, 9(1), 88–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, X.-G., Yu, G. F., Wu, J., & Yang, Y. (2020). A minimum trust discount coefficient model for incomplete information in group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy soft set. International Journal of Fuzzy Systems, 22(6), 2025–2040.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, D., Zhou, Z., Cheng, F., Zhou, Y., & Xie, Y. (2018). Modeling the minimum cost consensus problem in an asymmetric costs context. European Journal of Operational Research, 270(3), 1122–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chou, H. H. (2015). Multiple-technique approach for improving a performance measurement and management system: Action research in a mining company. Engineering Management Journal, 27(4), 203–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chuang, H. M., Lin, C. Y., & Chen, Y. S. (2015). Exploring the triple reciprocity nature of organizational value cocreation behavior using multicriteria decision making analysis. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2015, 15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalio, R. (2017). Principles: Life and work. Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G., & Gallupe, R. B. (1987). A foundation for the study of group decision support systems. Management Science, 33(5), 589–609.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dong, Q., & Saaty, T. L. (2014). An analytic hierarchy process model of group consensus. Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering, 23(3), 362–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eden, C., & Ackermann, F. (2010). Decision making in groups: Theory and practice. In D. Wilson (Ed.), Nutt, P (pp. 231–272). Handbook of Decision Making.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elwyn, G., Greenhalgh, T., Macfarlane, F., & Koppel, S. (2016). Groups: A guide to small group work in healthcare, management, education and research. CRC Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fedrizzi, M. (1990). On a consensus measure in a group MCDM problem. In J. Kacprzyk & M. Fedrizzi (Eds.), Multiperson decision making models using fuzzy sets and possibility theory (pp. 231–241). Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, B. (1772). Letter to Joseph priestly. Fawcett.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (1984). Stakeholder management: A strategic approach. Pitman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32, 148–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, M., & Narain, R. (2015). A fuzzy ANP based approach in the selection of the best e-business strategy and to assess the impact of e-procurement on organizational performance. Information Technology and Management, 16(4), 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatch, M. J. (1997). Organization theory. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • He, Q., Luo, L., Hu, Y., & Chan, A. P. (2015). Measuring the complexity of mega construction projects in China—A fuzzy analytic network process analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 33(3), 549–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera, F., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (1996). A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78(1), 73–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera-Viedma, E., Cabrerizo, F. J., Kacprzyk, J., & Pedrycz, W. (2014). A review of soft consensus models in a fuzzy environment. Information Fusion, 17, 4–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hosseini, A., Banaitis, A., Nasiri, H., Banaitienė, N., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2015). Combination of fuzzy-AHP and DEMATEL-ANP with GIS in a new hybrid MCDM model used for the selection of the best space for leisure in a blighted urban site AU - Pourahmad, Ahmad. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(5), 773–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, D., Shen, Y.-C., Yuan, B. J. C., & Chou, C. J. (2015). Toward successful commercialization of university technology: Performance drivers of university technology transfer in Taiwan. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 92, 25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, Y., & Wen, J.& Yan, Y. (2015). Measuring the performance of knowledge resources using a value perspective: Integrating BSC and ANP. Journal of Knowledge Management, 19(6), 1250–1272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hung Chen, H., Kang, H.-Y., Lee, A. H. I., & Chen, S. (2015). Strategies, decisions and operations for keeping exploitative and exploratory activities balanced. Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 13(2), 198–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J. (1992). Groups in organizations. Managing people at work. McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeng, D. J.-F., & Huang, K.-H. (2015). Strategic project portfolio selection for national research institutes. Journal of Business Research, 68(11), 2305–2311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ju, Y., Wang, A., & You, T. (2015). Emergency alternative evaluation and selection based on ANP, DEMATEL, and TL-TOPSIS. Natural Hazards, 75(2), 347–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kasanen, E., Wallenius, H., & Wallenius, J.& Zionts, S. (2000). A study of high-level managerial processes, with implications for MCDM research. European Journal of Operational Research, 120, 496–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kiakojuri, D., Shamshirband, S., Anuar, N. B., & Abdullah, J. (2015). Analysis of the social capital indicators by using DEMATEL approach: The case of Islamic Azad University. Quality & Quantity, 49(5), 1985–1995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilic, H. S., Zaim, S., & Delen, D. (2015). Selecting “the best” ERP system for SMEs using a combination of ANP and PROMETHEE methods. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(5), 2343–2352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. A. (1995). A procedural justice model of strategic decision making: Strategy content implications in the multinational. Organization Science, 6(1), 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koksalan, M., Wallenius, J., & Zionts, S. (2011). Multiple criteria decision making: From early history to the 21st century. World Scientific.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kuleli Pak, B., Albayrak, Y. E., & Erensal, Y. C. (2015). Renewable energy perspective for Turkey using sustainability indicators. International Journal of Computational Intelligence System’s, 8(1), 187–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumru, M., & Kumru, P. Y. (2015). A fuzzy ANP model for the selection of 3D coordinate-measuring machine. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, 26(5), 999–1010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuo, T. C., Hsu, C.-W., & Li, J.-Y. (2015). Developing a green supplier selection model by using the DANP with VIKOR. Sustainability, 7(2), 1661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lai, P. P. Y. (2015). Using fuzzy analytic network process to explore the factors of performance housing refurbishment in Taiwan. Acta Oeconomica, 65(s2), 223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lam, J. S. L. (2015). Designing a sustainable maritime supply chain: A hybrid QFD–ANP approach. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 78, 70–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Y. H. (2015). Navigating SWOT-FANP with GSM method to prioritize the strategic location. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(1), 140–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, C. L. (2015). A novel hybrid decision-making model for determining product position under consideration of dependence and feedback. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 39(8), 2194–2216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, W. R., Wang, Y. H., & Shih, K. H. (2015). A multi-criteria decision making for innovation services attributes: An empirical study of mobile banking system. Journal of Testing and Evaluation, 43(4), 20130220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lingham, T., & Richley, B. A. (2018). High-impact engagement: A two-phase approach to individual and development ream. iUniverse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, B., Zhou, Q., Ding, R. X., Palomares, I., & Herrera, F. (2019). Large-scale group decision making model based on social network analysis: Trust relationship-based conflict detection and elimination. European Journal of Operational Research, 275(2), 737–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, M.-T., Hu, S.-K., Huang, L.-H., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2015). Evaluating the implementation of business-to-business m-commerce by SMEs based on a new hybrid MADM model. Management Decision, 53(2), 290–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lu, M.-T., Tzeng, G.-H., Cheng, H., & Hsu, C.-C. (2015). Exploring mobile banking services for user behavior in intention adoption: Using new hybrid MADM model. Service Business, 9(3), 541–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mardani, A., Nilashi, M., Zavadskas, E. K., Awang, S. R., Zare, H., & Jamal, N. M. (2018). Decision making methods based on fuzzy aggregation operators: Three decades review from 1986 to 2017. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 17(02), 391–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masoumik, S. M., Abdul-Rashid, S. H., & Olugu, E. U. (2015). The development of a strategic prioritisation method for green supply chain initiatives. PLoS One, 10(11), e0143115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moghaddam, K. S. (2015). Fuzzy multi-objective model for supplier selection and order allocation in reverse logistics systems under supply and demand uncertainty. Expert Systems with Applications, 42(15–16), 6237–6254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mohd, W. R. W., & Abdullah, L. (2017). Aggregation methods in group decision making: A decade survey. Informatica, 41(1), 71–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mu, E., Cooper, O., & Peasley, M. (2020). Best practices in analytic network process studies. Expert Systems with Applications, 159(30), 113536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, E., & Stern, H. (2012). Structured stakeholder self-identification approach for the deployment of public information systems: The case of surveillance technology in the City of Pittsburgh. Journal of Information Technology Management XXIII, 4, 50–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mu, E., & Stern, H. (2014). The City of Pittsburgh goes to the cloud: A case study of cloud strategic selection and deployment. Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases, 4, 70–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, E., & Stern, H. (2018). A contingent/assimilation framework for public IS inter-organizational decisions. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 17(6), 1611–1658.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu, E., Wormer, S., Barkon, B., Foizey, R., & Vehec, M. (2012). Group modelling and integration of multiple perspectives in the functional selection of a new technology: The case of a next-generation electronic portfolio system. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 19(1–2), 15–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafinasab, F., Karbassi, A. R., & Ghoddousi, J. (2015). Fuzzy analytic network process approach to evaluate land and sea criteria for land use planning in coastal areas. Ocean & Coastal Management, 116, 368–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nilashi, M., Zakaria, R., Ibrahim, O., Majid, M. Z. A., Zin, R. M., & Farahmand, M. (2015). MCPCM: A DEMATEL-ANP-based multi-criteria decision-making approach to evaluate the critical success factors in construction projects. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, 40(2), 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nutt, P. C. (2008). Investigating decision making processes. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 425–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making. OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ortíz, M. A., Felizzola, H. A., & Isaza, S. N. (2015). A contrast between DEMATEL-ANP and ANP methods for six sigma project selection: A case study in healthcare industry. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 15(3), S3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palomares, I., Martinez, L., & Herrera, F. (2013). A consensus model to detect and manage noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision making. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 22(3), 516–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pan, J.-N., & Nguyen, H. T. N. (2015). Achieving customer satisfaction through product–service systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 247(1), 179–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, V., Thanos, I., & Barwise, P. (2010). Research on strategic decisions: Taking stock and looking ahead. In P. Nutt & D. Wilson (Eds.), Hanbook of decision making (pp. 31–69). John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papadakis, V. M., Lioukas, S., & Chambers, D. (1998). Strategic decision-making processes: The role of management and context. Strategic Management Journal, 19(2), 115–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rainey, H. G., Ronquillo, J. C., & Avellaneda, C. N. (2010). Decision making in public organizations. In P. Nutt & D. Wilson (Eds.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 349–378). John Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ramkumar, M., & Jenamani, M. (2015). Sustainability in supply chain through e-procurement—An assessment framework based on DANP and liberatore score. IEEE Systems Journal, 9(4), 1554–1564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L., & Peniwati, K. (2013). Group decision making: Drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L., & Vargas, L. G. (2007). Dispersion of group judgments. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7–8), 918–925.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangari, M. S., Razmi, J., & Zolfaghari, S. (2015). Developing a practical evaluation framework for identifying critical factors to achieve supply chain agility. Measurement, 62, 205–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen, K.-Y., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2015). A decision rule-based soft computing model for supporting financial performance improvement of the banking industry. Soft Computing, 19(4), 859–874.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Staš, D., Lenort, R., Wicher, P., & Holman, D. (2015). Green transport balanced scorecard model with analytic network process support. Sustainability, 7(11), 15243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tavana, M., Khalili-Damghani, K., & Rahmatian, R. (2015). A hybrid fuzzy MCDM method for measuring the performance of publicly held pharmaceutical companies. Annals of Operations Research, 226(1), 589–621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, R. (2015). InCites Journal Citation Reports.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsai, S.-B., Xue, Y.-Z., Huang, P.-Y., Zhou, J., Li, G. D., Guo, W.-F., Lau, H., & Shang, Z.-W. (2015). Establishing a criteria system for green production. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, 229(8), 1395–1406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uygun, Ö., Kaçamak, H., & Kahraman, Ü. A. (2015). An integrated DEMATEL and fuzzy ANP techniques for evaluation and selection of outsourcing provider for a telecommunication company. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 86, 137–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uygun, Ö., Kahveci, T. C., Taşkın, H., & Piriştine, B. (2015). Readiness assessment model for institutionalization of SMEs using fuzzy hybrid MCDM techniques. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 88, 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughan, D. (1996). The challenger launch decision: Risky technology, culture and deviance at NASA. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallenius, J., Dyer, J. S., Fishburn, P. C., Steuer, R. E., Zionts, S., & Deb, K. (2008). Multiple criteria decision making, multiattribute utility theory: Recent accomplishments and what lies ahead. Management Science, 54(7), 1336–1349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, J., Dai, L., Chiclana, F., Fujita, H., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2018). A minimum adjustment cost feedback mechanism based consensus model for group decision making under social network with distributed linguistic trust. Information Fusion, 41, 232–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wu, T., Liu, X., Qin, J., & Herrera, F. (2019). Consensus evolution networks: A consensus reaching tool for managing consensus thresholds in group decision making. Information Fusion, 52, 375–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wudhikarn, R., Chakpitak, N., & Neubert, G. (2015). Use of an analytic network process and Monte Carlo analysis in new product formula selection decisions. Asia-Pacific Journal of Operational Research, 32(02), 1550007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yang, C.-L., Yuan, B. J. C., & Huang, C.-Y. (2015). Key determinant derivations for information technology disaster recovery site selection by the multi-criterion decision making method. Sustainability, 7(5), 6149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu, L., & Lai, K. K. (2011). A distance-based group decision-making methodology for multi-person multi-criteria emergency decision support. Decision Support Systems, 51(2), 307–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, S., & Li, X. (2015). A hybrid performance evaluation model of TPL providers in agricultural products based on fuzzy ANP-TOPSIS. Custos e Agronegocio online, 11(3), 144–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao, H., & Li, N. (2015). Evaluating the performance of thermal power enterprises using sustainability balanced scorecard, fuzzy Delphic and hybrid multi-criteria decision making approaches for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 569–582.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Carlow University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

    Enrique Mu

  2. University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA

    Orrin Cooper

Authors
  1. Enrique Mu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Orrin Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Enrique Mu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Macka, Turkey

    Y. Ilker Topcu

  2. Department of Industrial Engineering, İstanbul University-Cerrahpaşa, Avcılar, Turkey

    Şule Önsel Ekici

  3. Department of Industrial Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Macka, Turkey

    Özgür Kabak

  4. School of Management, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

    Emel Aktas

  5. Department of Industrial Engineering, Doğuş University, Dudullu, Turkey

    Özay Özaydın

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mu, E., Cooper, O. (2022). A Contingency Approach to Multi-Criteria Decision-Making: A Search for Validity Through Rigor and Relevance. In: Topcu, Y.I., Önsel Ekici, Ş., Kabak, Ö., Aktas, E., Özaydın, Ö. (eds) New Perspectives in Operations Research and Management Science. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 326. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-91851-4_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation