20 years review of the multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) framework: a proposition of a systematic guideline

IF 4.4 3区 管理学 Q1 OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE
He Huang, Shary Heuninckx, Cathy Macharis
{"title":"20 years review of the multi actor multi criteria analysis (MAMCA) framework: a proposition of a systematic guideline","authors":"He Huang,&nbsp;Shary Heuninckx,&nbsp;Cathy Macharis","doi":"10.1007/s10479-024-06357-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) involves evaluating alternatives based on a comprehensive set of conflicting criteria, often requiring the involvement of varied decision makers. This has led to the emergence of stakeholder-based multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) frameworks. However, traditional MCGDM frequently overlooks the interactions and trade-offs among different actors and criteria. The Multi-actor Multi-criteria Analysis (MAMCA), developed in 2000, provides a transparent decision-making process explicitly considering these interrelationships. It allows diverse stakeholder groups to represent their priorities, thereby enhancing their understanding of their own and others’ positions. Over the past two decades, MAMCA has seen a significant rise in popularity and has been widely applied in diverse contexts, proving valuable as both a decision-making and stakeholder engagement tool. However, our analysis of publications on cases in which MAMCA was applied over the years shows that considerable variation exists in the overall process approach, contingent upon the specific goals and context. To address these variations, this paper proposes a modularized MAMCA structure, complemented by systematic application guidelines, to aid future users in navigating the process steps and identifying the most suitable methods for each step. Additionally, future research directions are suggested for potential enhancements to the MAMCA framework by integrating varied methodologies.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8215,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Operations Research","volume":"343 1","pages":"313 - 348"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10479-024-06357-y.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Operations Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10479-024-06357-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OPERATIONS RESEARCH & MANAGEMENT SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Multi-criteria Decision Making (MCDM) involves evaluating alternatives based on a comprehensive set of conflicting criteria, often requiring the involvement of varied decision makers. This has led to the emergence of stakeholder-based multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) frameworks. However, traditional MCGDM frequently overlooks the interactions and trade-offs among different actors and criteria. The Multi-actor Multi-criteria Analysis (MAMCA), developed in 2000, provides a transparent decision-making process explicitly considering these interrelationships. It allows diverse stakeholder groups to represent their priorities, thereby enhancing their understanding of their own and others’ positions. Over the past two decades, MAMCA has seen a significant rise in popularity and has been widely applied in diverse contexts, proving valuable as both a decision-making and stakeholder engagement tool. However, our analysis of publications on cases in which MAMCA was applied over the years shows that considerable variation exists in the overall process approach, contingent upon the specific goals and context. To address these variations, this paper proposes a modularized MAMCA structure, complemented by systematic application guidelines, to aid future users in navigating the process steps and identifying the most suitable methods for each step. Additionally, future research directions are suggested for potential enhancements to the MAMCA framework by integrating varied methodologies.

多参与者多标准分析(MAMCA)框架的20年回顾:一个系统性指导方针的命题
多准则决策(MCDM)涉及基于一套相互冲突的综合标准来评估备选方案,通常需要不同决策者的参与。这导致了基于利益相关者的多标准群体决策(MCGDM)框架的出现。然而,传统的MCGDM经常忽略了不同参与者和标准之间的相互作用和权衡。2000年开发的多参与者多标准分析(MAMCA)提供了一个明确考虑这些相互关系的透明决策过程。它允许不同的利益相关者群体代表他们的优先事项,从而增强他们对自己和他人立场的理解。在过去的二十年中,MAMCA的受欢迎程度显著上升,并被广泛应用于不同的环境中,证明了作为决策和利益相关者参与工具的价值。然而,我们对多年来应用MAMCA的出版物的分析表明,在整个过程方法中存在相当大的变化,这取决于具体的目标和背景。为了解决这些变化,本文提出了一个模块化的MAMCA结构,辅以系统的应用指南,以帮助未来的用户导航过程步骤,并为每个步骤确定最合适的方法。此外,还提出了未来的研究方向,以通过整合各种方法来增强MAMCA框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Annals of Operations Research
Annals of Operations Research 管理科学-运筹学与管理科学
CiteScore
7.90
自引率
16.70%
发文量
596
审稿时长
8.4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Operations Research publishes peer-reviewed original articles dealing with key aspects of operations research, including theory, practice, and computation. The journal publishes full-length research articles, short notes, expositions and surveys, reports on computational studies, and case studies that present new and innovative practical applications. In addition to regular issues, the journal publishes periodic special volumes that focus on defined fields of operations research, ranging from the highly theoretical to the algorithmic and the applied. These volumes have one or more Guest Editors who are responsible for collecting the papers and overseeing the refereeing process.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信