TY - JOUR
T1 - User acceptance of multi-criteria decision support systems
T2 - The impact of preference elicitation techniques
AU - Aloysius, John A.
AU - Davis, Fred D.
AU - Wilson, Darryl D.
AU - Taylor, A. Ross
AU - Kottemann, Jeffrey E.
PY - 2006/2/16
Y1 - 2006/2/16
N2 - Previous research indicates that decision makers are often reluctant to use potentially beneficial multi-criteria decision support systems (MCDSS). Prior research has not examined the specific impact of preference elicitation techniques on user acceptance of MCDSS. The present research begins to fill this gap by examining the effect on users' MCDSS evaluations of two commonly used preference elicitation techniques, absolute measurement and pairwise comparisons, while holding constant all other aspects of the MCDSS and decision making task. Experimental results (N = 153) indicate that users consider MCDSS with pairwise comparisons to be higher in decisional conflict, more effortful, less accurate, and overall less desirable to use than MCDSS with absolute measurements. Thus, any potential normative superiority of a preference elicitation technique must be balanced against its potentially adverse effects on user acceptance of the MCDSS within which it is employed. We present a research agenda for exploring the tradeoffs between objective validity and user acceptance in the design of decision analysis tools.
AB - Previous research indicates that decision makers are often reluctant to use potentially beneficial multi-criteria decision support systems (MCDSS). Prior research has not examined the specific impact of preference elicitation techniques on user acceptance of MCDSS. The present research begins to fill this gap by examining the effect on users' MCDSS evaluations of two commonly used preference elicitation techniques, absolute measurement and pairwise comparisons, while holding constant all other aspects of the MCDSS and decision making task. Experimental results (N = 153) indicate that users consider MCDSS with pairwise comparisons to be higher in decisional conflict, more effortful, less accurate, and overall less desirable to use than MCDSS with absolute measurements. Thus, any potential normative superiority of a preference elicitation technique must be balanced against its potentially adverse effects on user acceptance of the MCDSS within which it is employed. We present a research agenda for exploring the tradeoffs between objective validity and user acceptance in the design of decision analysis tools.
KW - Decision support systems
KW - Decisional conflict
KW - Effort-accuracy framework
KW - Multiple criteria analysis
KW - Preference elicitation techniques
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=25144498755&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.05.031
DO - 10.1016/j.ejor.2004.05.031
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:25144498755
SN - 0377-2217
VL - 169
SP - 273
EP - 285
JO - European Journal of Operational Research
JF - European Journal of Operational Research
IS - 1
ER -