Suchergebnisse

AbstractMulti‐actor multi‐criteria analysis is a group decision‐making framework that allows multiple stakeholder groups to be involved in the decision‐making process, facilitating the understanding of the points of consensus and conflict among the stakeholder groups. Carefully selecting suitable criteria is important as they illustrate the possibly divergent priorities of the respective stakeholder group, and overlooking important criteria can lead to erroneous outcomes. Furthermore, the number of criteria needs specific consideration, as a too large number poses problems for human cognition, but a too small number inaccurately represents the stakeholder's interest. In stakeholder groups with many members, such as those representing citizens, defining a criteria set is likely to be even more complicated. Currently, there is no formal guideline to assist facilitators in defining these criteria sets. In this paper, we propose a novel framework for criteria preprocessing with stakeholder involvement that includes a guideline for firstly selecting criteria into a tentative list and secondly selecting the final criteria set. It provides a procedure on how to determine criteria considering the priorities of stakeholder groups with regard to the context. As a final step, we propose a mathematical model for selecting a number of criteria that are both cognitively manageable and representative for the participants' priorities. Based on the principles of the Pareto analysis, as well as the cognitive judgment theory "magic number seven plus or minus two", a recommendation list of the criteria is generated. It prevents key criteria from being omitted while at the same time limiting the overall number of criteria. This framework is applied to a social decision‐making case for construction logistics, and the results are compared with the conventional approach of criteria definition.

Each year the Education Oversight Committee produces an annual report for the South Carolina General Assembly and the South Carolina State Board of Education. This report presents a summary of activities and recommendations that have emerged from the EOC's activities between March 2005-March 2006.

The predominant strategic-relational approaches to understanding multi-level governance within the context of the European Union are explored. An overview of the general strategic-relational approach to investigating both state government & the notion of governance is presented. Competing accounts of the European Union's transformation into a regional state or political entity are then examined; specific attention is dedicated to highlighting two state-oriented accounts (liberal intergovernmentalism & supranationalism) & two governance-based models (eg, multi-level governance & network polity). Three critiques of the state-oriented & governance-based accounts are subsequently offered; whereas the former accounts naturalize the sharp division between state & society, the latter perspectives have not achieved theoretical maturity. Consequently, a strategic-relational perspective that negotiates the aforementioned approaches' shortcomings is introduced & acknowledges changes to the structure of states in advanced capitalist societies is introduced. The alternative framework's implications for future research are also contemplated. J. W. Parker

The predominant strategic-relational approaches to understanding multi-level governance within the context of the European Union are explored. An overview of the general strategic-relational approach to investigating both state government & the notion of governance is presented. Competing accounts of the European Union's transformation into a regional state or political entity are then examined; specific attention is dedicated to highlighting two state-oriented accounts (liberal intergovernmentalism & supranationalism) & two governance-based models (eg, multi-level governance & network polity). Three critiques of the state-oriented & governance-based accounts are subsequently offered; whereas the former accounts naturalize the sharp division between state & society, the latter perspectives have not achieved theoretical maturity. Consequently, a strategic-relational perspective that negotiates the aforementioned approaches' shortcomings is introduced & acknowledges changes to the structure of states in advanced capitalist societies is introduced. The alternative framework's implications for future research are also contemplated. J. W. Parker