I intervallbeslutsanalys, där ingångsinformation tillhandahålls i termer av intervall eller liknande format för att representera oprecisa indatasatser istället för att använda exakta siffror för sannolikheter och konsekvensvärden, har ett stort utbud av tekniker för att utföra robusthets- och känslighetsanalyser dykt upp. Samtidigt är det inte okomplicerat hur man relaterar dessa tekniker till varandra i en beslutsanalytisk process och hur de i kombination fungerar som en källa för att få insikter om hur oprecision påverkar beslutsutvärderingar. Därför syftar detta kapitel till att reflektera över en grupp metoder för robusthets- och känslighetsanalyser som är kompatibla med ett gemensamt ramverk för analysera beslut under risk, och ge en systematisk presentation av dessa och diskutera riktlinjer för deras användning i beslutsanalyspraxis.

In interval decision analysis, where input information is provided in terms of intervals or similar formats to represent imprecise input statements instead of using precise numbers for probabilities and consequence values, a vast array of techniques to conduct robustness and sensitivity analysis has emerged. At the same time, it is not straightforward how to relate these techniques to one another in a decision-analytic process and how they, in combination, serve as a source for obtaining insights into how imprecision affects decision evaluations. Therefore, this chapter aims to reflect upon a group of methods for robustness and sensitivity analyses that are compatible with a common framework for analysing decisions under risk, and to provide a systematic presentation of these and discuss guidelines for their usage in decision analysis practice.

A fundamental element of participatory group decision processes is acknowledging the desires and concerns of the participating stakeholders. That involves reaching out to stakeholders and asking them to provide input, whereby their desires and concerns can be addressed in the decision process. In this paper, we elaborate on a case of a participatory decision process intending to form a municipal growth strategy in northern Sweden, where an increased understanding of stakeholder values was at the forefront of the project. We present the concept of value driver as a means for interpreting and structuring stakeholder value input in participatory processes for decision-makers to gain an increased understanding of the stakeholders’ desires and concerns. In particular, we discuss the aggregation of such value drivers when reaching out to a large set of stakeholders via surveys and how such an approach can inform a participatory decision analysis process. The aim is to provide a conceptual representation of stakeholder values that can inform participatory decision processes seeking compromise solutions, such as how municipal resources should be allocated effectively based on what residents and business representatives find important for living, working, and running businesses in a municipality.

We present a survey-based approach towards simultaneous elicitation of criteria and weight rank orderings in a group decision analysis setting. Supporting such procedures is of interest for services facilitating online participatory decision analysis where citizens as stakeholders provide input in order to shape both a set of criteria and preferential statements over the set. However, in such a simultaneous approach, the stakeholders do not rank the same elements, as they propose them more or less independently, which leads to aggregation of relatively incomplete and possibly disjoint rank orderings. To address this, we present a useful conceptualization and subsequently identify techniques for aggregating such rank orderings. Furthermore, we propose a method for assessing the aggregation techniques’ equitability by using data from a decision situation in a climate action case.

Green Information Systems (IS) are defined in terms of certain sustainability-related characteristics. Sustainability itself is a concept based on subjective values and value judgments, which are political, value-laden, and context-dependent. However, Green IS literature does not provide a sufficient understanding of such subjective values nor their treatment. Also, value-judgments for Green IS have hardly been considered. We adapt material value-ethics to expose the fundamentals of subjective values. Reviewing and synthesizing work in which subjective values and value judgments have been explicitly considered in sustainability decision-making, we improve our understanding of their use and formalization. Finally, we discuss our findings through the lens of material-value ethics, and offer reflective arguments towards clarifying the role of values in Green IS. The paper contributes to a deeper understanding of subjective values and subjective value judgments for sustainability, along with their critical and significant implications for Green IS research.

Comparatively few of the vast number of suggested decision-analytical methods have been widely spread in actual practice. The majority of those methods call for exact and accurate numbers as input, which could be one of several reasons for this lack of actual use; people frequently seem to be unfamiliar with, or reluctant to express those, in a sense, “true” values required. Many alternative methods to resolve this complication have been suggested over the years, including procedures for dealing with incomplete information. One way, which has proliferated for a while, is to introduce so-called surrogate numbers in the form of ordinal ranking methods for multi-criteria weights. In this chapter, we show how those can be adapted for use in probability elicitation. Furthermore, when decision-makers possess more information regarding the relative strengths of probabilities, that is, some form of cardinality, the input information to ordinal methods is sometimes too restricted. Therefore, we suggest a testing methodology and analyze the relevance of a set of cardinal ordering methods in addition to the ordinal ones.