Cloud Computing and Data Science

http://ojs.wiserpub.com/index.php/CCDS/

Review

Decision Making: Models, Processes, Techniques

Hamed Taherdoost1,2* , Mitra Madanchian3,4

1
Department of Arts, Communications and Social Sciences, University Canada West, Vancouver, Canada
2
College of Technology and Engineering, Westcliff University, Irvine, USA
3
Research and Development Department, Hamta Business Corporation, Vancouver, Canada
4
Fairleigh Dickinson University, Vancouver, Canada
Email: [email protected]

Received: 23 June 2023; Revised: 17 July 2023; Accepted: 28 July 2023

Abstract: Decision-making is one of the steps in problem-solving that can be applied in manifold areas from personal
situations to the management of organizations. There are functions and processes to lead to making a decision; however,
it may sound complicated to select between decision-making models and approaches as different factors and different
outcomes get involved in the decision-making process. This article is a survey of decision-making with managerial
insight to explain what it is, what kinds of decisions are made, and how they are applied in many sectors, including
computers, management, business, psychology, etc. This paper aims to provide an overview of the decision-making
concept, its functions, process steps, and its main types, models, and categories. Overall, it provides valuable insights
for individuals and organizations seeking to improve their decision-making abilities.

Keywords: decision making, models, decision making types and concept, decision making techniques steps, decision
making problems, managerial concept

1. Introduction
Every day, individuals face many challenging and tough situations to make decisions. In the management decision-
making process, conscious and reasoned as opposed to random decisions are made [1-2]. Before making decisions, it is
necessary to make the appropriate option. This choice is based on pertinent data and produces the desired outcomes. The
choice is a process, not an instantaneous thing. The choice itself is significant, but most individuals recall the decision’s
outcome [3-4]. Each option may have some benefits and drawbacks that are crucial to be considered before making
the choice. Thus, it is critical to gather data and weigh the benefits and drawbacks of each choice [5-6]. Generally, an
appropriate decision can help to overcome the gaps between reality and ideals, and it helps us to identify the way from
initiation to both implementation and termination in a design process. It also helps to consider necessary limitations, and
the preferable situations in case people face a situation in different aspects of their lives [7]. As the situations get more
complicated and many side effects get involved, making an appropriate decision gets more challenging [8]. However,
the outcomes of making mistakes in decision-making in real life may be irreparable considering time, money, and
reputation loss [9-10]. On the other hand, it is not realistic to make error-free decisions in real life as every decision
comes with a range of side effects. However, considering various determining factors and the benefits and drawbacks of
each option increases the likelihood of making appropriate decisions to a great extent [11-12].

Copyright ©2023 Hamed Taherdoost, et al.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37256/ccds.5120243284
This is an open-access article distributed under a CC BY license
(Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Volume 5 Issue 1|2024| 1 Cloud Computing and Data Science

 The options that are commonly offered to people can be a vast range of subjects such as opportunities, predictions,
strategies, events, and requirements, although in all situations the decision always needs ‘‘a commitment to a course
of action that is intended to yield results that are satisfying for specified individuals’’ [13] (p.24). Decisions generally
include four main categories:
• Acceptances: It is a binary choice between accepting or rejecting;
• Choices: Opting for a subset from a group of alternatives;
• Constructions: Creating an ideal solution given accessible resources;
• Evaluations: Here, commitments back up the statements of worth to act [14].
On the other hand, decisions can be simple or complex with manifold criteria with several perspectives for each
of them. Decision-making is the process of opting for an option between manifold alternatives. These alternatives can
be different situations from personal ones to the choices through an organization. When you select a choice between
all available possibilities, the process is decision-making [15-16]. The aim of decision-making is both identifying all
possible alternatives and choosing the best one out of available choices that fit the expected goals and objectives. For
doing this, all choices are expected to be evaluated considering different aspects such as cost, efficiency, etc., and all
merits and demerits to gain the best decision. For example, considering a rational perspective, the option with maximum
utility would be the best possible choice. On the other hand, a naturalistic perspective decides based on whether an
option is the most consonant with previous experiences and personal beliefs to opt for the best choice.
Decision-making is a critical function in management that overshadows different aspects from controlling the staff
to directing and organizing them [15, 17-18]. Furthermore, decision-making can be considered the most common and
moderately ill-structured type of problem-solving that is a vital skill in the more complex and ill-structured problem-
solving kinds. For example, in design and policy problem-solving decision-making possesses a necessary role [19-21].

2. Decision-making models
It is commonly complicated to make good decisions as the number of alternatives gets increased since every
decision comes with several benefits and drawbacks. Considering the complexity of making appropriate decisions and
encountering various outcomes, decision-making models facilitate the process of choosing between different available
options [22]. Decision-making models provide frameworks and guidelines to make the best choice and better manage
the decision-making process. They are tools to be employed and make effective decisions in cases where decision-
making may get complicated.
Different decision-making models provide a framework to analyze the situation, regard likely solutions, and
eventually lead to an informed decision. They also suggest a range of approaches to making effective decisions based
on the context of the decision and alternatives that influence it. Relying on decision-making models to make structured
decisions facilitates making appropriate decisions to a great extent and may decrease the probability of failure [23].
Getting to know different decision-making models helps decision-makers to get equipped in making appropriate
decisions when there is a range of different options.
The concept of decision-making models is divided into several types in different ways. Here, two main ways of
dividing decision-making models are discussed [14].
Firstly, the decision-making process can be divided into two different district models including normative
(perspective), and descriptive (naturalistic) are described in the following.

2.1 Normative models

The normative decision frameworks are theories that assist managers in making choices by examining the level of
team participation. These theories include the decisions made by rational decision-makers considering the maximum
utility to gain the optimum option in any uncertain circumstance that may detour decision-making. Thus, it is based on
considering the goals of the decision-maker and its likely outcomes to make the best possible decision out of available
choices. The process of decision-making, therefore, is based on standards and norms and guides people with specific
rules and directions in making the best possible decision. In other words, the normative models of decision-making
simply refer to the fact that the best choice is the one that leads to the best result. These models usually use assigned

Cloud Computing and Data Science 2 | Hamed Taherdoost, et al.

numerical values to the options to make the process of decision-making rational [24].

2.2 Descriptive models

The study of naturalistic decision-making is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and it examines how individuals
utilize their experience to make choices in real-world situations. The focus is on three elements that impact decision-
making: characteristics related to the decision-maker, including knowledge and experience, factors linked with the
job, such as its degree of complexity, and environmental factors [25]. These models are based on examining the ways
individuals make their decisions in an actual situation. Individuals rarely can follow a rational process (as normative
ones), usually, the decision-making is unconscious and based on prior experiences. Therefore, instead of adopting
numerical values, the decision-making process is based on explaining stories about the possible consequences. The
decision-making is impacted by personal identities and their related social expectations. Here, between the different
stories about future events, the most coherent scenario affects the final choice [14].
On the other hand, some literature also divides the decision-making models into rational and bounded rationality
models which are discussed following as well.

2.2.1 Rational models

As discussed in normative models, during this process, decisions are made with certainty. That is to say, the
alternatives, the decision criteria, and their outcomes are known to the decision-makers, and they can make the optimum
choice and finally implement that choice. All these steps are necessary when the process is rational [8]. The rational
model is based on a sequence of steps that are logically set to lead to a decision. Thus, the problem is first identified
and possible solutions are analyzed and brainstormed then. This model is effective in cases where there is a great
understanding of the problem and enough time to discuss and brainstorm and eventually decrease the level of risk.
However, it cannot be effective in cases where there is limited time or understanding of the problem [26].

2.2.2 Bounded rational models

In many decision-making processes, all the above steps cannot be approved completely due to the limits in time,
information, cost, etc. Therefore, decision-making is based on an incomplete list of solutions, limited rationality, and
considering intuition, experiences, and advice. Decisions will always be made based on a partial and, to some extent,
insufficient understanding of the full nature of the situation being confronted. In these models, it is not feasible to
consider all choices, conduct a comprehensive review, provide an accurate forecast, or guarantee the optimal decision [8].
As discussed above, the majority of decisions are made unconsciously. However, in other situations, a decision-
making process could be also based on weighing the merits and consequences of the options in a controlled
environment. Overall, the decision-making process involves different factors which overshadow the results. These
factors could be rational, cultural, psychological, and social factors [27].
Rational factors are the main factors in many decision-making problems and they are quantitative ones such as time
and price. People prefer to focus on quantitative elements and neglect qualitative ones. The experiences, capabilities,
and personalities of the decision-makers are some of the psychological factors. The common values and trends accepted
in a specific environment and culture are known as cultural factors. Finally, social factors are other agreements that
can impact the decision of the decision-maker [28]. Thus, in the bounded rational models, the focus is on addressing
the problem rather than searching for the most ideal situation. Therefore, this model can be a working solution to make
immediate decisions for teams with limited time to discuss and brainstorm the situation [27].

3. Decision-making process
Decision-making is a process that starts from a point and leads to a conclusion. Making a decision happens by
following a process including several steps with specific strategies to pass each step appropriately. This process helps
the decision-makers to realize what they need to do in each step and what is the reason [29]. As stated in [29] there
are manifold processes for decision-making recommended by different authors based on their targets. However, a

Volume 5 Issue 1|2024| 3 Cloud Computing and Data Science

general decision-making process that is commonly accepted by many is described in the following eight steps, and it is
summarized in Figure 1 as well:
Defining the problem: This step includes identifying the main causes, issues, limitations, interfaces, and boundaries.
Here, the problem should be expressed in a concise, clear, and unambiguous statement considering the initial and the
desired conditions [29].
Identifying the requirements: These are the conditions that the problem must meet. These are, considering
mathematical form, the group of feasible solutions are provided in quantitative forms. Mathematics is used to assess and
enhance the quality of data in the face of ambiguity, to present and explain choices, and to model existing alternatives
and their outcomes.
Establishing the objectives and goals: The goals are higher than the necessary minimum values. A goal is an all-
encompassing declaration of the desired values and purposes. In mathematics, the objective may be distinguished from
the requirement, which is a restriction, by stating that the objective is the aim.
Determining the alternatives: Alternatives assist to change the initial conditions to the desired ones by using
manifold approaches. All of these alternatives should meet the requirements. The number of alternatives can be finite or
infinite. If the alternatives are finite, then all of them should be analyzed to obtain whether they meet the requirements or
not to examine the ones that are infeasible and should be eliminated. In the second situation, when an infinite number of
alternatives are faced, the alternatives’ set is the solutions’ set that fulfills the constraints (considering the requirements
of the mathematical form). The expected disutility is lower when there is only one choice than when there are more (or
an infinite number) choices. This is because consumers in the middle of the market get a disutility close to zero when
there is only one choice, but they don’t get this result when they choose randomly from a larger number of products [30].
Determining the criteria: Criteria are defined based on goals and aim to discriminate between the alternatives.
These criteria help to evaluate to what extent the alternatives can reach the goals. For each purpose, at least one criterion
should be developed. However, for complicated aims, numerous criteria might be generated.
Selecting a tool (method) for decision making: Manifold decision-making tools are available, but to choose
a suitable one, different aspects such as the concrete of the problem, and the objectives should be considered. For
example, for complex decision-making problems, complex methods are applicable.
Evaluating alternatives considering criteria: This step is a necessary input data to gain a correct decision-making
method. The assessment can be objective or subjective based on the criterion. The objective assessment considers an
understood measurement scale such as money, but the subjective assessment is judgmental. The decision-making tool
selected in the previous steps is used to rank the alternatives based on the achieved results of evaluations. Finally, the
most promising subsets would be chosen [31].
Validating step: In this step, the chosen terms from the previous step should be validated considering the
requirements of the decision-making problem to be sure the decision-making tool was not misapplied [32-33].
When the above steps are considered, it is time to execute the decision made in the process; however, it is
also noteworthy that planning is also a beneficial point in the decision-making problems as it can assist to develop
independent goals, gaining standards for measurements, transform values to actions, and finally effectively and
systematically devote the resources [28].

Establishing the
Defining the Identifying the Determining the
Objectives and
Problem Requirements Alternatives
Goals

Evaluating Selecting a Tool

Determining the
Validating Alternatives for Decision
Criteria
Against Criteria Making

Figure 1. Decision-Making Process Steps

Cloud Computing and Data Science 4 | Hamed Taherdoost, et al.

4. Decision-making types and techniques
Decision Analysis approaches are logical systematic/processes procedures for using critical thinking to information,
facts, and experience to make a well-balanced choice among uncertain options. They give structured methods for
applying critical thinking abilities earned via the accumulation of responses to problem-related questions. Hence, before
describing the decision-making techniques, it is beneficial to identify the important aspects of decision-making problems
better by using simple examples in Table 1 [32].

Table 1. Examples of important Concepts in Decision Making

Concepts Goals Criteria Strategic Requirements

Minimizing costs, minimizing Scheduling the risks, Treating the project’s remaining
environmental aspects, maximizing considering the potential
Examples materials and waste, preventing
efficiency, minimizing project risks, Dollar saving, and project the spread of nuclear materials.
and meeting a schedule. available resources.

Decision-making problems can be divided into different subcategories by considering different aspects. For
example, the decision-making can be divided into routine vs strategic decisions (based on the importance of problems),
individual compared with group decision-making (based on the number of decision-makers), programmed compared
with un-programmed decisions (based on the process of decision-making), etc. For this reason, some of the main and
most important views are considered to determine different types and techniques of decision-making. The categories are
discussed below and are listed in Figure 2.

Decision Making

Based on the Number of Decision Based on the Nurmber of

Makers Criteria
Individual Decision

Decision Making

Decision Making
Single Criterion
Group Decision

Multi Criteria
Making

Making

Figure 2. Two Main Typologies of Decision Making

First of all, the way the decisions are made can be considered to identify the decision-making techniques.
Considering this viewpoint, the decision-making problem can be categorized as to:

4.1 Normative models

The decision-maker is one person; therefore, the process is the responsibility of that one. In the majority of cases,

Volume 5 Issue 1|2024| 5 Cloud Computing and Data Science

the subject of the problem is not collective affairs cases. But the individual decision maker (who can be, for example,
the organization’s head or CEO, etc.) can impact collective destiny in this situation. Some of the main individual
decision-making techniques are participative decision-making, opportunity cost estimation, non-scientific methods (such
as draw cards, coin throw, tarot cards, astrology, authority obedience), preference trees, pros and cons analysis, etc.

4.2 Normative models

In contrast with individual decision-making methods, a cooperative level of decision-making uses a team or group
of decision-makers to make the final decision. This technique is also known as the collective and participatory method
of decision-making, voting-based methods, democratic, brainstorming (which separates ideas from evaluations by
people grouped), nominal group (based on both generating and evaluating ideas by a group of individuals grouped),
Delphi technique (Iterative organized group communication procedure where professionals analyze difficult and unclear
situations), and consensus decision-making (deciding on a proposal when the aim is acceptance of it by all the group
participants) are between the main group decision-making techniques (that are described in the listed literature in detail).
In this method, the ideal group size can be considered between five to 12 participants who should be motivated and able
to meet the tasks [8, 28, 32].
However, group decision-making is so likely to get biased by group members, and also some conflicts may happen
in groups to conclude [34]. Besides, following the aim to maintain unanimity, some alternatives may be underestimated
in consideration which will eventually lead to poor examinations.
In addition to the above-mentioned categories, the decision-making techniques can be divided into single-creation
and multiple-criteria decision-making (MCDM) problems.

4.2.1 Rational models

The problem of decision-making considers a single aggregate measure or criterion like cost. The alternative with
the best value (considering the criterion) is determined as the final solution. This is a classic optimization problem. For
example, if the minimum cost is the criterion, the alternative with the lowest cost is the solution. Manifold optimization
techniques can be utilized to find the solution in these cases based on the functional description and the form of the
problem such as discrete optimization, and linear, and nonlinear programming. In all cases, the criterion is the objective
function, and the requirements on the alternatives are the constraints of the optimization problem [28, 35].

4.2.2 Rational models

MCDM problems are the techniques used to solve decision-making problems with more than one criterion. When
there are diverse factors to consider, decision-making gets complicated [36]. On the other hand, several factors should be
addressed. Multi-criteria decision-making refers to complex situations that involve different choices to make a decision.
It is a valuable tool in cases where there are various alternatives to consider. So, each qualitative or quantitative criterion
is analyzed to determine whether it is beneficial or undesirable for the outcome [37].
In these cases, the decision-maker can face two general and main subsets:
• Multi-objective decision-making (MODM) methods: In these methods the attributes and goals are implicit and
the possible options are Infinite/Unclear.
• Multi-attribute decision-making methods: These are the problems with finite possible answers, clear goals, and
attributes [28, 35, 37].
Finally, some authors use more specific categories for decision-making types based on the fields of study. For
example, Litvaj et al. [38] described three main types of decision-making spontaneous decision-making, intuitive
decision-making, and rational decision-making. As an example, they identified all of the decision-making by managers
as a rational type that considers consistency, objectivity, and logical elements for the decision-making process.
Therefore, the element of rationality in the manager’s decision-making process is a necessary need for the fulfillment of
management duties.
There are several MCDM methods available such as the analytical hierarchal process (AHP), the analytical network
process (ANP), technology for order performance by similarity to optimal solution (TOPSIS), data envelopment analysis

Cloud Computing and Data Science 6 | Hamed Taherdoost, et al.

(DEA), rough set, etc. Here, some of the main sub-groups based on article number (Scopus results-February 15th, 2023)
are listed. Moreover, Table 2 lists available MCDM techniques, many of which are performed by specialized decision-
support software.

4.2.2.1 Rational models

AHP has been extensively investigated and used in practically all applications connected to MCDM since
its conception because of its simplicity, usability, and significant adaptability [39]. Decision-makers pay the most
attention to AHP as the most popular MCDM technique because there is a wealth of literature on its use. So, it is
crucial to comprehend the precise decision issues that AHP can handle [40]. The approach is predicated on the idea
that assessments should be consistent, and it also springs from the idea that inconsistent evaluations tend to occur
between options that seem to be of minimal relevance to the decision-making manager [41]. To decide which approach
is effective for the calculation and to establish the right order of criteria, the study by Stofkova et al. [41] set out to
examine and describe the AHP method as being necessary for strategic managerial decision-making. The research looks
at several topics, including managers’ perceptions of the AHP approach and the accuracy of computations. Talent was
considered crucial by managers for making decisions in their managerial roles.

4.2.2.2 Rational models

DEA is based on linear programming and transforms several input and output metrics into a single, all-
encompassing indicator of productive efficiency. Peer groups are identified, and a production frontier built on empirical
data is used to achieve this. Each unit is assessed as a composite unit that is created by concatenating the evaluations
of the other units in the peer group. DEA has now been used in numerous managerial settings [42]. The determinants
influencing the managerial effectiveness of Malaysian insurers were identified using truncated regression analysis in
the research by Nourani et al. [43]. The DEA is used to calculate overall and divisional efficiency. The decomposition
analysis demonstrates that the observed inefficiencies are brought on by the division of investment capabilities. The
regression outcomes show that factors affecting divisional and overall efficiencies have different effects. According to
this study, financial liberalization is a way to increase managerial effectiveness.

4.2.2.3 Rational models

A mathematical formalism and tools for representing and evaluating data are provided by rough sets. The theory
appeals to practitioners because of several distinctive characteristics. Simple, beautiful, and versatile all describe the
rough set. It has been used successfully in a variety of contexts [44]. The study by Do Couto and Gomes [45] sought to
pinpoint the leaders who exhibit a strategic alignment with the standards established by a firm. The dominance principle
is applied (i.e., the Dominance based Rough Set Approach). By employing a Dominance-based Rough Set Method, it
is possible to deduce decision-making guidelines and spot changes that go against that principle. The primary benefit
of employing these procedures (i.e., Dominance-based Rough Set and Rough Set) for an organization is providing the
organizational

4.2.2.4 Rational models

TOPSIS is a helpful method for solving real-world multi-attribute decision-making or MCDM problems [46].
The fundamental tenet of TOPSIS is rather simple. It is based on the idea of a displaced optimal point from which
a reasonable compromise is reached with the least amount of travel time [47]. In the work of AlKassem and AlKabi
[48], TOPSIS is used to optimize decision-making while considering a variety of criteria. The decision criteria are
evaluated by a thorough investigation. The consequences of this research aid in the development of an algorithm that
communicates the practical outcomes of this study to the machine and the energy market aggregator for an energy
management scheduling system.

Volume 5 Issue 1|2024| 7 Cloud Computing and Data Science

4.2.2.5 Rational models
Table 2. Different types of MCDM method

Number
Method Definition Developer of articles Main field included
(Scopus)

A methodical approach based on psychology and mathematics Engineering: 13,679

AHP Saaty [39] 30599
for organizing and understanding complex problems. articles

Business,
A nonparametric approach for estimating production boundaries Charnes, Cooper Management and
DEA 22994
in operations research and economics. and Rhodes [51] Accounting: 6,729
articles

A formal approximation of a crisp set using two sets that Computer Science:
Rough set represent the bottom and higher approximations of the original Pawlak [52] 22645 16,560 articles
set.

Based on the core tenet that the closest answer to the positive- Hwang and Yoon Engineering: 7,045
TOPSIS 15164
ideal solution is the best one. [53] articles

A procedure for calculating the degree of gray relations

and figuring out how much the system’s primary behavior Engineering: 4,018
GRA Ju-long [54] 7252
contributes to the overall picture or how much the system articles
factors impact one another.

Goal Charnes and Engineering: 2,204

A subset of MCDA and multi-objective optimization. 5473
programming Cooper [55] articles

Engineering: 1,375
ANP An expanded version of the MCDA tool, the AHP. Saaty [56] 3180 articles

Engineering: 1,212
VIKOR method Optimization for many criteria and a compromise solution. Opricovic [57] 2724 articles

PROMETHEE Method of preference ranking organization for evaluation of Engineering: 978

Brans [58] 2554
(Outranking) enrichment. articles

Elimination and choice, which express reality, form a family

ELECTRE of decision support techniques whose distinctive feature is the Computer Science:
Roy [59] 1887
(Outranking) partial aggregation according to the creation of relations of 786 articles
performance comparisons for each pair of options.

Value Reviewing current or new products throughout the design stage Engineering: 852
engineering/ to lower costs and improve functionality to boost the product’s Miles [60] 1552 articles
analysis value.

Best worst To compare a group of options to a set of criteria for making a Engineering: 569
Rezaei [61] 1310
method selection. articles

Multi-attribute To determine a conjoint measure of the utility (attractiveness) of von Winterfeldt Engineering: 394
828
utility theory each result from a collection of options. and Fischer [62] articles

Dominance- Greco, Matarazzo Computer Science:

based rough set Rough set theory expansion for MCDA. 430
and Słowiński [63] 332 articles
approach

Evidential A general method for dealing with problems that have both Dempster [64] Engineering: 240
reasoning qualitative and quantitative requirements under a variety of 422
Shafer [65] articles
approach uncertain conditions, such as ignorance and chance.

Evaluation
Based on The distances in the positive and negative directions are Keshavarz Computer Science:
Distance calculated separately from the average solution and by the 240
Ghorabaee [66] 111 articles
from Average selected criteria, whether they are beneficial or not.
Solution

Weighted sum Computer Science:

Assessing several options in light of various choice criteria. Fishburn [67] 237
model 102 articles

Stochastic Lahdelma,
Multicriteria An MCDM approach to situations involving missing or Computer Science: 88
Hokkanen and 223
Acceptability insufficient information articles
Salminen [68]
Analysis

Computer Science: 99
Decision Expert A qualitative version of the MCDA approach. Sol HG [69] 213 articles

Cloud Computing and Data Science 8 | Hamed Taherdoost, et al.

 Table 2. (cont.)

Number
Method Definition Developer of articles Main field included
(Scopus)

Fishburn [70] and

Multi-attribute To explain how a decision maker balances their values between Computer Science: 66
Keeney and Raiffa 172
value theory two or more goals and related criteria articles
[71]

Simple Multi- A procedure for carrying out MCDA where the evaluation and Engineering: 46
Attribute Rating selection of the most suitable project alternative, among several Edwards [72, 73] 140 articles
Technique alternatives, is based on a list of pertinent criteria.

Measuring
Attractiveness Business,
by a categorical An MCDM technique that compares choices against several Bana e Costa and Management and
108
Based criteria Vansnick [74] Accounting: 40
Evaluation articles
Technique

A technique for making decisions in groups that enables team

Choosing By Engineering: 78
members to decide in a way that maximizes value and produces Suhr [75] 85
Advantages articles
the greatest results for all parties involved

It is comparable to the model of weighted sums. The primary

Weighted Computer Science: 36
distinction is that multiplication is used as the primary Bridgman [76] 82
product model articles
mathematical operation rather than addition.

Characteristic Delivering consistent object evaluations that are not impacted Sałabun [77] 36 Computer Science: 31
objects method by the addition of new objects to the initial object collection. articles

Ordinal Priority An MCDA approach that supports resolving preference-based Computer Science: 14
Ataei [78] 30
Approach group decision-making issues. articles

Superiority A model for MCDM that can work with actual data and offers Computer Science: 12
and inferiority Xu [79] 22
the system user six different preference structures. articles
ranking method

Disaggregation- Decision Sciences: 13

Aggregation To exmaine the Decision Maker’s actions and cognitive style. Rogers [80] 19 articles
Approaches

Potentially
All Pairwise Hansen and
Rankings of A pairwise comparison-based MCDA method 19 Medicine: 6 articles
Ombler [81]
all possible
Alternatives

Brown-Gibson Brown and Gibson Computer Science: 6

Serving as a guide for choosing a leader 12
model [82] articles
Department
Constructed on the known cost-benefit analysis and
New Approach for Transport, Social Sciences: 6
environmental impact evaluation methodologies for evaluating 7
to Appraisal Environment and articles
transportation projects and proposals. the Regions [83]

Multi-Attribute According to the assignment of ratings using rank order Engineering: 4

Global Inference centroids and the hierarchical breakdown of comparative McCaffrey [84] 6 articles
of Quality attributes.

Stratified Multi
Criteria Decision An MCDM approach incorporates uncertainty into the decision- Computer Science: 3
Asadabadi [85] 6
making process. articles
Making

Nonstructural Business,
Fuzzy Decision Applied to make the MODM process easier. Tam et al. [86] 3 Management and
Support System Accounting: 2 articles

Aggregated A version of a well-known aggregated indices method aimed at Engineering&

Indices Aleksey Krylov
complicated objects exposed to multi-criteria evaluation under 2 Computer Science: 2
Randomization [87]
uncertainty. articles
Method

Business,
Conjoint Value The development of a performance appraisal system for external Management and
Kourie [88] 1
Hierarchy disclosure that can withstand scrutiny from outsiders Accounting & Social
Sciences: 1 article

Volume 5 Issue 1|2024| 9 Cloud Computing and Data Science

 Under an ambiguous research system model, inadequate data, and unclear operation state, grey relational analysis
(GRA) is utilized to apply relational relevant analysis, decision-making, prediction, and model establishment of a
system [49]. In this work, Ruan and Yan [50] looked at MADM issues to assess the firm financial management. The
enterprise’s financial management was assessed using an extension of the GRA paradigm. According to the classic
concepts of GRA, the relational degree of each alternative, the positive ideal solution, and the negative ideal solution is
used to identify the optimal alternative(s). Its foundation is the premise that the best option should be the most closely
related to the positive ideal solution and, conversely, the least related to the negative ideal solution.

5. Conclusion
This article provides a general description of decision-making with a managerial perspective to explain what it is,
what sorts of choices are formed, and how they are applied in various fields, covering computers, management, business,
psychology, etc. In this paper, the concept of decision-making and the importance of the decision-making process have
been clarified. Also, the decision-making process and factors that may be involved in the decision-making process are
recognized. Then, the most common decision-making model types are listed considering different aspects to categorize
them. The decision-making types can be divided into single-criterion and MCDM methods. On the other hand, the way
decisions are made in the process can be in an individual or a group decision-making method. The rationality degree of
the process also is an important factor when a decision-making problem is defined. Understanding the cognitive biases
that can influence decision-making is essential for enhancing the quality of decisions as a whole. By recognizing and
minimizing these biases, decision-makers can make more objective and rational decisions. Moreover, the integration
of advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning, can improve decision-making processes
by providing data-driven insights and predictive analytics, thereby enabling organizations to make more informed and
effective decisions. Future studies may focus on evaluating each of the MCDM approaches, tools, and updated versions,
as well as their benefits and drawbacks, and their applications.

Author contributions
Conceptualization, Hamed Taherdoost; methodology, Hamed Taherdoost, Mitra Madanchian; formal analysis,
Hamed Taherdoost; resources, Mitra Madanchian; writing-original draft preparation, Mitra Madanchian; writing-review
and editing, Hamed Taherdoost; visualization, Mitra Madanchian, Hamed Taherdoost; supervision, Hamed Taherdoost.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing financial interest.

References
[1] Ikram M, Sroufe R, Rehman E, Shah SZA, Mahmoudi A. Do quality, environmental, and social (QES) certifications
improve international trade? A comparative grey relation analysis of developing vs. developed countries. Physica A:
Statistical Mechanics and its Applications. 2020; 545: 123486.
[2] González-Mendoza JA, de Jesús Cañizares-Arévalo J, Cardenas-García M. Decision-making, rationality, and
human action. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing. 2022; 6(1): 3977-3991.
[3] Durán-Romero G, López AM, Beliaeva T, Ferasso M, Garonne C, Jones P. Bridging the gap between circular
economy and climate change mitigation policies through eco-innovations and Quintuple Helix Model.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2020; 160: 120246.
[4] Bartniczak B, Raszkowski A. Sustainable development in African countries: An indicator-based approach and

Cloud Computing and Data Science 10 | Hamed Taherdoost, et al.

 recommendations for the future. Sustainability. 2018; 11(1): 22.
[5] Nicolas R. Knowledge management impacts on decision making process. Journal of Knowledge Management.
2004; 8(1): 20-31.
[6] Shahnazari A, Rafiee M, Rohani A, Nagar BB, Ebrahiminik MA, Aghkhani MH. Identification of effective factors
to select energy recovery technologies from municipal solid waste using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM):
A review of thermochemical technologies. Sustainable Energy Technologies and Assessments. 2020; 40: 100737.
[7] Marston M, Mistree F, Woodruff G. A decision based foundation for systems design: A conceptual exposition.
CIRP 1997 International Design Seminar Proceedings on Multimedia Technologies for Collaborative Design and
Manufacturing. University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA; 1997. p.1-11.
[8] Lunenburg FC. The decision making process. National Forum of Educational Administration & Supervision
Journal. 2010; 27(4): 1-12.
[9] Elbanna S. Strategic decision-making: process perspectives. International Journal of Management Reviews. 2006;
8: 1-20.
[10] Zhang X, Xu L, Zhang H, Jiang Z, Cai W. Emergy based intelligent decision-making model for remanufacturing
process scheme integrating economic and environmental factors. Journal of Cleaner Production. 2021; 291:
125247.
[11] Vroom V. Leadership and the decision-making process. Organizational Dynamics. 2012; 28: 82-94.
[12] Vazouras K, Taylor T. Full-arch removable vs fixed implant restorations: A literature review of factors to consider
regarding treatment choice and decision-making in elderly patients. The International Journal of Prosthodontics.
2021; 34: s93-s101.
[13] Yates JF. Decision management: How to assure better decisions in your company. John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
[14] Jonassen DH. Designing for decision making. Educational Technology Research and Development. 2012; 60(2):
341-359.
[15] Wang Y, Ruhe G. The cognitive process of decision making. International Journal of Cognitive Informatics and
Natural Intelligence (IJCINI). 2007; 1(2): 73-85.
[16] Bateman IJ, Mace GM. The natural capital framework for sustainably efficient and equitable decision making.
Nature Sustainability. 2020; 3(10): 776-783.
[17] Child J. Organizational participation in post-covid society-its contributions and enabling conditions. International
Review of Applied Economics. 2021; 35(2): 117-146.
[18] Mitchell D. Making foreign policy: Presidential management of the decision-making process. Routledge; 2019.
[19] Fulop L, Linstead S, Clarke RJ. Decision making in organizations. Management. Palgrave, London; 1999. p.295-
334. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-15064-9_9.
[20] Li Y, Taeihagh A, de Jong M, Klinke A. Toward a commonly shared public policy perspective for analyzing risk
coping strategies. Risk Analysis. 2021; 41(3): 519-532.
[21] Wheelen TL, Hunger JD, Hoffman AN, Bamford CE. Strategic management and business policy. Pearson Boston;
2017.
[22] Sun C. Research on investment decision-making model from the perspective of “Internet of Things + Big data”.
Future Generation Computer Systems. 2020; 107: 286-292.
[23] Orasanu J, Calderwood R, Zsambok CE. Decision making in action: Models and methods. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing; 1993. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.3960080307.
[24] Kacelnik A. Normative and descriptive models of decision making: time discounting and risk sensitivity. Ciba
Foundation symposium. 1997; 208: 51-67.
[25] Currey J, Botti M. Naturalistic decision making: A model to overcome methodological challenges in the study of
critical care nurses’ decision making about patients’ hemodynamic status. American Journal of Critical Care. 2003;
12(3): 206-221.
[26] Uzonwanne F. Rational model of decision making. In: Farazmand A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public
Administration, Public Policy, and Governance. Springer, Cham; 2016. p.1-6. Available from: https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2474-1.
[27] Simon HA. Bounded rationality. In: Eatwell J, Milgate M, Newman P. (eds.) Utility and Probability. London:
Palgrave Macmillan UK; 1990. p.15-18.
[28] Shahsavarani AM, Azad Marz Abadi E. The bases, principles, and methods of decision-making: A review of
literature. International Journal of Medical Reviews. 2015; 2(1): 214-225.
[29] Nutt PC. Investigating the success of decision making processes. Journal of Management Studies. 2008; 45(2):
425-455.
[30] Kuksov D, Villas-Boas JM. When more alternatives lead to less choice. Marketing Science. 2010; 29(3): 507-524.

Volume 5 Issue 1|2024| 11 Cloud Computing and Data Science

[31] Taherdoost H. Decision making using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); A step by step approach.
International Journal of Economics and Management Systems. 2017; 2: 244-246. Available from: https://ssrn.com/
abstract=3224206.
[32] Baker D, Bridges D, Hunter R, Johnson G, Krupa J, Murphy J, et al. Guidebook to decision-making methods.
Westinghouse Savannah River Company Aiken, SC, USA; 2001.
[33] Fülöp J. Introduction to decision making methods. Laboratory of Operations Research and Decision Systems CaA,
1 IHAoS. BDEI-3 workshop, Washington; 2005. p.1-15.
[34] Zhang H, Dong Y, Chiclana F, Yu S. Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative
study and its optimal design. European Journal of Operational Research. 2019; 275(2): 580-598.
[35] Sabaei D, Erkoyuncu J, Roy R. A review of multi-criteria decision making methods for enhanced maintenance
delivery. Procedia CIRP. 2015; 37: 30-35.
[36] Triantaphyllou E. Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods: A Comparative Study. Springer New York, NY; 2000.
Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6.
[37] Nadaf D-Z. Decision Making in Action: Variations and Styles. Journal Excellence International Journal
of Psychological and Mental Health. 2015; 1(1): 1-6. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/318723750.
[38] Litvaj I, Ponisciakova O, Stancekova D, Svobodova J, Mrazik J. Decision-making procedures and their relation to
knowledge management and quality management. Sustainability. 2022; 14(1): 572.
[39] Saaty TL. What is the analytic hierarchy process? Springer; 1988.
[40] Darko A, Chan APC, Ameyaw EE, Owusu EK, Pärn E, Edwards DJ. Review of application of analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) in construction. International Journal of Construction Management. 2019; 19(5): 436-452.
[41] Stofkova J, Krejnus M, Stofkova KR, Malega P, Binasova V. Use of the analytic hierarchy process and selected
methods in the managerial decision-making process in the context of sustainable development. Sustainability.
2022; 14(18): 11546.
[42] Epstein MK, Henderson JC. Data envelopment analysis for managerial control and diagnosis. Decision Sciences.
1989; 20(1): 90-119.
[43] Nourani M, Kweh QL, Devadason ES, Chandran V. A decomposition analysis of managerial efficiency for the
insurance companies: A data envelopment analysis approach. Managerial and Decision Economics. 2020; 41(6):
885-901.
[44] Yao Y, Ślęzak D. An introduction to rough sets. In: Peters G, Lingras P, Ślęzak D, Yao Y. (eds.) Rough Sets:
Selected Methods and Applications in Management and Engineering. Advanced Information and Knowledge
Processing. Springer, London; 2012. p.3-20. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2760-4_1.
[45] Do Couto ABG, Gomes LFAM. Multicriteria evaluation of managerial competences: An application of the
dominance principle and the rough set theory. Foundations of Computing and Decision Sciences. 2014; 39(3): 157-
174.
[46] Hwang C-L, Yoon K, Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Methods for multiple attribute decision making. Multiple Attribute
Decision Making. Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, vol 186. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg;
1981. p.58-191. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3.
[47] Belenson SM, Kapur KC. An algorithm for solving multicriterion linear programming problems with examples.
Journal of the Operational Research Society. 1973; 24(1): 65-77.
[48] AlKassem A, AlKabi M. A TOPSIS model to support smart appliance decision energy management in smart grid.
2022 11th International Conference on Renewable Energy Research and Application (ICRERA). Istanbul, Turkey:
IEEE; 2022. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1109/ICRERA55966.2022.9922703.
[49] Chang C-S. Applying grey relational analysis in the evaluation of the balance of children with intellectual
disability. Axioms. 2021; 10(4): 341.
[50] Ruan H, Yan X. Grey relational analysis model for evaluating the enterprise’s financial management. IJACT:
International Journal of Advancements in Computing Technology. 2012; 4(2): 132-138.
[51] Charnes A, Cooper WW, Rhodes E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of
Operational Research. 1978; 2(6): 429-444.
[52] Pawlak Z. Rough sets: Theoretical aspects of reasoning about data. Springer Science & Business Media; 1991.
[53] Hwang C-L, Yoon K, Hwang C-L, Yoon K. Basic concepts and foundations. Multiple Attribute Decision Making:
Methods and Applications A State-of-the-Art Survey. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg; 1981. p.16-57. Available from:
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9.
[54] Ju-Long D. Control problems of grey systems. Systems & Control Letters. 1982; 1(5): 288-294.
[55] Charnes A, Cooper WW. Goal programming and multiple objective optimizations: Part 1. European Journal of

Cloud Computing and Data Science 12 | Hamed Taherdoost, et al.

 Operational Research. 1977; 1(1): 39-54.
[56] Saaty TL. Decision making with dependence and feedback: The analytic network process. RWS publications
Pittsburgh; 1996.
[57] Opricovic S. Multicriteria optimization of civil engineering systems. PhD Thesis. Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Belgrade; 1998. p.5-21.
[58] Brans J-P. L’ingénierie de la décision: l’élaboration d’instruments d’aide a la décision [Decision engineering: the
development of decision-making aids]. Laval University, Faculty of Administration Sciences; 1982.
[59] Roy B. Classement et choix en présence de points de vue multiples [Ranking and choice in the presence of multiple
points of view]. French Journal of Computer Science and Operations Research. 1968; 2(8): 57-75. Available from:
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1051/ro/196802V100571.
[60] Miles LD. Value Analysis, General Electric. Schenectady, New York; 1952. Available from: http://digital.library.
wisc.edu/1793/3352.
[61] Rezaei J. Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega. 2015; 53: 49-57.
[62] Von Winterfeldt D, Fischer GW. Multi-attribute utility theory: Models and assessment procedures. In: Wendt D,
Vlek C. (eds.) Utility, Probability, and Human Decision Making. Theory and Decision Library, vol 11. Springer,
Dordrecht; 1975. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1834-0_3.
[63] Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R. Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. European Journal of
Operational Research. 2001; 129(1): 1-47.
[64] Dempster AP. Upper and lower probabilities induced by a multivalued mapping. The Annals of Mathematical
Statistics. 1967; 38(2): 325-339. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177698950.
[65] Shafer G. A mathematical theory of evidence. Princeton university press; 1976.
[66] Keshavarz Ghorabaee M, Zavadskas EK, Olfat L, Turskis Z. Multi-criteria inventory classification using a new
method of evaluation based on distance from average solution (EDAS). Informatica. 2015; 26(3): 435-451.
[67] Fishburn PC. Additive utilities with incomplete product sets: Application to priorities and assignments. Operations
Research. 1967; 15(3): 537-542.
[68] Lahdelma R, Salminen P. SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making.
Operations Research. 2001; 49(3): 444-454.
[69] Sol H. An expert system for decision making. In: Sol HG. (ed.) Processes and tools for decision support. North-
Holland, Amsterdam; 1983. p.225-248.
[70] Fishburn PC. Methods of estimating additive utilities. Management Science. 1967; 13(7): 435-453.
[71] Keeney RL, Raiffa H. Decision analysis with multiple conflicting objectives. Wiley & Sons, New York; 1976.
[72] Edwards W. The engineering economic summer symposium series. Social Utilities. 1971; 6: 119-129.
[73] Edwards W. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decisionmaking. IEEE Transactions on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1977; 7(5): 326-340.
[74] Bana E Costa CA, Vansnick JC. The MACBETH approach: Basic ideas, software, and an application. In: Meskens
N, Roubens M. (eds.) Advances in Decision Analysis. Mathematical Modelling: Theory and Applications, vol 4.
Springer, Dordrecht; 1999. p.131-157. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-0647-6_9.
[75] Suhr J. The choosing by advantages decisionmaking system. Greenwood Publishing Group; 1999.
[76] Bridgman PW. Dimensional analysis: Yale university press; 1922.
[77] Sałabun W. The characteristic objects method: A new distance-based approach to multicriteria decision-making
problems. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 2015; 22(1-2): 37-50.
[78] Ataei Y, Mahmoudi A, Feylizadeh MR, Li D-F. Ordinal priority approach (OPA) in multiple attribute decision-
making. Applied Soft Computing. 2020; 86: 105893.
[79] Xu X. The SIR method: A superiority and inferiority ranking method for multiple criteria decision making.
European Journal of Operational Research. 2001; 131(3): 587-602.
[80] Rogers DF, Plante RD, Wong RT, Evans JR. Aggregation and disaggregation techniques and methodology in
optimization. Operations Research. 1991; 39(4): 553-582.
[81] Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring additive multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of
alternatives. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. 2008; 15(3-4): 87-107.
[82] Brown PA, Gibson DF. A quantified model for facility site selection-application to a multiplant location problem.
AIIE Transactions. 1972; 4(1): 1-10.
[83] DETR U. A new deal for transport: Better for everyone-White Paper. Department of the Environment, Transport
and the Regions, London; 1998.
[84] McCaffrey J. Multi-Attribute Global Inference of Quality (MAGIQ). Software Test and Performance Magazine.
2005; 2(7): 28-32.

Volume 5 Issue 1|2024| 13 Cloud Computing and Data Science

[85] Asadabadi MR. The stratified multi-criteria decision-making method. Knowledge-Based Systems. 2018; 162: 115-
123.
[86] Tam C, Tong TK, Leung AW, Chiu GW. Site layout planning using nonstructural fuzzy decision support system.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 2002; 128(3): 220-231.
[87] Hovanov NV. Stochastic field of experts’ ordinal estimates aggregation. Proceedings of the First Congress on
Statistic and Discrete Analysis of Non-numeric Information. Moscow (Russia): Moscow State University; 1981.
p.58-59.
[88] Kourie JI. Interaction of reactive oxygen species with ion transport mechanisms. American Journal of Physiology-
Cell Physiology. 1998; 275(1): C1-C24.

Cloud Computing and Data Science 14 | Hamed Taherdoost, et al.