arbiter
JournalsAccount

Affordances of Decision-Support Software in Group Decision-Making

Isabella Maria Lami & Elena Todella

Group Decision and Negotiation2026https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-026-09974-zarticle
AJG 2ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

Decision-making in complex, contested settings increasingly relies on decision-support software that shapes how groups compare trade-offs and stabilise collective judgements. This study examines a specific software, Multi-Values Appraisal Methodology, integrating the Strategic Choice Approach and the Analytic Hierarchy Process, through eight workshops in four European countries on urban transformation cases. Inductive analysis of participants’ reports and surveys distinguishes software affordances from outcomes. Findings show that shared visualisation, traceability and staged transitions support consensus building and dissent management, contributing to a “Plural Subject”, while the workflow alternates collective modelling with individual scoring to enable iterative and more transparent decisions. The paper clarifies how socio-technical affordances are perceived and actualised in workshop practice.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-026-09974-z

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{isabella2026,
  title        = {{Affordances of Decision-Support Software in Group Decision-Making}},
  author       = {Isabella Maria Lami & Elena Todella},
  journal      = {Group Decision and Negotiation},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-026-09974-z},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Affordances of Decision-Support Software in Group Decision-Making

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.