Using Social Choice Rule Sets in Multiple Attribute Decision Making for Information System Selection

The evaluation of investments in information systems (IS) is usually based on conflicting criteria applied to the available alternatives, and the results are aggregated into a single ranking. Th aggregation process is regularly complicated and biased through the usage of criteria weights. This article simply suggests avoiding the weighting process, and alternatively relies on a set of multiple social choice methods. This work investigates various methods of social choice voting rules for aggregation and the properties of the results they deliver in typical IS decisions. Results are compared with the outcome of traditional multiple attribute decision making, taking into account case study and simulation data. The results support our notion that weighting criteria in the context of complex IS investment appraisals does not provide a different or more comprehensive outcome than the less demanding social choice rule set applied.