For many decisions validation of their outcomes is invariably problematic to objectively assess. Therefore to aid analysis and validation of decision outcomes, approaches which provide improved traceability and more semantically meaningful measurements of the decision process are required. Hence, this research investigates traceability, transparency, interactivity and auditability to improve the decision making process. Approaches and evaluation measures are proposed to facilitate a richer decision making experience.Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) seeks to determine the suitability of alternatives of a goal with respect to multiple criteria. A key component of prominent MCDA methods is the concept of pairwise comparison. For a set of elements, pairwise comparison enables an accurate and transparent extraction and codification of a decision maker's preferences, though facilitating a separation of concerns. From a set of pairwise comparisons, a ranking of the elements under consideration can be calculated.There are scenarios when a set of pairwise comparisons undergo alteration, both for individual and multiple decision makers. A set of measures of compromise are proposed to quantify the alteration that a set of pairwise comparisons undergo in such scenarios. The measures seek to provide a decision maker with meaningful knowledge regarding how their views have altered. A set of pairwise comparisons may be inconsistent. When inconsistency is present it adversely affects a ranking of the elements derived from the comparisons. Moreover inconsistency within pairwise comparisons used for consideration of more than a handful of elements is almost inevitable. Existing approaches that seek to alter a set of comparisons to reduce inconsistency lack traceability, flexibility, and specific consideration of alteration to the judgments in a way that is meaningful to a decision maker. An approach to inconsistency reduction is proposed that seeks to address these issues.For many decisions the opinions of multiple decision makers are utilized, either to avail of their combined expertise or to incorporate conflicting views. Aggregation of multiple decision makers' pairwise companions seek to combine the views of the group into a single representation of views. An approach to group aggregation of pairwise comparisons is proposed that models compromise between the decision makers, facilitates decision maker constraints, considers inconsistency reduction during aggregation and dynamically incorporates decision maker weights of importance. With internet access becoming widespread being able to garner the views of a large group of decision makers' views has become feasible. An approach to the aggregation of a large group of decision makers' preferences is proposed. The approach facilitates understanding regarding both the agreement and conflict within the group during calculation of an overall group consensus.A Multi-Objective Optimisation Decision Software (MOODS) prototype tool has been developed that implements both the new measures of compromise and the proposed approaches to inconsistency reduction and group aggregation.