Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation 2/2020

08.02.2020

Analysis of the Final Ranking Decisions Made by Experts After a Consensus has Been Reached in Group Decision Making

verfasst von: Evangelos Triantaphyllou, Fujun Hou, Juri Yanase

Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Ausgabe 2/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Traditional approaches to group decision making (GDM) problems for ranking a finite set of alternatives terminate when the experts involved in the GDM process reach a consensus. This paper proposes ways for analyzing the final results after a consensus has been reached in GDM. Results derived from this last step can be used to further enhance the understanding of possible hidden dynamics of the problem under consideration. The proposed approach for post-consensus analysis is in part based on a novel idea, known as preference maps (PMs) introduced recently in the literature on how rankings should be described when ties in the rankings are allowed. An original contribution of this paper is how to define the difference between two PMs. This is achieved by using a metric known as the Marczewski–Steinhaus distance. Approaches for analyzing the final results of a GDM process after consensus has been reached may reveal hidden but crucial insights in the way the experts reached the consensus and also new insights related to the alternatives. These approaches rely on the concept of differences in the rankings, defined by traditional means or as the difference between two PMs as defined in this paper. This is the second group of original contributions made in this paper. The various issues are illustrated with numerical examples and an application inspired from a real-world problem described in the literature. The new contributions described in this study offer an exciting potential to enrich the group decision making process considerably.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Literatur
Zurück zum Zitat Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) Measuring consensus for collaborative decision-making: a GIS-based approach. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34(4):322–332CrossRef Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) Measuring consensus for collaborative decision-making: a GIS-based approach. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34(4):322–332CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Davis JH (2014) Group decision making and quantitative judgments: a consensus model (Chapter 3). In: Witte EH, Davis JH (eds) Understanding group behavior. Psychology Press, New York, pp 43–68 Davis JH (2014) Group decision making and quantitative judgments: a consensus model (Chapter 3). In: Witte EH, Davis JH (eds) Understanding group behavior. Psychology Press, New York, pp 43–68
Zurück zum Zitat Dong Y, Chen X, Herrera F (2015) Minimizing adjusted simple terms in the consensus reaching process with hesitant linguistic assessments in group decision making. Inf Sci 297:95–117CrossRef Dong Y, Chen X, Herrera F (2015) Minimizing adjusted simple terms in the consensus reaching process with hesitant linguistic assessments in group decision making. Inf Sci 297:95–117CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Dunn RR (2000) Isolated trees as foci of diversity in active and fallow fields. Biol Conserv 95(3):317–321CrossRef Dunn RR (2000) Isolated trees as foci of diversity in active and fallow fields. Biol Conserv 95(3):317–321CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Engel M, Behnke A, Bauerfeld S, Bauer C, Buschbaum C, Volkenborn N, Stoeck T (2012) Sample pooling obscures diversity patterns in intertidal ciliate community composition and structure. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 79(3):741–750CrossRef Engel M, Behnke A, Bauerfeld S, Bauer C, Buschbaum C, Volkenborn N, Stoeck T (2012) Sample pooling obscures diversity patterns in intertidal ciliate community composition and structure. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 79(3):741–750CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Gardner A, Kanno J, Duncan CA, Selmic R (2014) Measuring distance between unordered sets of different sizes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 137–143 Gardner A, Kanno J, Duncan CA, Selmic R (2014) Measuring distance between unordered sets of different sizes. In: Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pp 137–143
Zurück zum Zitat Gere A, Kovács S, Pásztor-Huszár K, Kókai Z, Sipos L (2014) Comparison of preference mapping methods: a case study on flavored kefirs. J Chemometr 28(4):293–300CrossRef Gere A, Kovács S, Pásztor-Huszár K, Kókai Z, Sipos L (2014) Comparison of preference mapping methods: a case study on flavored kefirs. J Chemometr 28(4):293–300CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Heine MH (1973) Distance between sets as an objective measure of retrieval effectiveness. Information Storage and Retrieval (Continued as Inform Process Manag) 9(3):181–198CrossRef Heine MH (1973) Distance between sets as an objective measure of retrieval effectiveness. Information Storage and Retrieval (Continued as Inform Process Manag) 9(3):181–198CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78(1):73–87CrossRef Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E, Verdegay JL (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets Syst 78(1):73–87CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F (2002) A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 32(3):394–402CrossRef Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F (2002) A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern A Syst Hum 32(3):394–402CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hou F (2015a) A consensus gap indicator and its application to group decision making. Group Decis Negot 24(3):415–428CrossRef Hou F (2015a) A consensus gap indicator and its application to group decision making. Group Decis Negot 24(3):415–428CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hou F (2015b) The parametric-based GDM selection procedure under linguistic assessments. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE). IEEE, pp 1–8 Hou F (2015b) The parametric-based GDM selection procedure under linguistic assessments. In: Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE). IEEE, pp 1–8
Zurück zum Zitat Hou F (2016) The prametric-based GDM procedure under fuzzy environment. Group Decis Negot 25(5):1071–1084CrossRef Hou F (2016) The prametric-based GDM procedure under fuzzy environment. Group Decis Negot 25(5):1071–1084CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Hou F, Triantaphyllou E (2019) An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts. Eur J Oper Res 275(2):570–579CrossRef Hou F, Triantaphyllou E (2019) An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts. Eur J Oper Res 275(2):570–579CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Karoński M, Palka Z (1977) On Marczewski–Steinhaus type distance between hypergraphs. Appl Math 1(16):47–57 Karoński M, Palka Z (1977) On Marczewski–Steinhaus type distance between hypergraphs. Appl Math 1(16):47–57
Zurück zum Zitat Kubiak M (2007) Distance measures and fitness-distance analysis for the capacitated vehicle routing problem. In: Doerner KF, Gendreau M, Greistorfer P, Gutjahr W, Hartl RF, Reimann M (eds) Metaheuristics. Operations research/computer science interfaces series, vol 39. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 345–364 Kubiak M (2007) Distance measures and fitness-distance analysis for the capacitated vehicle routing problem. In: Doerner KF, Gendreau M, Greistorfer P, Gutjahr W, Hartl RF, Reimann M (eds) Metaheuristics. Operations research/computer science interfaces series, vol 39. Springer, Boston, MA, pp 345–364
Zurück zum Zitat Larose DT, Larose CD (2014) Discovering knowledge in data: an introduction to data mining. Wiley, Hoboken Larose DT, Larose CD (2014) Discovering knowledge in data: an introduction to data mining. Wiley, Hoboken
Zurück zum Zitat Maassen H, Bezembinder T (2002) Generating random weak orders and the probability of a Condorcet winner. Soc Choice Welf 19(3):517–532CrossRef Maassen H, Bezembinder T (2002) Generating random weak orders and the probability of a Condorcet winner. Soc Choice Welf 19(3):517–532CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Marczewski E, Steinhaus H (1958) On a certain distance of sets and the corresponding distance of functions. Colloq Math 6(1):319–327CrossRef Marczewski E, Steinhaus H (1958) On a certain distance of sets and the corresponding distance of functions. Colloq Math 6(1):319–327CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) A new consensus model for group decision making problems with non-homogeneous experts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44(4):494–498CrossRef Pérez IJ, Cabrerizo FJ, Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E (2014) A new consensus model for group decision making problems with non-homogeneous experts. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Syst 44(4):494–498CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ray TG, Triantaphyllou E (1998) Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts. Eur J Oper Res 106(1):129–136CrossRef Ray TG, Triantaphyllou E (1998) Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts. Eur J Oper Res 106(1):129–136CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ray T, Triantaphyllou E (1999) Procedures for the evaluation of conflicts in rankings of alternatives. Comput Ind Eng 36(1):35–44CrossRef Ray T, Triantaphyllou E (1999) Procedures for the evaluation of conflicts in rankings of alternatives. Comput Ind Eng 36(1):35–44CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ricotta C, Podani J (2017) On some properties of the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity and their ecological meaning. Ecol Complex 31:201–205CrossRef Ricotta C, Podani J (2017) On some properties of the Bray-Curtis dissimilarity and their ecological meaning. Ecol Complex 31:201–205CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Saaty TL, Peniwati K (2008) Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh Saaty TL, Peniwati K (2008) Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
Zurück zum Zitat Safford HD, Harrison SP (2001) Grazing and substrate interact to affect native versus exotic diversity in roadside grasslands. Ecol Appl 11(4):1112–1122CrossRef Safford HD, Harrison SP (2001) Grazing and substrate interact to affect native versus exotic diversity in roadside grasslands. Ecol Appl 11(4):1112–1122CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Tan PN, Steinbach M, Kumar V (2013) Data mining cluster analysis: basic concepts and algorithms. In: Xiong H (ed) Introduction to data mining. Lecture notes for chapter 8. Rutgers University, New Jersey Tan PN, Steinbach M, Kumar V (2013) Data mining cluster analysis: basic concepts and algorithms. In: Xiong H (ed) Introduction to data mining. Lecture notes for chapter 8. Rutgers University, New Jersey
Zurück zum Zitat Tindale RS, Kameda T, Hinsz VB (2003) Group decision making. In: Hogg MA, Cooper J (eds) The Sage handbook of social psychology. Sage Publications, London, pp 381–403 Tindale RS, Kameda T, Hinsz VB (2003) Group decision making. In: Hogg MA, Cooper J (eds) The Sage handbook of social psychology. Sage Publications, London, pp 381–403
Zurück zum Zitat Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers (currently under Springer), BostonCrossRef Triantaphyllou E (2000) Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Kluwer Academic Publishers (currently under Springer), BostonCrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Ureña R, Kou G, Dong Y, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) A review on trust propagation and opinion dynamics in social networks and group decision making frameworks. Inf Sci 478:461–475CrossRef Ureña R, Kou G, Dong Y, Chiclana F, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) A review on trust propagation and opinion dynamics in social networks and group decision making frameworks. Inf Sci 478:461–475CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA, Pal CJ (2016) Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston Witten IH, Frank E, Hall MA, Pal CJ (2016) Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann, Boston
Zurück zum Zitat Yao Y, Deng X (2014) Quantitative rough sets based on subsethood measures. Inf Sci 267:306–322CrossRef Yao Y, Deng X (2014) Quantitative rough sets based on subsethood measures. Inf Sci 267:306–322CrossRef
Zurück zum Zitat Yenket R, Chambers ED IV, Adhikari K (2011) A comparison of seven preference mapping techniques using four software programs. J Sens Stud 26(2):135–150CrossRef Yenket R, Chambers ED IV, Adhikari K (2011) A comparison of seven preference mapping techniques using four software programs. J Sens Stud 26(2):135–150CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Analysis of the Final Ranking Decisions Made by Experts After a Consensus has Been Reached in Group Decision Making
verfasst von
Evangelos Triantaphyllou
Fujun Hou
Juri Yanase
Publikationsdatum
08.02.2020
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Group Decision and Negotiation / Ausgabe 2/2020
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09655-5

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2020

Group Decision and Negotiation 2/2020 Zur Ausgabe