nach oben

Group Decision and Negotiation

Erschienen in:

27.10.2022

Multi-criteria Large-Scale Group Decision-Making in Linguistic Contexts: A Perspective of Conflict Analysis and Resolution

verfasst von: Junliang Du, Sifeng Liu, Yong Liu, Liangyan Tao

Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation | Ausgabe 1/2023

Einloggen

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

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

As a universal phenomenon, conflicts exist widely in various fields such as politics, economic life, military, and culture. Group decision-making techniques that effectively identify and resolve conflict during the decision-making process will result in stronger group consensus, while existing studies rarely discuss the multi-criteria large-scale group decision-making (LSGDM) from the perspective of conflict analysis and resolution. This paper systematically studies conflict analysis and resolution approach to obtain consensus decision results. Conflicts among decision makers (DMs) in LSGDM are divided into two kinds: goal conflicts and cognitive conflicts. Based on Pawlak conflict analysis, we introduce three relations among DMs, i.e., conflict, neutrality, alliance into multi-criteria LSGDM in linguistic contexts. Based on linguistic assessment, an improved Pawlak conflict analysis is used to analyze goal conflicts, and the alliance of DMs and the weight of criteria are obtained. According to three cognitive conflict relations, a conflict coordination and feedback mechanism is designed to resolve cognitive conflicts between alliance pairs. Finally, an illustrative example is used to verify the effectiveness and applicability of the proposed model.

Vorheriger Artikel Applying the AHP to Conflict Resolution: A Russia—NATO Case Study

Nächster Artikel Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Ali A, Ali MI, Rehman N (2019) Soft dominance based rough sets with applications in information systems. Int J Approx Reason 113:171–195. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijar.2019.06.009CrossRef

Ben-Arieh D, Chen Z (2006) Linguistic-labels aggregation and consensus measure for autocratic decision making using group recommendations. IEEE T Syst Man Cybern A 36(3):558–568. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2005.853488CrossRef

Bordogna G, Fedrizzi M, Pasi G (1997) A linguistic modeling of consensus in group decision making based on OWA operators. IEEE T Syst Man Cybern A 27(1):126–133. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.553232CrossRef

Cai Cg XX, Wang P et al (2017) A multi-stage conflict style large group emergency decision-making method. Soft Comput 21(19):5765–5778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-016-2155-5CrossRef

Chao X, Kou G, Peng Y et al (2021) Large-scale group decision-making with non-cooperative behaviors and heterogeneous preferences: an application in financial inclusion. Eur J Oper Res 288(1):271–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2020.05.047CrossRef

Chen ZS, Liu XL, Chin KS et al (2021) Online-review analysis based large-scale group decision-making for determining passenger demands and evaluating passenger satisfaction: Case study of high-speed rail system in china. Inform Fusion 69:22–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.11.010CrossRef

Chen ZS, Yang LL, Chin KS et al (2021) Sustainable building material selection: An integrated multi-criteria large group decision making framework. Appl Soft Comput 113(107):903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107903CrossRef

Chen ZS, Yang LL, Rodríguez RM et al (2021) Power-average-operator-based hybrid multiattribute online product recommendation model for consumer decision-making. Int J Intell Syst 36(6):2572–2617. https://doi.org/10.1002/int.22394CrossRef

Cosier RA, Rose GL (1977) Cognitive conflict and goal conflict effects on task performance. Organ Behav Hum Perform 19(2):378–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90071-XCrossRef

Ding RX, Wang X, Shang K et al (2019) Social network analysis-based conflict relationship investigation and conflict degree-based consensus reaching process for large scale decision making using sparse representation. Inform Fusion 50:251–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2019.02.004CrossRef

Ding RX, Palomares I, Wang X et al (2020) Large-scale decision-making: characterization, taxonomy, challenges and future directions from an artificial intelligence and applications perspective. Inform Fusion 59:84–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.inffus.2020.01.006CrossRef

Dong Y, Zhao S, Zhang H et al (2018) A self-management mechanism for noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group consensus reaching processes. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 26(6):3276–3288. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2818078CrossRef

Du J, Liu S, Liu Y (2022) A limited cost consensus approach with fairness concern and its application. Eur J Oper Res 298(1):261–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2021.06.039CrossRef

Du J, Liu S, Liu Y et al (2022) A novel approach to three-way conflict analysis and resolution with Pythagorean fuzzy information. Inform Sci 584:65–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.10.051CrossRef

García-Zamora D, Labella Á, Ding W et al (2022) Large-scale group decision making: a systematic review and a critical analysis. IEEE-CAA J Autom 9(6):949–966. https://doi.org/10.1109/JAS.2022.105617CrossRef

Herrera F, Martínez L (2000) A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 8(6):746–752. https://doi.org/10.1109/91.890332CrossRef

Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E et al (1996) A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Set Syst 78(1):73–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/0165-0114(95)00107-7CrossRef

Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F (2002) A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE T Syst Man Cybern A 32(3):394–402. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSMCA.2002.802821CrossRef

Jansson E (2005) The stakeholder model: the influence of the ownership and governance structures. J Bus Ethics 56(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-004-2168-3CrossRef

Kacprzyk J, Fedrizzi M (1988) A soft measure of consensus in the setting of partial (fuzzy) preferences. Eur J Oper Res 34(3):316–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(88)90152-XCrossRef

Kamble SS, Belhadi A, Gunasekaran A et al (2021) A large multi-group decision-making technique for prioritizing the big data-driven circular economy practices in the automobile component manufacturing industry. Technol Forecast Soc 165(120):567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120567CrossRef

Labella Á, Liu Y, Rodríguez R et al (2018) Analyzing the performance of classical consensus models in large scale group decision making: a comparative study. Appl Soft Comput 67:677–690. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2017.05.045CrossRef

Lang G, Miao D, Cai M (2017) Three-way decision approaches to conflict analysis using decision-theoretic rough set theory. Inform Sci 406:185–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2017.04.030CrossRef

Li CC, Dong Y, Herrera F (2018) A consensus model for large-scale linguistic group decision making with a feedback recommendation based on clustered personalized individual semantics and opposing consensus groups. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 27(2):221–233. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2857720CrossRef

Liao H, Kuang L, Liu Y et al (2021) Non-cooperative behavior management in group decision making by a conflict resolution process and its implementation for pharmaceutical supplier selection. Inform Sci 567:131–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2021.03.010CrossRef

Liu B, Shen Y, Zhang W et al (2015) An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy principal component analysis model-based method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making. Eur J Oper Res 245(1):209–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.02.025CrossRef

Liu B, Zhou Q, Ding RX et al (2019) Large-scale group decision making model based on social network analysis: Trust relationship-based conflict detection and elimination. Eur J Oper Res 275(2):737–754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.075CrossRef

Liu P, Li Y (2021) An improved failure mode and effect analysis method for multi-criteria group decision-making in green logistics risk assessment. Reliab Eng Syst Safe 215(107):826. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107826CrossRef

Mata F, Martínez L, Herrera-Viedma E (2009) An adaptive consensus support model for group decision-making problems in a multigranular fuzzy linguistic context. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 17(2):279–290. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2009.2013457CrossRef

Palomares I, Martinez L, Herrera F (2013) A consensus model to detect and manage noncooperative behaviors in large-scale group decision making. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 22(3):516–530. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2013.2262769CrossRef

Pawlak Z (1984) On conflicts. Int J Hum-Comput Stud 21(2):127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(84)80062-0CrossRef

Pawlak Z (1998) An inquiry into anatomy of conflicts. Inform Sci 109(1–4):65–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(97)10072-XCrossRef

Pawlak Z (2005) Some remarks on conflict analysis. Eur J Oper Res 166(3):649–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2003.09.038CrossRef

Piaget J (1977) The development of thought: equilibration of cognitive structures. Viking

Priem RL, Harrison DA, Muir NK (1995) Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in group decision making. J Manag 21(4):691–710. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100406CrossRef

Przybyła-Kasperek M (2020) Coalitions’ weights in a dispersed system with Pawlak conflict model. Group Decis Negot 29(3):549–591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09667-1CrossRef

Quesada FJ, Palomares I, Martinez L (2015) Managing experts behavior in large-scale consensus reaching processes with uninorm aggregation operators. Appl Soft Comput 35:873–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2015.02.040CrossRef

Rabiee M, Aslani B, Rezaei J (2021) A decision support system for detecting and handling biased decision-makers in multi criteria group decision-making problems. Expert Syst Appl 171(114):597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2021.114597CrossRef

Rodríguez RM, Labella Á, De Tré G et al (2018) A large scale consensus reaching process managing group hesitation. Knowl-Based Syst 159:86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.06.009CrossRef

Rodríguez RM, Labella Á, Sesma-Sara M et al (2021) A cohesion-driven consensus reaching process for large scale group decision making under a hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets environment. Comput Ind Eng 155(107):158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2021.107158CrossRef

Rowley TI, Moldoveanu M (2003) When will stakeholder groups act? An interest-and identity-based model of stakeholder group mobilization. Acad Manag Rev 28(2):204–219. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2003.9416080CrossRef

Tam CM, Tong TK (2011) Conflict analysis study for public engagement programme in infrastructure planning. Built Environ Proj A. https://doi.org/10.1108/20441241111143777CrossRef

Tang M, Liao H, Herrera-Viedma E et al (2020) A dynamic adaptive subgroup-to-subgroup compatibility-based conflict detection and resolution model for multicriteria large-scale group decision making. IEEE T Cybern 51(10):4784–4795. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCYB.2020.2974924CrossRef

Wan Q, Xu X, Chen X et al (2020) A two-stage optimization model for large-scale group decision-making in disaster management: minimizing group conflict and maximizing individual satisfaction. Group Decis Negot 29(5):901–921. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-020-09684-0CrossRef

Wang P, Xu X, Huang S et al (2018) A linguistic large group decision making method based on the cloud model. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 26(6):3314–3326. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2018.2822242CrossRef

Xiao L, Chen ZS, Zhang X et al (2020) Bid evaluation for major construction projects under large-scale group decision-making environment and characterized expertise levels. Int J Comput Int Sys 13(1):1227–1242. https://doi.org/10.2991/ijcis.d.200801.002CrossRef

Xiong SH, Chen ZS, Chang JP et al (2019) On extended power average operators for decision-making: A case study in emergency response plan selection of civil aviation. Comput Ind Eng 130:258–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.02.027CrossRef

Xu XH, Du ZJ, Chen XH (2015) Consensus model for multi-criteria large-group emergency decision making considering non-cooperative behaviors and minority opinions. Decis Support Syst 79:150–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2015.08.009CrossRef

Yager RR (2001) The power average operator. IEEE T Syst Man Cybern A 31(6):724–731. https://doi.org/10.1109/3468.983429CrossRef

Yao Y (2010) Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inform Sci 180(3):341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.09.021CrossRef

Yu W, Zhang Z, Zhong Q (2021) Consensus reaching for MAGDM with multi-granular hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets: a minimum adjustment-based approach. Ann Oper Res 300(2):443–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-019-03432-7CrossRef

Zhang H, Dong Y, Herrera-Viedma E (2017) Consensus building for the heterogeneous large-scale GDM with the individual concerns and satisfactions. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 26(2):884–898. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2017.2697403CrossRef

Zhang Z, Yu W, Martínez L et al (2019) Managing multigranular unbalanced hesitant fuzzy linguistic information in multiattribute large-scale group decision making: A linguistic distribution-based approach. IEEE T Fuzzy Syst 28(11):2875–2889. https://doi.org/10.1109/TFUZZ.2019.2949758CrossRef

Titel: Multi-criteria Large-Scale Group Decision-Making in Linguistic Contexts: A Perspective of Conflict Analysis and Resolution
verfasst von: Junliang Du
Sifeng Liu
Yong Liu
Liangyan Tao
Publikationsdatum: 27.10.2022
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Group Decision and Negotiation / Ausgabe 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0926-2644
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9907
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-022-09804-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

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

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2023

Individual Versus Group Negotiation in Multiparty Systems: The Effect of Power and Goal Difficulty on Negotiation Outcomes in a Potential Gain Task

Applying the AHP to Conflict Resolution: A Russia—NATO Case Study

Aggregation of Correlated Judgments on Multiple Interconnected Issues

Ranking Objects from Individual Linguistic Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Information in View of Optimal Model-Based Consistency and Consensus Iteration Algorithm

Towards Artificial Intelligence Augmenting Facilitation: AI Affordances in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing

Editorial

Premium Partner