The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making

DS/AHP is a nascent method of multi-criteria decision-making, based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and indirectly the Analytic Hierarchy Process. It is concerned with the identification of the levels of preference that decision makers have towards certain decision alternatives (DAs), through preference judgements made over a number of different criteria. The working result from a DS/AHP analysis is the body of evidence (BOE), which includes a series of mass values that represent the exact beliefs in the best DA(s) existing within certain subsets of DAs. This paper considers the role of DS/AHP as an aid to group decision-making, through the utilisation of a distance measure (between BOEs). Here, the distance measure enables the identification of the members of the decision-making group who are in most agreement, with respect to the judgements they have individually made. The utilisation of a single linkage dendrite approach to clustering elucidates an appropriate order to the aggregation of the judgements of the group members. This develops the DS/AHP method as a tool to identify inter-group alliances, as well as introduce a ‘majority rule’ approach to decision-making through consensus building.

[1]  A. Hollingshead.  The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making , 1996 .

[2]  R. Słowiński,et al.  Criterion of distance between technical programming and socio-economic priority , 1993 .

[3]  Isabelle Bloch,et al.  Application of Dempster-Shafer evidence theory to unsupervised classification in multisource remote sensing , 1997, IEEE Trans. Geosci. Remote. Sens..

[4]  Jamshid C. Hosseini,et al.  Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups , 1999 .

[5]  Bernard F. Lamond,et al.  A multiple criteria ranking procedure based on distance between partial preorders , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[6]  Hinsz.  Group Decision Making with Responses of a Quantitative Nature: The Theory of Social Decision Schemes for Quantities. , 1999, Organizational behavior and human decision processes.

[7]  Dorwin Cartwright,et al.  Group dynamics, 3rd ed. , 1968 .

[8]  Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson,et al.  Generating consensus priority point vectors: a logarithmic goal programming approach , 1999, Comput. Oper. Res..

[9]  Piero P. Bonissone,et al.  Editorial: Reasoning with Uncertainty in Expert Systems , 1985, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[10]  F. A. Lootsma,et al.  Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP The model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality , 1997 .

[11]  Valerie Belton,et al.  A Framework for Group Decision Using a MCDA Model: Sharing, Aggregating or Comparing Individual Information? , 1997 .

[12]  Christer Carlsson,et al.  Consensus in distributed soft environments , 1992 .

[13]  Gordon Miller,et al.  Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions , 1990 .

[14]  Bruce L. Golden,et al.  Celebrating 25 years of AHP-based decision making , 2003, Comput. Oper. Res..

[15]  Xi Youmin,et al.  A view of group decision making process and bivoting approach , 1996 .

[16]  Jonathan F. Bard,et al.  A COMPARISON OF THE ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS WITH MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY THEORY: A CASE STUDY , 1992 .

[17]  Mathias Bauer,et al.  Approximation algorithms and decision making in the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence - An empirical study , 1997, Int. J. Approx. Reason..

[18]  Catherine K. Murphy.  Combining belief functions when evidence conflicts , 2000, Decis. Support Syst..

[19]  Nikolaos F. Matsatsinis,et al.  MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[20]  Bo K. Wong,et al.  Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  Glenn Shafer,et al.  A Mathematical Theory of Evidence , 2020, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence.

[22]  E. Forman,et al.  Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process , 1998, European Journal of Operational Research.

[23]  Bernard Roy,et al.  Main sources of inaccurate determination, uncertainty and imprecision in decision models , 1989 .

[24]  A. Tversky,et al.  A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty , 1998 .

[25]  Hamid Noori,et al.  The design of an integrated group decision support system for technology assessment , 1995 .

[26]  Ronald P. S. Mahler,et al.  The modified Dempster-Shafer approach to classification , 1997, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part A.

[27]  R. Lipshitz,et al.  Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis , 1997 .

[28]  T. L. Saaty.  A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures , 1977 .

[29]  Moshe Kress,et al.  Note-Ordinal Ranking and Intensity of Preference: A Linear Programming Approach , 1986 .

[30]  Éloi Bossé,et al.  A new distance between two bodies of evidence , 2001, Inf. Fusion.

[31]  Malcolm J. Beynon,et al.  Understanding local ignorance and non-specificity within the DS/AHP method of multi-criteria decision making , 2005, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[32]  Jean-Marc Martel,et al.  A Distance-Based Collective Weak Ordering , 2001 .

[33]  Thierry Denoeux,et al.  An evidence-theoretic k-NN rule with parameter optimization , 1998, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C.

[34]  L. A. Goodman,et al.  Social Choice and Individual Values , 1951 .

[35]  M. Beynon,et al.  The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling , 2000 .

[36]  Kweku-Muata Osei-Bryson,et al.  Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: Exploring the consensus-relevant information content , 1996, Comput. Oper. Res..

[37]  Malcolm J. Beynon,et al.  A method of aggregation in DS/AHP for group decision-making with the non-equivalent importance of individuals in the group , 2005, Comput. Oper. Res..

[38]  Abraham Mehrez,et al.  The interface between OR/MS and decision theory , 1997 .

[39]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  The unknown in decision making: What to do about it , 2006, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[40]  Theodor J. Stewart,et al.  Multicriteria decision analysis: Some thoughts based on the tutorial and discussion sessions of the ESIGMA meetings , 1997 .

[41]  Philippe Smets,et al.  Varieties of ignorance and the need for well-founded theories , 1991, Inf. Sci..

[42]  Wing Tung Au,et al.  Effects of group size and procedural influence on consensual judgments of quantity: The example of damage awards and mock civil juries , 1997 .

[43]  K. Arrow.  A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare , 1950, Journal of Political Economy.

[44]  Gerardine DeSanctis,et al.  A foundation for the study of group decision support systems , 1987 .

[45]  N. Pal,et al.  QUANTIFICATION OF CONFLICT IN DEMPSTER-SHAFER FRAMEWORK: A NEW APPROACH , 1996 .

[46]  M. Bohanec,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2004 .

[47]  J. Keith Murnighan,et al.  Models of coalition behavior: Game theoretic, social psychological, and political perspectives. , 1978 .

[48]  Malcolm J. Beynon,et al.  DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty , 2002, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[49]  J. Gillon,et al.  Group dynamics , 1996 .

[50]  R. Ramanathan,et al.  Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages , 1994 .

[51]  W. Cook,et al.  Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference , 1985 .

[52]  Evangelos Triantaphyllou,et al.  Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..