Group Decision Making in Collaborative Modeling: Aggregating Individual Preferences with AHP

The need for negotiation and decision making among collaborative modelers stems from their desire to reconcile their different positions, priorities and preferences. This requires them to engage in an argumentative negotiation process so as to achieve consensus. A number of methods can be used to aggregate their judgements and priorities thus helping them to reach consensus. In this paper we show how the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) can be used to help modelers reach consensus about the quality of the different modeling aspects in a collaborative modeling process. Insights derived from this approach could be used to aid modelers reach consensus about the quality of the different aspects in a collaborative modeling session through a decision making negotiation process.

[1]  Krassimira Genova,et al.  Multicriteria Decision Support System MultiChoice , 2007 .

[2]  M. T. Escobar,et al.  Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making , 2007 .

[3]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Analyzing a Collaborative Modeling Game , 2009, CAiSE Forum.

[4]  Z. Xu,et al.  On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP , 2000, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[5]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  A Fundamental View on the Act of Modeling , 2006 .

[6]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Formal Modelling as a Grounded Conversation , 2005 .

[7]  James S. Dyer,et al.  Maut — Multiattribute Utility Theory , 2005 .

[8]  Freerk A. Lootsma,et al.  The multiplicative AHP, SMART and ELECTRE in a common context , 1997 .

[9]  B. Roy.  THE OUTRANKING APPROACH AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF ELECTRE METHODS , 1991 .

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

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

[12]  Jac A. M. Vennix,et al.  Group model building effectiveness: a review of assessment studies † , 2002 .

[13]  Johan Springael,et al.  PROMETHEE and AHP: The design of operational synergies in multicriteria analysis.: Strengthening PROMETHEE with ideas of AHP , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[14]  José María Moreno-Jiménez,et al.  A note on AHP group consistency for the row geometric mean priorization procedure , 2004, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[15]  Adel Guitouni,et al.  Tentative guidelines to help choosing an appropriate MCDA method , 1998, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[16]  T. Stewart.  A CRITICAL SURVEY ON THE STATUS OF MULTIPLE CRITERIA DECISION MAKING THEORY AND PRACTICE , 1992 .

[17]  Matthias Ehrgott,et al.  Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys , 2005 .

[18]  Stijn Hoppenbrouwers,et al.  Evaluating Modeling Sessions Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process , 2009, PoEM.

[19]  Peter Rittgen,et al.  Negotiating Models , 2007, CAiSE.

[20]  Reza Baradaran Kazemzadeh,et al.  PROMETHEE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications , 2010, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  José María,et al.  A Spreadsheet Module for Consistent Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making , 2005 .

[22]  José María Moreno-Jiménez,et al.  The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds , 2003, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[23]  Sierhuis Selvin,et al.  Towards a Framework for Collaborative Modeling and Simulation , 1999 .