Group decision making procedure considering preference strength under incomplete information

This article deals with the multiple criteria decision making problem with incomplete information when multiple decision makers (Multiple Criteria Group Decision Making: MCGDM) are involved. Usually decision makers (DMs) are willing or able to provide only incomplete information, because of time pressure, lack of knowledge or data, and their limited expertise related to the problem domain. There have only been a few studies considering incomplete information in group settings. We also consider the case where importance weights are given incompletely. This article suggests the possibility that individually optimized results can be used to build group consensus. Individual optimization results by pairwise dominance, contain useful information in forming consensus, such as, ordinal rankings or preference intensity of an alternative over the others. Rather than using ordinal rankings for aggregation which do not consider preference strength, we suggest a procedure that takes account of individual DMs' preference strength.

[1]  T. Saaty,et al.  Procedures for Synthesizing Ratio Judgements , 1983 .

[2]  Rakesh K. Sarin,et al.  Ranking with Partial Information: A Method and an Application , 1985, Oper. Res..

[3]  Kyung S. Park,et al.  Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with incompletely identified information , 1997 .

[4]  Ahti Salo,et al.  Interactive decision aiding for group decision support , 1995 .

[5]  G. Anandalingam,et al.  A multiagent multiattribute approach for conflict resolution in acid rain impact mitigation , 1989, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[6]  Alan Pearman,et al.  Decision theory and strict ranking of probabilities , 1982 .

[7]  S. Zionts,et al.  An Interactive Programming Method for Solving the Multiple Criteria Problem , 1976 .

[8]  F. A. Lootsma,et al.  Numerical scaling of human judgement in pairwise-comparison methods for fuzzy multi-criteria decision analysis , 1988 .

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

[10]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[11]  Martin Weber.  Decision Making with Incomplete Information , 1987 .

[12]  Gautam Mitra,et al.  Mathematical Models for Decision Support , 1987, NATO ASI Series.

[13]  Thomas L. Saaty,et al.  Group Decision Making and the AHP , 1989 .

[14]  Jean Pierre Brans,et al.  HOW TO SELECT AND HOW TO RANK PROJECTS: THE PROMETHEE METHOD , 1986 .

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

[16]  Stanley Zionts,et al.  A multiple criteria method for choosing among discrete alternatives , 1981 .

[17]  T. Saaty,et al.  The Analytic Hierarchy Process , 1985 .

[18]  John G. Kemeny,et al.  Mathematical models in the social sciences , 1964 .

[19]  Simon French,et al.  Multi-Objective Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Applications , 1983 .

[20]  Jyrki Wallenius,et al.  An interactive approach to multiple criteria optimization with multiple decision‐makers , 1986 .

[21]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions , 1975 .

[22]  A. Tversky,et al.  Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases , 1974, Science.

[23]  Gordon B. Hazen,et al.  Partial Information, Dominance, and Potential Optimality in Multiattribute Utility Theory , 1986, Oper. Res..

[24]  L. Seiford,et al.  Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation , 1978 .