Decision consolidation: criteria weight determination using multiple preference formats

In multiple criteria decision making (MCDM), decision makers (DMs) always give preferences information on alternatives, criteria or decision matrices. Since the DMs may have diverse cultural and educational background and value systems, their preference would be expressed in different ways. This is especially true in cyberspace. In this study, the DMs are asked to express their preferences on a variety of criteria using any one of the following preference formats: preference orderings, utility values, multiplicative preference relation, selected subset, fuzzy selected subset, normal preference relation, fuzzy preference relation, linguistic terms, and pairwise comparison. In addition, we propose a uniformity method and an aggregating method to provide both convenience and accuracy in generating the final outcome and higher DM satisfaction. Finally, the validity of using multiple preference formats in criteria weight determination is verified through an experiment.

[1]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations , 2001, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[2]  Francisco Herrera,et al.  Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations , 1998, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[3]  Donald R. Cooper,et al.  Business Research Methods , 1980 .

[4]  Lotfi A. Zadeh,et al.  The Concepts of a Linguistic Variable and its Application to Approximate Reasoning , 1975 .

[5]  J. Kacprzyk,et al.  Group decision making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority , 1992 .

[6]  W. Zikmund Business Research Methods , 1984 .

[7]  C. Hwang,et al.  Group Decision Making Under Multiple Criteria: Methods and Applications , 1986 .

[8]  Vernon T. Clover,et al.  Business research methods , 1974 .

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

[10]  Soung Hie Kim,et al.  Using analytic network process and goal programming for interdependent information system project selection , 2000, Comput. Oper. Res..

[11]  R. Yager Families of OWA operators , 1993 .

[12]  Shinhong Kim,et al.  An integrated approach for interdependent information system project selection , 2001 .

[13]  Jonathan Barzilai,et al.  POWER RELATIONS AND GROUP AGGREGATION IN THE MULTIPLICATIVE AHP AND SMART , 1997 .

[14]  R. Yager Quantifier guided aggregation using OWA operators , 1996, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[15]  L. Zadeh A COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH TO FUZZY QUANTIFIERS IN NATURAL LANGUAGES , 1983 .

[16]  Christer Carlsson,et al.  Fuzzy multiple criteria decision making: Recent developments , 1996, Fuzzy Sets Syst..

[17]  Ye-Sho Chen,et al.  Decision Criteria Consolidation: A Theoretical Foundation of Pareto Principle to Porter's Competitive Forces , 2001, J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer..

[18]  James F. Courtney,et al.  Decision making and knowledge management in inquiring organizations: toward a new decision-making paradigm for DSS , 2001, Decis. Support Syst..

[19]  Christer Carlsson,et al.  Decision Support in Virtual Organizations: The Case for Multi-Agent Support , 2002 .

[20]  Gin-Shuh Liang,et al.  Fuzzy MCDM based on ideal and anti-ideal concepts , 1999, Eur. J. Oper. Res..

[21]  Chen-Tung Chen,et al.  A fuzzy approach to select the location of the distribution center , 2001, Fuzzy Sets Syst..