An investigation on Wu-Leung multi-scale information systems and multi-expert group decision-making

2020 ◽  
pp. 114542
Author(s):  
Jianming Zhan ◽  
Kai Zhang ◽  
Wei-Zhi Wu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Systems ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Multi Scale

An Analysis of the Group Dynamics Surrounding Internal Control Assessment in Information Systems Audit and Assurance Domains

2000 ◽  
Vol 14 (s-1) ◽  
pp. 97-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed O'Donnell ◽  
Vicky Arnold ◽  
Steve G. Sutton
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Systems ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Internal Control ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Control Processes ◽  
Complex Information ◽  
Group Members

Both the evolution toward online continuous auditing and new assurance services for information systems reliability have helped fuel changes in the audit/attest process. These changes have already been of concern in dealing with large organizations using complex information systems to process their accounting and business information. As a result, these changes have necessitated a change in focus from traditional accounting control processes to increasingly complex information-systems-based control processes for advanced technology applications. With the resulting increased complexity in the internal control assessment process, the move toward group decision making in the major accountancy firms is expected to accelerate—particularly for the control-assessment process. The research documented in this paper focuses on the impact of group decision making on decision quality within the internal control-assessment process for information systems environments. The results indicate that improved decision quality does result from group decision making and that these improvements arise even if much of the initial assessment work is done individually by group members before the group convenes for face-to-face discussions. The use of preliminary individual assessments does, however, appear to result in a common information-sampling bias. This is the phenomenon whereby group decisions become focused on information known by most or all group members, and information known by only one group member has a higher probability of not being introduced and recognized by the group.

Information systems outsourcing decisions using a group decision-making approach

2009 ◽  
Vol 22 (6) ◽  
pp. 832-841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cengiz Kahraman ◽  
Orhan Engin ◽  
Özgür Kabak ◽  
İhsan Kaya
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Information Systems ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision

scholarly journals Integrating an Extended Outranking-TOPSIS Method with Probabilistic Linguistic Term Sets for Multiattribute Group Decision-Making

Complexity ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-19
Author(s):  
Feng Shen ◽  
Zhiyuan Yang ◽  
Dongliang Cai
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Feedback Mechanism ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
Group Consensus ◽  
Topsis Method ◽  
Linguistic Term ◽  
Probabilistic Linguistic Term Sets

Group decision-making is a common activity in organizational management and economic conditions. In practice, the opinions of experts may be fuzzy. This paper proposes integrating an extended outranking-TOPSIS method with probabilistic linguistic term sets for multiattribute group decision-making, which is used to solve the real-world public-private partnership (PPP) project selection problem. First, an extended outranking method based on probabilistic linguistic term sets is proposed, and each expert’s ranking of alternatives is obtained according to this method. After the individual ranking is completed, the large-scale expert group is clustered by the K-means clustering method, and then the improved consensus mechanism is used to study the degree of consensus of the expert group. If the consensus of the group is not up to the standard, then, for clusters with a lower degree of consensus with the group, the feedback mechanism is used to adjust the weight between different clusters so that the group consensus can be improved. After achieving the target group consensus, an improved technique for order preference by similarity to an ideal solution (TOPSIS) method is used to synthesize expert opinions, and the ranking results are obtained. Finally, there are cases used to demonstrate the feasibility and rationality of the method.

Using the Shapley Value to Determine the Expert’s Discourse Right in Group Decision-Making

2015 ◽  
Vol 713-715 ◽  
pp. 2029-2036
Author(s):  
Jin Tang ◽  
Chun Dong Guo ◽  
Yan Gao
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Shapley Value ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Knowledge Spillover ◽  
Expert Group ◽  
The Shapley Value ◽  
Decision Making Problem ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Index Weight

In terms of different decision-making problem and expert groups, experts’ discourse right is dynamic and relative. Therefore, scientific and rationality of experts empowerment are directly affect final evaluation results. For solving the problem of the objectivity of the evaluation index weight assignment, a method which based on the Shapley value to determine the expert’s weight has been proposed and illustrated in this paper. Firstly, on the basis of analyzing the characteristics of the expert group decision making process, the correlation of experts’ knowledge stock has been defined to represent knowledge spillover among the experts group. Secondly, based on the contribution degree of each expert’s knowledge spillover which has been discussed through correlation analysis, and weight has been allocated to experts. The results show that the method can not only avoid experts empowerment evenly phenomenon, and fully respect the differences of evaluation experts. Finally, the author suggests different types of expert group decisions should be invited to participate in decision-making which helps to give play to brainstorming effect, producing more knowledge spillover and promoting scientific and rationality of decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document