scholarly journals N-SITE: A DISTRIBUTED CONSENSUS BUILDING AND NEGOTIATION SUPPORT SYSTEM

2006 ◽  
Vol 05 (01) ◽  
pp. 123-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
MADJID TAVANA ◽  
DENNIS T. KENNEDY
Keyword(s):  
Support System ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Consensus Building ◽  
Group Decision Support System ◽  
Negotiation Support ◽  
Distributed Consensus ◽  
Global Business ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Strategic Assessment

This paper presents N-Site, a distributed consensus building and negotiation support system, which is used to provide geographically dispersed teams with agile access to a Web-based group decision support system. Four teams located in France, Mexico, the Ukraine, and the United States participated in the N-Site project. Each team was required to research the problem using the World Wide Web (WWW). With this background, each team identified opportunities, threats and alternatives as a basis for developing a response to the Cuban Missile Crisis that confronted President Kennedy in October 1962. The strategic assessment model (SAM) (M. Tavana, J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal.11 (2002) 75–96; M. Tavana and S. Banerjee, Decision Sci.26 (1995) 119–143.) was used by each team to choose a strategy that best fit the team's perspective. SAM and WWW enabled the teams to evaluate strategic alternatives and build consensus based on a series of intuitive and analytical methods including environmental scanning, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and subjective probabilities. The WWW was used to achieve interaction among the international teams as they attempted to negotiate a decision framework and select a diplomatic response. The project was assessed with a Web-distributed survey instrument. This use of the WWW has implications for international diplomacy as well as global business.

scholarly journals An Assessment Model for Rating High-Threat Crop Pathogens

2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (6) ◽  
pp. 616-621 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. W. Schaad ◽  
J. Abrams ◽  
L. V. Madden ◽  
R. D. Frederick ◽  
D. G. Luster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Control Strategies ◽  
Threat Assessment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Detection Methods ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Rating Model ◽  
And Control ◽  
High Threat

Natural, accidental, and deliberate introductions of nonindigenous crop pathogens have become increasingly recognized as threats to the U.S. economy. Given the large number of pathogens that could be introduced, development of rapid detection methods and control strategies for every potential agent would be extremely difficult and costly. Thus, to ensure the most effective direction of resources a list of high-threat pathogens is needed. We address development of a pathogen threat assessment model based on the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) that can be applied world-wide, using the United States as an illustrative example. Previously, the AHP has been shown to work well for strategic planning and risk assessment. Using the collective knowledge of subject matter expert panels incorporated into commercial decision-making software, 17 biological and economic criteria were determined and given weights for assessing the threat of accidental or deliberately introduced pathogens. The rating model can be applied by experts on particular crops to develop threat lists, especially those of high priority, based on the current knowledge of individual diseases.

scholarly journals Utility Revision Mechanism Based on User’s Subjective Decision Hierarchy for Multiagent-Based Group Decision Support

1999 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 207-210
Author(s):  
Takayuki Ito ◽  
◽  
Toramatsu Shintani
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Support System ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Group Decision Support ◽  
Group Decision Support System ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Design Support System ◽  
Negotiation Agents ◽  
Multiagent Negotiation ◽  
Hierarchy Process

We propose a utility revision mechanism for persuasion among agents in the Group Choice Design Support System (GCDSS). GCDSS is a group decision support system based on multiagent negotiation. In GCDSS, each user manages a system for an Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and an agent. Each user subjectively constructs a decision hierarchy and determines weights of alternatives using AHP Based on the hierarchy and weights, agents negotiate with each other on behalf of users. In negotiation, agents attempt to persuade each other. If an agent is persuaded, the agent attempts to revise its utility for a state of its decision hierarchy by adjusting pairwise comparisons in AHP We propose a utility revision mechanism for persuasion among agents using the user’s subjective decision hierarchy of AHP to make persuasion more flexible. Agents try to make their decision hierarchy reliable to revise its utility.

Towards a Group Decision Support System

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Souad Madouri ◽  
Djamila Hamdadou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support System ◽  
Support System ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Group Decision Support ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Shopping Mall ◽  
Group Decision Support System ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Hierarchy Process

This research focuses on the design and development of an interactive multi-criteria group decision support system (GDSS). This system comprises a set of agents communicating through messages. They aim to find an adequate area that can best address certain criteria among a set of variants (e.g. localization of new infrastructure, shopping mall, hospital, etc.). A GDSS is designed and relies mainly on the presentation of the territory through the functionalities of geographic information system (GIS), and the representation of the multiplicity and diversity of decision makers through the functionalities of a multi-agents system (MAS). Moreover, an argumentation-based negotiation protocol MAS module is provided. This approach is justified by the argumentative nature of the process by which participants justify their choices in order to reach a collective decision. This is achieved by exploiting the multi-criteria methods with an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Electre III.

scholarly journals Vulnerability Analysis of Soft Caving Tunnel Support System and Surrounding Rock Optimal Control Technology Research

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Ming Ji ◽  
Hongjun Guo ◽  
Yidong Zhang ◽  
Liang Cheng ◽  
Yinlin Ji
Keyword(s):  
Support System ◽  
Vulnerability Assessment ◽  
Support Systems ◽  
Assessment Model ◽  
Vulnerability Factors ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Tunnel Support ◽  
Human Attributes ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Hierarchy Process

The vulnerability assessment model, composed by 11 vulnerability factors, is established with the introduction of the concept of “vulnerability” into the assessment of tunnel support system. Analytic hierarchy process is utilized to divide these 11 factors into human attributes and natural attributes, and define the weight of these factors for the model. The “vulnerability” applied io the assessment of the tunnel support system model is reached. The vulnerability assessment model was used for evaluating and modifying the haulage tunnel #3207 of Bo-fang mine panel #2. The results decreased the vulnerability of the tunnel support system and demonstrated acceptable effects. Furthermore, the results show that the impact of human attributes on tunnel support systems is dramatic under the condition that natural attributes are permanent, and the “vulnerability” is exactly a notable factor to manifest the transformation during this process. The results also indicate that optimizing human attributes can attenuate vulnerability in tunnel support systems. As a result, enhancement of stability of tunnel support systems can be achieved.

Towards a Group Decision Support System

2021 ◽  
pp. 134-160
Author(s):  
Souad Madouri ◽  
Djamila Hamdadou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support System ◽  
Support System ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Group Decision Support ◽  
Shopping Mall ◽  
Group Decision Support System ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Negotiation Protocol ◽  
Hierarchy Process

This research focuses on the design and development of an interactive multi-criteria group decision support system (GDSS). This system comprises a set of agents communicating through messages. They aim to find an adequate area that can best address certain criteria among a set of variants (e.g. localization of new infrastructure, shopping mall, hospital, etc.). A GDSS is designed and relies mainly on the presentation of the territory through the functionalities of geographic information system (GIS), and the representation of the multiplicity and diversity of decision makers through the functionalities of a multi-agents system (MAS). Moreover, an argumentation-based negotiation protocol MAS module is provided. This approach is justified by the argumentative nature of the process by which participants justify their choices in order to reach a collective decision. This is achieved by exploiting the multi-criteria methods with an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) and Electre III.

SELEKSI ASISTEN PELATIH BELA DIRI DENGAN PERBANDINGAN METODE AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) DAN METODE SAW (Simple Additive Weighting)

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 088
Author(s):  
Wahyu Joni Kurniawan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Decision Support System ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy Process ◽  
Support System ◽  
Analytic Hierarchy ◽  
Assistant Coach ◽  
Simple Additive Weighting ◽  
Hierarchy Process ◽  
Selection Of ◽  
Discipline Knowledge

This study was conducted to assist in the selection of martial assistant coach, to determine who is right. Its results will didadaptkan by comparing the two methods in the decision support system, by using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Simple Additive Weight (SAW) in limiting the problems in producing the desired solution, using multiple criteria (multi-criteria). AHP and SAW has a different way of doing the calculation. This is done to determine which method is looking for help in making decisions. And in this study are the criteria Discipline, Knowledge, Leadership, Attitude, and Level. And there are sub criteria on Level, which Black (AND I) and Red Black II.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document