scholarly journals PENENTUAN BOBOT KEPENTINGAN DECISION MAKER DALAM GROUP DECISION MAKING

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dian Eko Hari Purnomo Dan Nur Aini Masruroh
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Research Result ◽  
Regression Method ◽  
Determination Method ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Consensus Criterion ◽  
High Competence

Generally, there are two criteria which are widely used to determineDM’s weight of interest, i.e. competenceand consensus. Various studies related to determine DM’s weight of interest based on competence or consensusseparately have been conducted. Each criterion has its own advantages. The advantage of using competence as acriterion is DMs who have high competence based on their consistence on the decisions made will have high of interest weight. Meanwhile, consensus criterion emphasizes a DM/s contribution to a group without consideringthe DM’s ability or competence.Considering the advantages of both criteria, this study developed a model to determine DM’s weight of interestby considering the DM’ competence and consensus in a GDM. This study used2 group decision making cases totaling in 6 groups consisting of 5 people each. Collected data was then processedusing DM’s weight of interest determination method based on competence and consensus. A model was thendesigned using regression method and fuzzy method. Therefore, a model to determine DM’s weight of interest was obtained by considering competence and consensus. DM’s weight of interest from each method was then involvedin group decision making. The research result showed that group decisions made by involving DM’s weight of interest were better decisions. It implies competence and consensus are two criteria which can be used to determineDM’s weight of interest.

Three-way group decisions under hesitant fuzzy linguistic environment for green supplier selection

Kybernetes ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (12) ◽  
pp. 2919-2945 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weimin Ma ◽  
Wenjing Lei ◽  
Bingzhen Sun
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Supplier Selection ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Green Supplier Selection ◽  
Strategic Role ◽  
Fuzzy Linguistic ◽  
Selection Of

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to propose a three-way group decision-making approach to address the selection of green supplier, by extending decision-theoretic rough set (DTRS) into hesitant fuzzy linguistic (HFL) environment, considering the flexible evaluation expression format of HFL term set (HFLTS) and the idea of minimum expected risk in DTRS. Design/methodology/approach Specifically, the authors first present the calculation method of the conditional probability and discuss the loss functions of DTRS with HFL element (HFLE), along with some associated properties being investigated in detail. Further, three-way group decisions rules can be deduced, followed by the cost of every green supplier candidate. Thus, based on these discussions, a novel green supplier selection DTRS model that combines multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) and HFLTS is designed. Findings A numerical example of green supplier selection, the comparative analysis and associated discussions are conducted to illustrate the applicability and novelty of the presented model. Practical implications The selection of green supplier has played a critically strategic role in sustainable enterprise development due to continuous environmental concerns. This paper offers an insight for companies to select green supplier selection from the perspective of three-way group decisions. Originality/value This paper uses three-way decisions to address green supplier selection in the HFL context, which is considered as a MCGDM issue.

FAIR CONSISTENCY EVALUATION FOR RECIPROCAL RELATIONS AND IN GROUP DECISION MAKING

2009 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. 407-420 ◽  
Author(s):  
MICHELE FEDRIZZI ◽  
MATTEO BRUNELLI
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Pairwise Comparison ◽  
Pairwise Comparisons ◽  
Reciprocal Relations ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Consistency Evaluation

In decision-making processes, it often occurs that the decision maker is asked to pairwise compare alternatives. His/her judgements over a set of pairs of alternatives can be collected into a matrix and some relevant properties, for instance, consistency, can be estimated. Consistency is a desirable property which implies that all the pairwise comparisons respect a principle of transitivity. So far, many indices have been proposed to estimate consistency. Nevertheless, in this paper we argue that most of these indices do not fairly evaluate this property. Then, we introduce a new consistency evaluation method and we propose to use it in group decision making problems in order to fairly weigh the decision maker's preferences according to their consistency. In our analysis, we consider two families of pairwise comparison matrices: additively reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices and multiplicatively reciprocal pairwise comparison matrices.

A Method of Multi-Attribute Group Decision-Making Based on LWD and LOWA Operator

2011 ◽  
Vol 58-60 ◽  
pp. 1130-1135
Author(s):  
Shi Jun Zhang ◽  
Yuan Cai
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Natural Language ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
New Method ◽  
Group Assessment ◽  
Linguistic Assessment ◽  
Linguistic Assessment Information

A new method was proposed to solve multi-attribute group decision-making problems with natural language assessment information. In this method, firstly the linguistic assessment information given by each decision maker was aggregated by LWD and LOWA operators in order to obtain the group assessment information. Then, the preferred scheme is obtained from the result of aggregation. Finally, a simulation example was given to illustrate the validity of this approach.

Framing Effects in Group Investment Decision Making: Role of Group Polarization

2008 ◽  
Vol 102 (1) ◽  
pp. 283-292 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pi-Yueh Cheng ◽  
Wen-Bin Chiou
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Investment Decision ◽  
Framing Effects ◽  
Risk Averse ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Group Polarization ◽  
Relative Preference ◽  
Individual Decisions

Prospect theory proposes that framing effects result in a preference for risk-averse choices in gain situations and risk-seeking choices in loss situations. However, in group polarization situations, groups show a pronounced tendency to shift toward more extreme positions than those they initially held. Whether framing effects in group decision making are more prominent as a result of the group-polarization effect was examined. Purposive sampling of 120 college students (57 men, 63 women; M age = 20.1 yr., SD = 0.9) allowed assessment of relative preference between cautious and risky choices in individual and group decisions. Findings indicated that both group polarization and framing effects occur in investment decisions. More importantly, group decisions in a gain situation appear to be more cautious, i.e., risk averse, than individual decisions, whereas group decisions in the loss situation appear to be more risky than individual decisions. Thus, group decision making may expand framing effects when it comes to investment choices through group polarization.

scholarly journals An extension of the codas method based on Interval Rough Numbers for multi-criteria group decision making

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
pp. 23-43
Author(s):  
Mouna Regaieg Cherif ◽  
◽  
Hela Moalla Frikha ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Sensitivity Analysis ◽  
Decision Maker ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Real Life ◽  
Multiple Criteria ◽  
Linguistic Terms

This study aims to develop a new Interval Rough COmbinative Distance-based Assessment (IR CODAS) method for handling multiple criteria group decision making problems using linguistic terms. A single decision maker is unable to express his opinions or preferences on multiple criteria decisions, while a Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making MCGDM process ensures successful outcomes when handling greater imprecision and vagueness information. A real-life case study of risk assessment is investigated using our proposed IR-CODAS method to test and validate its application; a sensitivity analysis is also performed. Keywords: Interval Rough Numbers, group decision making, IR-CODAS method, risk assessment.

An Innovative Fuzzy-Neural Decision Analyzer for Qualitative Group Decision Making

2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (03) ◽  
pp. 659-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ki-Young Song ◽  
Gerald T. G. Seniuk ◽  
Janusz A. Kozinski ◽  
Wen-Jun Zhang ◽  
Madan M. Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Fuzzy Theory ◽  
Human Cognition ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Uncertain Environments ◽  
Fuzzy Neural ◽  
Professional Fields

Many qualitative group decisions in professional fields such as law, engineering, economics, psychology, and medicine that appear to be crisp and certain are in reality shrouded in fuzziness as a result of uncertain environments and the nature of human cognition within which the group decisions are made. In this paper, we introduce an innovative approach to group decision making in uncertain situations by using fuzzy theory and a mean-variance neural approach. The key idea of this proposed approach is to defuzzify the fuzziness of the evaluation values from a group, compute the excluded-mean of individual evaluations and weight it by applying a variance influence function (VIF); this process of weighting the excluded-mean by VIF provides an improved result in the group decision making. In this paper, a case study with the proposed fuzzy-neural approach is also presented. The results of this case study indicate that this proposed approach can improve the effectiveness of qualitative decision making by providing the decision maker with a new cognitive tool to assist in the reasoning process.

scholarly journals So how to make group decisions? Arrow's impossibility theorem 70 years after

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hung T. Nguyen ◽  
Olga Kosheleva ◽  
Vladik Kreinovich
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Decision Theory ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Impossibility Theorem ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Kenneth Arrow ◽  
Practical Recommendations

PurposeIn 1951, Kenneth Arrow proved that it is not possible to have a group decision-making procedure that satisfies reasonable requirements like fairness. From the theoretical viewpoint, this is a great result – well-deserving the Nobel Prize that was awarded to Professor Arrow. However, from the practical viewpoint, the question remains – so how should we make group decisions? A usual way to solve this problem is to provide some reasonable heuristic ideas, but the problem is that different seemingly reasonable idea often lead to different group decision – this is known, e.g. for different voting schemes.Design/methodology/approachIn this paper we analyze this problem from the viewpoint of decision theory, the basic theory underlying all our activities – including economic ones.FindingsWe show how from the first-principles decision theory, we can extract explicit recommendations for group decision making.Originality/valueMost of the resulting recommendations have been proposed earlier. The main novelty of this paper is that it provides a unified coherent narrative that leads from the fundamental first principles to practical recommendations.

scholarly journals Group Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Tindale ◽  
Jeremy R. Winget
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Group Decision Making ◽  
Information Exchange ◽  
Group Decision ◽  
Two Dimensions ◽  
Decision Task ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
Group Decisions ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
Group Members

Group decisions are ubiquitous in everyday life. Even when decisions are made individually, decision-makers often receive advice or suggestions from others. Thus, decisions are often social in nature and involve multiple group members. The literature on group decision-making is conceptualized as falling along two dimensions: how much interaction or information exchange is allowed among the group members, and how the final decision is made. On one end, group decisions can be made simply by aggregating member preferences or judgments without any interaction among members, with members having no control or say in the final judgment. One the other end, groups’ decisions can involve extensive member interaction and information exchanges, and the final decision is reached by group consensus. In between these two endpoints, various other strategies are also possible, including prediction markets, Delphi groups, and judge–advisor systems. Research has shown that each dimension has different implications for decision quality and process depending on the decision task and context. Research exploring these two dimension has also helped to illuminate those aspects of group decision-making that can lead to better-quality decisions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document