Towards a web-based collaborative weighting method in project

Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics

Volumn 4, Issue , 2002, Pages 488-493

  Yannou, Bernard ^a  

^a ECOLE CENTRALE PARIS   (France)

Author keywords

Collaborative decision making; Group decision support; Pairwise comparison; Vote protocols

Indexed keywords

NETWORK PROTOCOLS; PROBLEM SOLVING; PRODUCT DESIGN; PROJECT MANAGEMENT; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; WORLD WIDE WEB;

VOTE PROTOCOLS;

COMPUTER SUPPORTED COOPERATIVE WORK;

EID: 0036970126     PISSN: 08843627     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (19)

1. Arrow K.J., (1951), Social Choice and Individual Values, New-York, John Wiley.
2. Boender C.G.E., de Graan J.G., Lootsma F.A., (1989), Multi-criteria decision analysis with fuzzy pairwise comparisons. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 29: p. 133-143.
3. Buckley J.J., (1985), Fuzzy hierarchical analysis. Fuzzy sets and systems, vol. 17: p. 233-247.
4. De Graan J.G., (1980), Extensions to the multiple criteria analysis of T.L. Saaty, Report National Institute of Water Supply,
5. Dong W.M., Wong F.S., (1987), Fuzzy weighted averages and implementation of the extension principle. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol.: p. 183-199.
6. Finan J.S., Hurley W.J., (1997), The analytical hierarchy process: does adjusting a pairwise comparison matrix to improve the consistency ratio help? Computers Operations Research, vol. 24(8): p. 749-755.
7. Hazelrigg G.A., (1996), The Implications of Arrow's Impossibility Theorem Approaches to Optimal Engineering Design. Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 118: p. 161-164.
8. Hazelrigg G.A., (1997), On Irrationality in Engineering Design. Journal of Mechanical Design, vol. 119.
9. Herman M.W., Koczkodaj W.W., (1996), A Monte Carlo study of pairwise comparison. Information Processing Letters, vol. 57: p. 25-29.
10. Levary R.R., Wan K., (1998), A simulation approach for handling uncertainty in the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 106: p. 116-122.
11. Limayem F., (2001), Modèles de pondération par les méthodes de tri croisé pour l'Aide à la décision collaborative en projet. Thèse de doctorat soutenue le 23 novembre 2001, Ecole Centrale Paris.
12. Limayem F., Yannou B., (2000), A Monte Carlo Approach to Handle Imprecision in Pairwise comparison, in IDMME2000: Third International Conference on Integrated Design and Manufacturing in Mechanical Engineering, Montreal.
13. Limayem F., Yannou B., (2002), Le Tri Croisé de Monté Carlo: une boite à outils pour l'Aide à la décision coopérative, à paraître prochainement dans la Revue de CFAO et Informatique Graphique, vol.
14. Lootsma F.A., (1982), Performance evaluation of nonlinear optimization methods via multi-criteria decision analysis and via linear model analysis. M.J.D. Powell ed. Nonlinear Optimization 1981, ed. Press A. Vol. 1, London. 419-453.
15. Lootsma F.A., (2001), A revision of basic concepts in multi-criteria decision analysis.
16. Saaty T.L., (1977), A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, vol. 15(3): p. 234-281.
17. Saaty T.L., (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, New-York, McGraw-Hill.
18. Thurstone L.L., (1927), A law of comparative judgments. Psychological Reviews, vol. 34: p. 273-286.
19. Van Laarhoven P.J.M., Pedrycz W., (1983), A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory. Fuzzy sets and systems, vol. 11: p. 229-241.