An analytic hierarchy process model of group consensus

Journal of Systems Science and Systems Engineering

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 2014, Pages 362-374

  Dong, Qingxing ^a   Saaty, Thomas L ^b  

^a CENTRAL CHINA NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP); consensus; Group decision making; judgment updating

Indexed keywords

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS; BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; MODERATORS;

ANALYTIC HIERARCHY; ANALYTIC HIERARCHY PROCESS (AHP); CONSENSUS; DECISION MAKERS; GROUP CONSENSUS; GROUP DECISION MAKING; IT SUPPORTS; JUDGMENT UPDATING;

DECISION MAKING;

EID: 85027934682     PISSN: 10043756     EISSN: 18619576     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11518-014-5247-8     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Aczél, J. & Alsina, C., (1987). Synthesizing judgements: a functional equations approach. Mathematical Modelling, 9(3–5): 311–320
2. Aczél, J. & Roberts, F. S., (1989). On the possible merging functions. Mathematical Social Sciences, 17(3): 205–243
3. Aczél, J. & Saaty, T. L., (1983). Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1): 93–102
4. Aguarón, J. & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. a., (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1): 137–145
5. Aull-Hyde, R., Erdogan, S. & Duke, J. M., (2006). An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 171(1): 290–295
6. Brock, H. W., (1980). The problem of “Utility Weights” in group preference aggregation. Operations Research, 28(1): 176–187
7. Bryson, N., (1996). Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process: exploring the consensus — relevant information content. Computers & Operations Research, 23(1): 27–35
8. Chen, P. S., Chu, P. & Lin, M., (2002). On Vargas’s proof of consistency test for 3x3 comparison matrices in AHP. Journal of the Operations Research Society of Japan, 45(3): 233–242
9. Chiclana, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. & Alonso, S., (2007). Some induced ordered weighted averaging operators and their use for solving group decision-making problems based on fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research, 182(1): 383–399
10. Chiclana, F., Mata, F., Martinez, L., Herrera-Viedma, E. & Alonso, S., (2008). Integration of a consistency control module within a consensus model. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 16(supp01): 35–53
11. Dong, Y., Xu, Y. & Yu, S., (2009). Computing the numerical scale of the linguistic term set for the 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 17(6): 1366–1378
12. Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W.-C. & Xu, Y., (2010). Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems, 49(3): 281–289
13. Forman, E. & Peniwati, K., (1998). Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 108(1): 165–169
14. Forman, E. H. & Gass, S. I., (2001). The Analytic Hierarchy Process — An Exposition. Operations Research, 49(4): 469–486
15. Fu, C. & Yang, S., (2011). An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context. European Journal of Operational Research, 212(1): 179–189
16. Grošelj, P. & Zadnik Stirn, L., (2012). Acceptable consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 223(2): 417–420
17. Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F. & Chiclana, F., (2002). A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, 32(3): 394–402
18. Herrera-Viedma, E., Martinez, L., Mata, F. & Chiclana, F., (2005). A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multigranular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 13(5): 644–658
19. Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E. & Verdegay, J. L., (1996). A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 78(1): 73–87
20. Herrera, F. & Martínez, L., (2000). A 2-tuple fuzzy linguistic representation model for computing with words. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 8(6): 746–752
21. Hsi-Mei, H. & Chen-Tung, C., (1996). Aggregation of fuzzy opinions under group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79(3): 279–285
22. Kacprzyk, J., Fedrizzi, M. & Nurmi, H., (1992). Group decision making and consensus under fuzzy preferences and fuzzy majority. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 49(1): 21–31
23. Keeney, R. L., (1976). A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Management Science, 23(2): 140–145
24. Keeney, R. L. & Kirkwood, C. W., (1975). Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Management Science, 22(4): 430–437
25. Lin, R., Lin, J. S. J., Chang, J., Tang, D., Chao, H. & Julian, P. C., (2008). Note on group consistency in analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 190(3): 672–678
26. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2): 249–265
27. Saaty, T. L., (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15(3): 234–281
28. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocaton. McGraw-Hill, NewYork
29. Saaty, T. L., (1990). How to make a decision: the analytic hierarchy process. European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1): 9–26
30. Saaty, T. L. (1994a). Fundamentals of decision making and priority theory with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
31. Saaty, T. L., (1994b). A ratio scale metric and the compatibility of ratio scales: the possibility of arrow’s impossibility theorem. Applied Mathematics Letters, 7(6): 45–49
32. Saaty, T. L. & Peniwati, K. (2012). Group decision making: drawing out and reconciling differences. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh
33. Subramanian, N. & Ramanathan, R., (2012). A review of applications of Analytic Hierarchy Process in operations management. International Journal of Production Economics, 138(2): 215–241
34. Tan, C., (2011). A multi-criteria interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making with Choquet integral-based TOPSIS. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(4): 3023–3033
35. Tanino, T., (1984). Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 12(2): 117–131
36. Vaidya, O. S. & Kumar, S., (2006). Analytic Hierarchy Process: an overview of applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 169(1): 1–29
37. Wang, R.-C. & Chuu, S.-J., (2004). Group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a manufacturing system. European Journal of Operational Research, 154(3): 563–572
38. Wu, Z. & Xu, J., (2012a). A concise consensus support model for group decision making with reciprocal preference relations based on deviation measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 206(0): 58–73
39. Wu, Z. & Xu, J., (2012b). A consistency and consensus based decision support model for group decision making with multiplicative preference relations. Decision Support Systems, 52(3): 757–767
40. Xu, Y., Li, K. W. & Wang, H., (2013). Distance-based consensus models for fuzzy and multiplicative preference relations. Information Sciences, 253(0): 56–73
41. Xu, Z., (2000). On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgment matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3): 683–687
42. Xu, Z., (2009). An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute group decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56(4): 1369–1374
43. Yu, P. L., (1973). A class of solutions for group decision problems. Management Science, 19(8): 936–946