Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 21–42 | Cite as

The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making

  • Malcolm J. BeynonEmail author
Article

Abstract

DS/AHP is a nascent method of multi-criteria decision-making, based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and indirectly the Analytic Hierarchy Process. It is concerned with the identification of the levels of preference that decision makers have towards certain decision alternatives (DAs), through preference judgements made over a number of different criteria. The working result from a DS/AHP analysis is the body of evidence (BOE), which includes a series of mass values that represent the exact beliefs in the best DA(s) existing within certain subsets of DAs. This paper considers the role of DS/AHP as an aid to group decision-making, through the utilisation of a distance measure (between BOEs). Here, the distance measure enables the identification of the members of the decision-making group who are in most agreement, with respect to the judgements they have individually made. The utilisation of a single linkage dendrite approach to clustering elucidates an appropriate order to the aggregation of the judgements of the group members. This develops the DS/AHP method as a tool to identify inter-group alliances, as well as introduce a ‘majority rule’ approach to decision-making through consensus building.

Keyword

consensus building Dempster-Shafer theory group decision-making ignorance majority rule 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ali, I., W. D. Cook, and M. Kress. (1986). “Ordinal Ranking and Intensity or Preference: A Linear Programming Approach,” Management Science 32, 1642–1647.Google Scholar
  2. Armacost, R. L., J. C. Hosseini, and J. Pet-Edwards. (1999). “Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups,” Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 535–555.Google Scholar
  3. Arrow, K. J. (1950). “Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare,” Journal of Political Economy 58, 328–346.Google Scholar
  4. Arrow, K. J. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed., Yale University press, New Haven – London.Google Scholar
  5. Bana, E., C. A. Costa, T. J. Stewart, and J.-C. Vansnick. (1997). “Multicriteria Decision Analysis: Some Thoughts Based on the Tutorial and Discussion Sessions of the ESIGMA Meetings,” European Journal of Operational Research 99, 28–37.Google Scholar
  6. Bard, J. F. (1992). “A Comparison of the Analytic Hierarchy Process with Multiattribute Utility Theory: A Case Study,” IIE Transactions 24, 111–121.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer, M. (1997). “Approximation Algorithms and Decision Making in the Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence – an Empirical Study,” International Journal of Approximate Reasoning 17(2-3), 217–237.Google Scholar
  8. Bell, D. E., H. Raiffa, and A. Tversky. (1988). Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative and Prescriptive Interactions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Belton, V. and J. Pictet. (1997). “A Framework for Group Decision Using a MCDA Model: Sharing, Aggregating or Comparing Individual Information?,” Journal of Decision Systems 6(3), 283–303.Google Scholar
  10. Ben Khélifa, S. and J.-M. Martel. (2001). “A Distance-Based Collective Weak Ordering,” Group Decision and Negotiation 10, 317–329.Google Scholar
  11. Beynon, M. J., B. Curry, and P. H. Morgan. (2000). “The Dempster-Shafer Theory of Evidence: An Alternative Approach to Multicriteria Decision Modelling,” OMEGA 28(1), 37–50.Google Scholar
  12. Beynon, M. (2002). “DS/AHP method: A Mathematical Analysis, Including an Understanding of Uncertainty,” European Journal of Operational Research 140(1), 149–165.Google Scholar
  13. Beynon, M. J. (2005a). “Understanding Local Ignorance and Non-Specificity in the DS/AHP Method of Multi-Criteria Decision Making,” European Journal of Operational Research 163, 403–417.Google Scholar
  14. Beynon, M. J. (2005b). “A Method of Aggregation in DS/AHP for Group Decision-Making with the Non-Equivalent Importance of Individuals in the Group,” Computes & Operations Research 32, 1881–1896.Google Scholar
  15. Bonissone, P. P. and R. M. Tong. (1985). “Editorial: Reasoning with Uncertainty in Expert Systems,” International Journal of Man Machine Studies 22, 241–250.Google Scholar
  16. Bryson, N. (1996). “Group Decision-Making and the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Exploring the Consensus-Relevant Information Content,” Computers & Operations Research 23(1), 27–35.Google Scholar
  17. Bryson, N. and A. Joseph. (1999). “Generating Consensus Priority Point Vectors: A Logarithmic Goal Programming Approach,” Computers & Operations Research 26, 637–643.Google Scholar
  18. Carlsson, C., D. Ehrenberg, P. Eklund, M. Fedrizzi, P. Gustafsson, P. Lindholm, G. Merkuryeva, T. Riisanen, and A. G. S. Ventre. (1992). “Consensus in Distributed Soft Environments,” European Journal of Operational Research 12, 391–404.Google Scholar
  19. Cartwright, D. and A. Zander. (eds) (1968). Group Dynamics (3rd Ed.) Row, Peterson, Evanston, IL.Google Scholar
  20. Cook, W. D. and M. Kress. (1985). “Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference,” Management Science 31, 26–32.Google Scholar
  21. Crott, H. W. and J. A. Zuber. (1983). “Biases in Group Decision Making, Decision Making Under Uncertainty,” in R. W. Scholz ed., Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 229–252.Google Scholar
  22. Davis, J. H., W. T. Au, L. Hulbert, X. P. Chen, C. Parks, and P. Zarnoth. (1997) “Effects of Group Size and Procedural Influence on Consensual Judgements of Quantity: The example of Damage Awards and Mock Civil Juries,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73, 703–718.Google Scholar
  23. Dempster, A. P. (1968). “A Generalization of Bayesian Inference (with Discussion),” J Roy Stat Soc Series B 30(2), 205–247.Google Scholar
  24. DeSanctis, G. and R. B. Gallupe. (1987). “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems,” Management Science 33(5), 589–609.Google Scholar
  25. Fixsen, D. and R. P. S. Mahler. (1997). “The Modified Dempster-Shafer Approach to Classification,” IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – part A 27(1), 96–104.Google Scholar
  26. Forman E. and K. Peniwati. (1998). “Aggregating Individual Judgements and Priorities with the AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research 108, 165–169.Google Scholar
  27. Fox, C. R. and A. Tversky. (1998). “A Belief-Based Account of Decision Under Uncertainty,” Management Science 44(7), 879–895.Google Scholar
  28. George, T. and N. R. Pal. (1996). “Quantification of Conflict in Dempster-Shafer Framework: A New Approach,” International Journal of General Systems 24(4), 407–423.Google Scholar
  29. Gowda, K. C. and G. Krishna. (1978). “Dissaggregative Clustering Using the Concept of Mutual Nearest Neighbourhood,” IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics 8, 883–895.Google Scholar
  30. Hegarat-Mascle, S., I. Bloch and D. Vidal-Madjar. (1997). “Application of Dempster-Shafer Evidence Theory to Unsupervised Classification in Multisource Remote Sensing,” IEEE Transaction on Systems, Man and Cybernetics - Part A: Systems and Humans 35(4), 1018–1031.Google Scholar
  31. Hinsz, V. B. (1999). “Group Decision Making with Responses of a Quantitative Nature: The Theory of Social Decision Schemes for Quantities,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 80(1), 28–49.Google Scholar
  32. Hollingshead, A. B. (1996). “The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 68(30), 181–193.Google Scholar
  33. Jousselme, A-L., D. Grenier and É. Bossé. (2001). “A New Distance Between two Bodies of Evidence,” Information Fusion 2, 91–101.Google Scholar
  34. Kemeny, J. G. and L. J. Snell. (1962). “Preference Ranking: An Axiomatic Approach,” in Mathematical Models in Social Sciences, Ginn, New York, pp. 9–23.Google Scholar
  35. Lai, V. S., B. K. Wong and W. Cheung. (2002). “Group Decision Making in a Multiple Criteria Environment: A Case Using the AHP in Software Selection,” European Journal of Operational Research 137(1), 134–144.Google Scholar
  36. Lei, Y. and X. Youmin. (1996). “A View of Group Decision Making Process and Bivoting Approach,” Computer Industrial Engineering 31(3/4), 945–948.Google Scholar
  37. Lipshitz, R. and O. Strauss. (1997). “Coping with Uncertainty: a Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis,” Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes 69(2), 149–163.Google Scholar
  38. Matsatsinis, N. F. and A. P. Samaras. (2001). “MCDA and Preference Disaggregation in Group Decision Support Systems,” European Journal of Operational Research 130, 414–429.Google Scholar
  39. Mehrez, A. (1997). “The Interface Between OR/MS and Decision Theory,” European Journal of Operational Research 99, 38–47.Google Scholar
  40. Murnighan, J. K. (1978). “Models of Coalition Behaviour: Game Theoretic, Social Psychological, and Political Perspectives,” Psychological Bulletin 84, 1130–1153.Google Scholar
  41. Murphy, C. K. (2000). “Combining Belief Functions when Evidence Conflicts,” Decision Support Systems 29, 1–9.Google Scholar
  42. Noori, H. (1995). “The Design of An Integrated Group Decision Support System for Technology Assessment,” R&D Management 25(3), 309–322.Google Scholar
  43. Ozdemir, M. S. and T. L. Saaty. (2005). “The Unknown in Decision Making What to do About it,” European Journal of Operational Research, in press.Google Scholar
  44. Ramanathan, R. and L. S. Ganesh. (1994). “Group Preference Aggregation Methods Employed in AHP: An Evaluation and an Intrinsic Process of Deriving Member' Weightages,” European Journal of Operational Research 79, 249–265.Google Scholar
  45. Ray, T. G. and E. Triantaphyllou. (1998). “Evaluation of Rankings with Regard to the Possible Number of Agreements and Conflicts,” European Journal of Operational Research 106, 129–136.Google Scholar
  46. Roy, B. (1989). “Main Sources of Inaccurate Determination, Uncertainty and Imprecision in Decision Models,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling 12, 1245–1254.Google Scholar
  47. Roy, B. and R. Slowinski. (1993). “Criterion of Distance Between Technical Programming and Socio-Economic Priority,” RA-IRO Recherche Opéationneller 27, 45–60.Google Scholar
  48. Saaty, T. L. (1977). “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical Structures,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15, 59–62.Google Scholar
  49. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York, McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  50. Shafer, G. (1976). A Mathematical theory of Evidence. Princeton, Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Smets, P. (1991). “Varieties of Ignorance and the Need for Well-Founded Theories,” Information Sciences 57–58, 135–144.Google Scholar
  52. Van Den Honert, R. C. and F. A. Lootsma. (1996). “Group Preference Aggregation in the Multiplicative AHP: The Model of the Group Decision Process and Pareto Optimality,” European Journal of Operational Research 96, 363–370.Google Scholar
  53. Von Winterfeldt, D. and W. Edwards. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.Google Scholar
  54. Xu, X., J.-M. Martel and B. F. Lamond. (2001). “A Multiple Criteria Ranking Procedure Based on Distance Between Partial Preorders,” European Journal of Operational Research 133, 69–80.Google Scholar
  55. Wasil, E. and B. Golden. (2003). “Editorial: Celebrating 25 years of AHP-based Decision Making,” Computers & Operations Research 30, 1419–1420.Google Scholar
  56. Zouhal, L. M. and T. Denoeux. (1998). “An Evidence-Theoretic k-NN Rule with Parameter Optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics – Part C 28(2), 263–271.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cardiff Business SchoolCardiff UniversityCardiffU.K.

Personalised recommendations