Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 287–301 | Cite as

Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making

  • María Teresa Escobar
  • José María Moreno-jiménez


This paper presents a new procedure, to which we have given the name Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures (AIPS), whose objective is to deal with multiactor decision making when using Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) as the methodological support. This procedure incorporates ideas similar to Borda count methods and transfers to the case of preference structures the principle of aggregation employed in the two approaches traditionally followed in AHP-group decision making (aggregation of individual judgments and aggregation of individual priorities). The new aggregation method allows us to capture: (i) the richness of uncertainty inherent to human beings; (ii) the vision of each decision maker within the context of the problem; (iii) the interdependencies between the alternatives being compared and (iv) the intensities of the preferences that each decision maker gives to these interdependencies. From the preference structure distribution associated to each decision maker, this new approach (AIPS) provides the holistic importance of each alternative and ranking, as well as the most representative preference structure distribution for the group. The knowledge derived from these could be employed as an initial step in the search for consensus, which characterises the negotiation processes followed by the actors involved in the resolution of decisional problems.


group decision making analytic hierarchy process (AHP) uncertainty interdependence preference structures aggregation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.



The authors wish to thank Stephen Wilkins for his help in the preparation of the final version of the text.


  1. Aczél J., Saaty T. L. (1983) Procedures for Synthesizing Ratio Judgements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27(1): 93–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altuzarra, A., J. M. Moreno-Jiménez, and M. Salvador. (2005). “Searching for consensus in AHP-group decision making. A Bayesian approach,” Proceedings CODAWORK’05, GeronaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bryson N. (1996) Group Decision Making and the analytic hierarchy process: exploring the consensus-relevant information content. Computers and Operations Research 23: 27–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Condon E., Golden B., Wasil E. (2003) Visualizing group decisions in the analytic hierarchy process. Computers and Operations Research 30(10): 1435–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dyer R. F., Forman E. H. (1992) Group Decision Support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Decision Support Systems 8: 99–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Escobar M. T., Aguarón J., Moreno-Jiménez J. M. (2004a) A Note on AHP Group Consistency for the Row Geometric Mean Priorization Procedure. European Journal of Operational Research 153: 318–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Escobar, M. T. et al. (2004b). “Weighted Approval Voting with AHP for e-cognocracy,” Presented in EURO XX. Rhodes (Greece)Google Scholar
  8. Forman E., Peniwati K. (1998) Aggregating individual judgements and priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. European Journal of Operational Research 108: 165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iz P. H., Gardiner L. R. (1993) Analysis of multiple criteria decision support systems for cooperative groups. Group Decision and Negotiation 2: 61–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ludwin W. B. (1978) Strategic voting and the Borda method. Public Choice 33: 85–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2003). “Los Métodos Estadísticos y el Nuevo Método Científico,” in: J. M. Casas and A. Pulido (eds.), Información económica y técnicas de análisis en el siglo XXI: INE, pp. 331–348. ISBN 84-260-3611-2Google Scholar
  12. Moreno-Jiménez J. M. et al. (2005) A Spreadsheet Module for consistent consensus building in AHP-Group Decision Making. Group Decision and Negotiation 14(2): 89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moreno-Jiménez J. M., Polasek W. (2003) e-Democracy and Knowledge. A Multicriteria Framework for the New Democratic Era. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 12: 163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moreno-Jiménez J. M., Vargas L. (1993) A probabilistic study of preference structures in the Analytic Hierarchy Process with interval judgments. Mathematical Computer Modelling 17(4/5): 73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ramanathan R., Ganesh L. S. (1994) Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: an evaluation and intrisic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research 79: 249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Roy B. (1993) Decision science or decision-aid science? European Journal of Operational Research 66: 184–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saari D. (1990) The Borda dictionary. Social Choice and Welfare 7: 279–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Saaty T. L. (1977) A Scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 15(3): 234–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Saaty T.L. (1980) Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Mc Graw-Hill, New York, 2nd print 1990, RSW Pub. PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  20. Saaty, T. L. (1989). “Group Decision Making and the AHP,” in: B. L. Golden, E. A. Wasil, and P. T. Harker (eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Application and Studies, New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. 59–67Google Scholar
  21. Van den Honert R. C. (2001) Decisional power in Group Decision Making: a note on the allocation of group members’ weights in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Group Decision and Negotiation 10(3): 275–286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Van den Honert R. C., Lootsma F. A. (1997) Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP: the model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality. European Journal of Operational Research 96(2): 363–370CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Xu Z. (2000) On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix in AHP. European Journal of Operational Research 126: 683–687CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Teresa Escobar
    • 1
  • José María Moreno-jiménez
    • 1
  1. 1.Grupo Decisión Multicriterio ZaragozaFacultad de EconómicasZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations