Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 249–265 | Cite as

The Core of Consistency in AHP-Group Decision Making

  • J. M. Moreno-Jiménez
  • J. Aguarón
  • M. T. Escobar
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a new tool, the Consistency Consensus Matrix, designed to encourage the search for consensus in group decision making when using the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). The procedure exploits one of the characteristics of AHP: the possibility of measuring consistency in judgement elicitation. Using two other tools, Preference Structures and Stability Intervals, we derive the Consistency Consensus Matrix that corresponds to the actor’s core of consistency. The performance analysis of the preference structure obtained from this matrix provides us with valuable information in search for knowledge. The new tool is illustrated by means of a case study adapted from a real-life experiment in e-democracy developed for the City Council of Zaragoza (Spain).

Keywords

Group decision making AHP Consistency Consensus Matrix Knowledge extraction E-Democracy 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Earlier versions of this paper have been presented in the 12th MiniEuro Conference (Brussels, April 2002) and at the Workshop on e-democracy (TED-ESF) held in Madrid (May 2003). The work has been partially funded under Research Projects “Electronic Government. Internet-based Complex Decision Making: e-democracy and e-cognocracy” (Ref. PM2004-052) and “Internet-based Complex Decision Making. Decisional Tools for e-cognocracy” (Ref. TSI2005-02511).

The authors wish to express their thanks to the referees for their helpful observations and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. They are also grateful to Stephen Wilkins for helping with the translation of the manuscript.

References

  1. Aguarón J, Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2003) Consistency Stability Intervals for a Judgement in AHP Decision Support Systems. Eur J Oper Res 145(2):382–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aguarón J, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2000) Local stability intervals in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 125(1):114–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aguarón J, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2003) The geometric consistency index: approximated thresholds. Eur J Oper Res 147(1):137–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barzilai J (2001) Notes on the analytic hierarchy process, Proceedings of the NSF design and manufacturing research conference 1–6Google Scholar
  5. Condon E, Golden B, Wasil E (2003) Visualizing group decisions in the analytic hierarchy process. Comp Oper Res 30(10):1435–1445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crawford G, Williams C (1985) A note on the analysis of subjective judgement matrices. J Math Psychol 29:387–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2000) Reciprocal distributions in the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 123:154–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Escobar MT, Moreno-Jiménez JM (2006) Aggregation of individual preference structures in AHP-group decision making. forthcoming in Group Decision and NegotiationGoogle Scholar
  9. Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgements and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108:165–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Harker PT (1987) Incomplete pairwise comparisons in the analytic hierarchy process. Math Model 9:837–848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Moreno-Jiménez JM, Aguarón J, Altuzarra A, Escobar MT, Turón A (2005a) Decisional tools for knowledge improvement in e-cognocracy. In: Bhlen et al (eds) TED Conference on e-government. Electronic democracy: The challenge ahead. University Rudolf Trauner-Verlag, Schriftenreihe Informatik 13, pp. 70–78Google Scholar
  12. Moreno-Jiménez JM, Aguarón J, Escobar MT, Turón A (1999) The multicriteria procedural rationality on Sisdema. Eur J Oper Res 119(2):388–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moreno-Jiménez JM, Aguarón J, Raluy A, Turón A (2005b) A Spreadsheet module for consensus building in AHP group decision making. Group Decis Negot 14(2):89–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Moreno-Jiménez JM, Polasek W (2003) E-Democracy and knowledge. A multicriteria framework for the new democratic era. J Multi-criteria Decis Anal 12:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Moreno-Jiménez JM, Vargas LG (1993) A probabilistic study of preference structures in the analytic hierarchy process with interval judgments. Math Comp Model 17(4/5):73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ramanathan R, Ganesh LS (1994) Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and intrisic process for deriving members’ weightages. Eur J Oper Res 79:249–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Saaty TL (1980) Multicriteria decision making: The analytic hierarchy process. McGraw-Hill. New␣YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Saaty TL (1989) Group decision making and the AHP. In: Golden BL, Wasil EA, Harker PT (eds), The analytic hierarchy process: application and studies 59–67Google Scholar
  19. Saaty TL (1994) Fundamentals of decision making. RSW PublicationsGoogle Scholar
  20. Tone K (1996) Two technical notes on the AHP based on the Geometric Mean Method, Proceedings of ISAHP’96, pp. 375–381Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Moreno-Jiménez
    • 1
  • J. Aguarón
    • 1
  • M. T. Escobar
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de EconómicasZaragozaSpain

Personalised recommendations