Skip to main content
Log in

A Spreadsheet Module for Consistent Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents a spreadsheet module developed with Microsoft Excel and Visual Basic to search for consensus when dealing with AHP in group decision making. On the basis of the theoretical results included in the paper Moreno-Jiménez et al. (2003), this spreadsheet module allows us to construct, in a local context (one criterion), the Consistent Consensus Matrix (CCM) corresponding to the core of consistency associated with the actors involved in the decision making process. By means of simulation techniques, this module provides, for each of the different values of the inconsistency thresholds considered, the preference structures derived from the interval incomplete matrix (CCM) that represents the group’s core of consistency. This information will be used to establish consensus paths between the actors involved in the resolution process, one of the most important goals in distributed and participatory decision making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguarón, J. and J. M. Moreno-Jiménez. (2000). “Local Stability Intervals in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research 125(1), 114–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguarón, J. and J. M. Moreno-Jiménez. (2003). “The Geometric Consistency Index: Approximated Thresholds,” European Journal of Operational Research 147(1), 137–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brugha, C. M. (2000). “Relative Measurement and the Power Function,” European Journal of Operational Research 121, 627–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, N. (1996). “Group Decision Making and the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Exploring the Consensus-Relevant Information Content,” Computers and Operations Research 23, 27–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryson, N. and A. Joseph. (1999). “Generating Consensus Priority Point Vectors: A Logarithmic Goal Programming Approach,” Computers and Operation Research 26, 637–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, M. A. P. (1994). “A Multicriteria Decision Model Application for Managing Group Decisions,” Journal of Operational Research Society 45(1), 47–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dyer, R. F. and E. H. Forman. (1992). “Group Decision Support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” Decision Support Systems 8, 99–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, M. T. and J. M. Moreno-Jiménez. (2000). “Reciprocal Distributions in the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research 123, 154–174.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, M. T. and J. M. Moreno-Jiménez. (2002). “A Linkage Between the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Compromise Programming Models,” Omega 30, 359–365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, M. T., J. Aguarón, and J. M. Moreno-Jiménez. (2004). “A Note on AHP Group Consistency for the Row Geometric Mean Priorization Procedure,” European Journal of Operational Research 153(2), 318–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, E. and K. Peniwati. (1998). “Aggregating Individual Judgements and Priorities with the Analytic Hierarchy Process,” European Journal of Operational Research 108, 165–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iz, P. H. and L. R. Gardiner. (1993). “Analysis of Multiple Criteria Decision Support Systems for Cooperative Groups,” Group Decision and Negotiation 2, 61–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2002). Constructivismo Cognitivo en Decisiones Públicas (private document).

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2003). “Los métodos estadísticos en el nuevo método científico”, in J. M., Casas and A. Oulido, Información económica y técnicas de análisis en el siglo XXI, INE, 331–348.

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M., J. Aguarón, and M. T. Escobar. (2001). “Metodología Científica en Valoración y Selección Ambiental,” Pesquisa Operacional 21(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M., J. Aguarón, and M. T. Escobar. (2003). “Decisional Tools for Consensus Building in AHP–Group Decision Making”. Submitted.

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M., J. Aguarón, M.T. Escobar, and J. Jiménez. (2000). “Búsqueda del Consenso en el Proceso Analítico Jerárquico,” Proceedings of the XIV Reunión Anual Asepelt-España, Oviedo.

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M., J. Aguarón, M. T. Escobar, and A. Turón. (1999). “The Multicriteria Procedural Rationality on Sisdema,” European Journal of Operational Research 119(2), 388–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. and L. G. Vargas. (1993). “A Probabilistic Study of Preference Structures in the Analytic Hierarchy Process with Interval Judgments,” Mathematical Computer Modelling 17(4/5), 73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramanathan, R. and L. S. Ganesh. (1994). “Group Preference Aggregation Methods Employed in AHP: An Evaluation and Intrisic Process for Deriving Members’ Weightages,” European Journal of Operational Research 79, 249–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roy, B. (1993). “Decision Science or Decision-aid Science?,” European Journal of Operational Research 66, 184–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1980). Multicriteria Decision Making: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. McGraw-Hill. New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1989). “Group Decision Making and the AHP,” in: B. L. Golden, E. A. Wasil, P. T. Harker, (eds.), The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Application and Studies 59–67.

  • Saaty, T. L. (1990). “Eigenvector and Logarithmic Least Squares,” European Journal of Operational Research 48, 156–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty, T. L. (1996). The Analytic Network Process. RSW Publications.

  • Van den Honert, R. C. (1998). “Stochastic Group Preference in the Multiplicative AHP: A Model of Group Consensus,” European Journal of Operational Research 110, 99–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas, L. G. (1994). “Reply to Schekerman’s Avoiding Rank Reversal in AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research 74, 420–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargas, L. G. (1997). “Why Multiplicative AHP is Invalid. A Practical Example,” J. of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 6(3), 169–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to JosÉ MarÍa.

Additional information

This paper has received partial financial support from the Research Project of the University of Zaragoza (2002): “Herramientas decisionales para el constructivismo cognitivo” (ref. 228-056). A previous version of this paper has been presented at the Group Decision and Negotiation session of the EURO-INFORMS Congress in Istanbul, 2003.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

MarÍa, J., JimÉnez, M., Joven, J.A. et al. A Spreadsheet Module for Consistent Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making. Group Decis Negot 14, 89–108 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-2407-8

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-2407-8

Key words

Navigation