Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

IMGD: an interactive method for multiobjective group decision aid

  • Case-oriented Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Operational Research Society

Abstract

Multiobjective methods for group decision situations that are proposed in the literature do not generally model power and influence. On the other hand, papers dealing with influence and power in group decision support system (GDSS) are looking for the effects of GDSS on the distribution of power among the group members. This paper proposes an interactive method for group decision aid in multiobjective context integrating the concept of power and influence within the multiperson–multicriteria aspect. The method is designed to be used by a committee to solve a multiple criteria allocation problem. The method is tested on a resource allocation problem in the Municipality of Tunis.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benayoun R, Mongolfier J, Tergny J and Larichev OI (1971). Linear programming with multiple objective functions: STEP method (STEM). Math Programm 1: 366–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zionts S and Wallenius J (1976). An interactive programming method for solving the multiple criteria problems. Mngt Sci 22: 652–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zionts S and Wallenius J (1983). An interactive multiple objective linear programming method for a class of underlying nonlinear utility functions. Mngt Sci 29: 519–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steuer RE and Choo EU (1983). An interactive weighted Tchebycheff procedure for multiple objective programming. Math Programm 26: 326–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reeves GR and Franz LS (1985). A simplified interactive multiple objective linear programming procedure. Comput Opns Res 12: 589–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Climaco J and Antunes (1987). TRIMAP: an interactive multicriteria linear programming package. Found Control Eng 12: 101–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chankong V and Haimes YY (1983). Multiobjective Decision Making, Theory and Methodology, North Holland: Amsterdam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wierzbicki A (1982). A mathematical basis for satisfying decision making. Math Model 3: 391–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R and Raiffa H (1976). Decision with Multiple-objectives: Preferences and Value Trade Offs, Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korhonen P, Moskowitz H, Wallenius J and Zionts S (1986). An interactive approach to multiple criteria optimization with multiple decision-makers. Nav Res Logist Quart 33: 589–660.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis HS and Butler TW (1993). An interactive frame-work for multi-person, multiobjective decisions. Decis Sci 24: 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Climaco J and Antunes CH (1994). On the application of TRIMAP to problems with multiple decision makers. Ann Opns Res 51: 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro A (2001). A group decision support for strategic alternatives selection. Mngt Decis 39: 218–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahdelma R and Salminen P (2001). SMAA-2: Stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis for group decision making. Opns Res 49: 444–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cook WD and Kress M (1985). Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference. Mngt Sci 31: 26–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck MP and Lin BW (1983). Some heuristics for the consensus ranking problem. Comput Opns Res 10: 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Ven A and Delbecq AL (1971). Nominal versus interacting group processes for committee decision making processes. Acad Mngt J 14: 326–344.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iz P and Krajewski L. (1992). Comparative evaluation of three interactive multiobjective programming techniques as group decsion support tools. INFOR 30: 349–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollof ME and Miller GR (1980). Persuation: New Directions in theory and research, Sage: Beverley Hills, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stogdill RM (1974). Handbook of Leadership, Free Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs I, Poole MS and DeSantis DL (1988). A study of influence in computer-mediated group decision making. MIS Quart 12: 625–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams SR and Wilson RL (1997). Group support systems, power, and influence in an organization: a field of study. Decis Sci 28: 911–937.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow K (1951). Social Choice and Individual Values, Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kemeny JG and Snell LJ (1962). Preference ranking: an axiomatic approach. In: Mathematical Models in the Social Sciences, Ginn: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nackel JG, Goldman J and Fairman WL (1978). A group decision process in health setting. Mngt Sci 24: 1259–1267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torrance GW, Boyle MH and Horwood SP (1980). Application of multi-attribute utility theory to measure social preferences for health setting. Opns Res 30: 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapely LS and Shubik M (1954). A method for evaluating the distribution of power in a committee system. Am Polit Sci Rev 48: 787–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Banzhaf JF (1965). Weighted voting doesn't work: a mathematical analysis. Rutgers Law Rev 19: 317–343.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deegan J and Packel EW (1979). A new index of power for simple n-person games. Int J Game Theory 7: 113–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman JS (1971). Control of collectivities and the power of collectivity to act. In: B. Liber-man B (ed). Social Choice, Gordon & Breach: New York, pp 269–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubey P and Shapely LS (1979). Some heuristics for the consensus ranking problem. Math Opns Res 4: 99–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keeney R and Kirkwood CW (1975). Group decision making using cardinal social welfare function. Mngt Sci 22: 430–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bodily SE (1979). A delegation process for combining individual utility functions. Mngt Sci 25: 1035–1041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French J (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychol Rev 63: 181–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hannachi SB and Moalla T (1986). Assignment of weights to decision makers in multimakers, multicriteria decision making. Working paper no. 180, University of Kansas School of Business.

  • Mselmi A (1996). Décision multicritère multi-agent: Modèles d'aide á la décision dans les communes. Master thesis, Institut Sup é rieur de Gestion. University of Tunis.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Sharjah, Sharjah, UAE

    F B Abdelaziz

  2. Laval University, Canada

    J M Martel

  3. Municipality of Tunis, Tunis

    A Mselmi

Authors
  1. F B Abdelaziz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J M Martel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. A Mselmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to F B Abdelaziz.

Appendix

Appendix

Step 1: Find, by interviewing the members of the group, the influence matrix V i for criterion i and transpose V i to obtain (V i)′.

Step 2: Find the stochastic matrix (S i) by normalizing entries of (V i)′ rows.

Step 3: Find

Step 4: Take the common row (d i1, d i2, …, d iM ) as a system of weights for the M DMs with respect to the criterion i.

Step 5: Let w ij denotes the weight assigned by member j to criterion i.

Step 5.1: Compute the weighted average of all weights w ij given by DMs: w i *=∑ j=1,…,M w ij d ij .

Step 5.2: Normalize these weights to obtain group weight for criterion i: w i =(w i */∑ k=1,…,n w k *).

Step 6: Let d j denotes the weight of the member D j with respect to all criteria (aggregated weight). Compute d j *=∑ i=1,…,n w i d ij , then normalize these weights to obtain the weights d j .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Abdelaziz, F., Martel, J. & Mselmi, A. IMGD: an interactive method for multiobjective group decision aid. J Oper Res Soc 55, 464–474 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601653

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jors.2601653

Keywords

Search

Navigation