A Combined Method for Deriving Decision Makers’ Weights in Group Decision Making Environment: An Application in Medical Decision Making

  • Emrah KoksalmisEmail author
  • Gulsah Hancerliogullari Koksalmis
  • Ozgur Kabak
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Management and Industrial Engineering book series (LNMIE)


The complexity of the problem grows as multiple individuals involved in the decision making process. Since each individual may have a different experience, attitudes, and knowledge, their approaches might be different from each other on the same problem. Therefore, more comprehensive techniques are needed in group decision making methods in order to determine how much a decision maker’s contribution is considered in the final solution (i.e., the weight of each decision maker). The purpose of this study is to determine the combined weights of decision makers based on both the objective weights, using the geometric cardinal consensus index, and the subjective weights provided by a supervisor. In order to represent the implementation of the method, the study includes a case study in a medical decision making. There are several anesthesia method alternatives to apply; specifically, general anesthesia, local anesthesia, and sedation, which are considered by surgeons. In the case study, the combined relative weights of the medical doctors are derived regarding this issue.


Weights of decision makers AHP group decision making Geometric cardinal consensus index Combined weights 


  1. Aguaron, J., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2003). The geometric consistency index: Approximated thresholds. European Journal of Operational Research, 147(1), 137–145.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barzilai, J., & Golany, B. (1994). AHP rank reversal, normalization and aggregation rules. INFOR: Information Systems and Operational Research, 32(2), 57–64.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Blagojevic, B., Srdjevic, B., Srdjevic, Z., & Zoranovic, T. (2016). Deriving weights of the decision makers using AHP group consistency measures. Fundamenta Informaticae, 144(3–4), 383–395.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cabrerizo, F. J., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Pedrycz, W. (2013). A method based on PSO and granular computing of linguistic information to solve group decision making problems defined in heterogeneous contexts. European Journal of Operational Research, 230(3), 624–633.MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Crawford, G., & Williams, C. (1985). A note on the analysis of subjective judgment matrices. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 29(4), 387–405.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dey, B., Bairagi, B., Sarkar, B., & Sanyal, S. K. (2017). Group heterogeneity in multi member decision making model with an application to warehouse location selection in a supply chain. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 105, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dolan, J. G., Isselhardt, B. J., & Cappuccio, J. D. (1989). The analytic hierarchy process in medical decision making: A tutorial. Medical Decision Making, 9(1), 40–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dolan, J. C., Bordley, D. R., & Miller, H. (1993). Diagnostic strategies in the management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 8(10), 525–529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dong, Y., Zhang, G., Hong, W. C., & Xu, Yinfeng. (2010). Consensus models for AHP group decision making under row geometric mean prioritization method. Decision Support Systems, 49(3), 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dragincic, J., Korac, N., & Blagojevic, B. (2015). Group multi-criteria decision making (GMCDM) approach for selecting the most suitable table grape variety intended for organic viticulture. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 111, 194–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hancerliogullari, G., Hancerliogullari, K. O., & Koksalmis, E. (2017). The use of multi-criteria decision making models in evaluating anesthesia method options in circumcision surgery. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 17(1), 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kabak, O., & Ervural, B. (2017). Multiple attribute group decision making: A generic conceptual framework and a classification scheme. Knowledge-Based Systems, 123, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Liberatore, M. J., & Nydick, R. L. (2008). The analytic hierarchy process in medical and health care decision making: A literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 189(1), 194–207.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Liu, B., Shen, Y., Chen, Y., Chen, X., & Wang, Y. (2015). A two-layer weight determination method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making experts in a linguistic environment. Information Fusion, 23, 156–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lu, J., & Ruan, D. (2007). Multi-objective group decision making: Methods, software and applications with fuzzy set techniques (Vol. 6). Imperial College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mianabadi, H., & Afshar, A. (2008). A new method to evaluate weights of decision makers and its application in water resource management. In 13th IWRA World Water Congress, Montpellier, France.Google Scholar
  17. Ölçer, A. I., & Odabaşi, A. Y. (2005). A new fuzzy multiple attributive group decision making methodology and its application to propulsion/manoeuvring system selection problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 166(1), 93–114.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pang, J., Liang, J., & Song, P. (2017). An adaptive consensus method for multi-attribute group decision making under uncertain linguistic environment. Applied Soft Computing, 58, 339–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ramanathan, R., & Ganesh, L. S. (1994). Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages. European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249–265.zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resources allocation (p. 281). McGraw: New York.Google Scholar
  21. Srdjevic, B., Pipan, M., Srdjevic, Z., Blagojevic, B., & Zoranovic, T. (2015). Virtually combining the analytical hierarchy process and voting methods in order to make group decisions. Universal Access in the Information Society, 14(2), 231–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Stang, H. J., Gunnar, M. R., Snellman, L., Condon, L. M., & Kestenbaum, R. (1988). Local anesthesia for neonatal circumcision. JAMA, 259, 1507–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang, Baoli, Liang, Jiye, & Qian, Yuhua. (2015). Determining decision makers’ weights in group ranking: A granular computing method. International Journal of Machine Learning and Cybernetics, 6(3), 511–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Yoon, K. P., & Hwang, C. L. (1995). Multiple attribute decision making: An introduction (Vol. 104). Sage publications.Google Scholar
  25. Yue, Z. (2011). Deriving decision maker’s weights based on distance measure for interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Expert Systems with Applications, 38(9), 11665–11670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Zhang, X., & Xu, Z. (2014). Deriving experts’ weights based on consistency maximization in intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 27(1), 221–233.MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emrah Koksalmis
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Gulsah Hancerliogullari Koksalmis
    • 2
  • Ozgur Kabak
    • 2
  1. 1.Hezarfen Aeronautics and Space Technologies Institute, National Defense UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Industrial Engineering Department, Management FacultyIstanbul Technical UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations