Group Decision Making: From Consistency to Consensus

  • F. Chiclana
  • F. Mata
  • S. Alonso
  • E. Herrera-Viedma
  • L. Martínez
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4617)


In group decision making (GDM) processes, prior to the selection of the best alternative(s), it would be desirable that experts achieve a high degree of consensus or agreement between them. Due to the complexity of most decision making problems, individuals’ preferences may not satisfy formal properties. Consistency is one of such properties, and it is associated with the transitivity property. Obviously, when carrying out a rational decision making, consistent information, i.e. information which does not imply any kind of contradiction, is more appropriate than information containing some contradictions. Therefore, in a GDM process, consistency should also be sought after.

In this paper we present a consensus model for GDM problems that proceeds from consistency to consensus. This model includes a novel consistency reaching module based on consistency measures. In particular, the model generates advice on how experts should change their preferences in order to reach a solution with high consistency and consensus degrees.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E.: Integrating three representation models in fuzzy multipurpose decision making based on fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 97(1), 33–48 (1998)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chiclana, F., Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E.: A Note on the Internal Consistency of Various Preference Representations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 131(1), 75–78 (2002)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fishburn, P.C.: The Theory of Social Choice. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ (1973)MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fishburn, P.C.: Utility Theory for Decision Making. Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company (1979)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L.: A model of consensus in group decision making under linguistic assessments. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 79, 73–87 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L.: Linguistic measures based on fuzzy coincidence for reaching consensus in group decision making. International Journal approximate Reasoning 16, 309–334 (1997)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F.: A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics-Part A: Systems and Humans 32(3), 394–402 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Herrera, F., Chiclana, F., Luque, M.: Some issues on consistency of fuzzy preference relations. European Journal of Operational Research 154(1), 98–109 (2004)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Martínez, L., Mata, F., Chiclana, F.: A consensus support system model for group decision-making problems with multi-granular linguistic preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems 13(5), 644–658 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Mata, F., Martínez, L., Chiclana, F., Pérez, L.G.: Measurements of consensus in multi-granular linguistic group decision making. In: Torra, V., Narukawa, Y. (eds.) MDAI 2004. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3131, pp. 194–204. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Herrera-Viedma, E., Mata, F., Martínez, L., Pérez, L.G.: An adaptive module for the consensus reaching process in group decision making problems. In: Torra, V., Narukawa, Y., Miyamoto, S. (eds.) MDAI 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3558, pp. 89–98. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kacprzyk, J.: Group decision making with a fuzzy linguistic majority. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 18, 105–118 (1986)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ma, J., Fan, Z.-P., Jiang, Y.-P., Mao, J.Y., Ma, L.: A method for repairing the inconsistency of fuzzy preference relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 157, 20–33 (2006)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Roubens, M.: Fuzzy sets and decision analysis. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90, 199–206 (1997)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tanino, T.: Fuzzy preference orderings in group decision making. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 12, 117–131 (1984)MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Chiclana
    • 1
  • F. Mata
    • 2
  • S. Alonso
    • 3
  • E. Herrera-Viedma
    • 3
  • L. Martínez
    • 2
  1. 1.Centre for Computational Intelligence, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BHUK
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science, University of Jaén, 23700 JaénSpain
  3. 3.Dept. of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, 18071 GranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations