Eliciting and mapping qualitative preferences to numeric rankings in group decision making

Group work is becoming the norm in organizations. From strategy planning committees to quality management teams, organizational members are collaborating on problem solving. One area of team support that is often desired is the scoring and ranking of decision alternatives on qualitative/subjective domains, and the aggregation of individual preferences into group preferences. In this paper we present a new conceptual approach to qualitative preference elicitation and aggregation. This approach is based on well established decision analysis techniques. It significantly advances the state of the art of group decision making by addressing four common limitations: (1) the inability to deal with vagueness of human decision makers in articulating preferences; (2) difficulties in mapping qualitative evaluation to numeric estimates; (3) problems in aggregating individual preferences into meaningful group preference; and (4) the lack of simple user friendly techniques for dealing with a large number of decision alternatives. Our approach is easy to implement in stand alone personal computers and groupware. We illustrate this with a real-world problem.     

An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making

An extension of TOPSIS (technique for order performance by similarity to ideal solution), a multi-attribute decision making (MADM) technique, to a group decision environment is investigated. TOPSIS is a practical and useful technique for ranking and selection of a number of externally determined alternatives through distance measures. To get a broad view of the techniques used, we provide a few options for the operations, such as normalization, distance measures and mean operators, at each of the corresponding steps of TOPSIS. In addition, the preferences of more than one decision maker are internally aggregated into the TOPSIS procedure. Unlike in previous developments, our group preferences are aggregated within the procedure. The proposed model is indeed a unified process and it will be readily applicable to many real-world decision making situations without increasing the computational burden. In the final part, the effects of external aggregation and internal aggregation of group preferences for TOPSIS with different computational combinations are compared using examples. The results have demonstrated our model to be both robust and efficient.     

Generating ranking groups in the analytical hierarchy process

The paper introduces a convenient procedure of ranking N alternatives through direct comparisons in AHP. The alternatives are divided into groups in such a way that dominant relationship exists between the groups but not among the alternatives within each group. This method is suitable for situations where the strict ranking in a sequence for all alternatives is not reliable or not necessary. Two procedures are proposed to construct the AHP ranking groups. The proposed grouping procedures can be used in conjunction with the traditional approaches.     

A choice model with imprecise ordinal evaluations

We consider multicriteria choice problems where the actions are evaluated on ordinal criteria and where they can be assessed imprecisely. In order to select the subset of best actions, the pairwise comparisons between the actions on each criterion are modeled by basic belief assignments (BBAs). Dempsterʼs rule of combination is used for the aggregation of the BBAs of each pair of alternatives in order to express a global comparison between them on all the criteria. A model inspired by ELECTRE I is also proposed and illustrated by a pedagogical example.     

Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making

Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) elicits an individual decision maker’s preferences for single attributes and develops a utility function by mathematics formulation to add up the preferences of the entire set of attributes when assessing alternatives. A common aggregation method of MAUT for group decisions is the simple additive weighting (SAW) method, which does not consider the different preferential levels and preferential ranks for individual decision makers’ assessments of alternatives in a decision group, and thus seems too intuitive in achieving the consensus and commitment for group decision aggregation. In this paper, the preferential differences denoting the preference degrees among different alternatives and preferential priorities denoting the favorite ranking of the alternatives for each decision maker are both considered and aggregated to construct the utility discriminative values for assessing alternatives in a decision group. A comparative analysis is performed to compare the proposed approach to the SAW model, and a satisfaction index is used to investigate the satisfaction levels of the final two resulting group decisions. In addition, a feedback interview is conducted to understand the subjective perceptions of decision makers while examining the results obtained from these two approaches for the second practical case. Both investigation results show that the proposed approach is able to achieve a more satisfying and agreeable group decision than that of the SAW method.     

Ranking residential properties by a multicriteria single price model

This study describes an application of the multicriteria single price model (Ballestero) to the ranking of alternatives. By a generalization of the original model, the equilibrium set of alternatives can be characterized from the viewpoints, respectively, of the demander and the supplier, and from that the efficiency index can be calculated. We demonstrate how, in a state of equilibrium, the two viewpoints result inevitably in inverse orders of ranking. In contrast with other proposals for full ranking of alternatives, the method used in the present study (i) assumes a moderate attitude on the part of the decision maker towards risk, with a robust axiomatic basis; (ii) assigns weights to the criteria independently of which alternative is being evaluated and the attitude (optimistic or pessimistic) of the decision maker; (iii) produces a cardinal hierarchy of the alternatives and not just an ordinal one. The model is illustrated by a sample of residential properties in the city of Valencia, Spain.     

PROMETHEE-MD-2T method for project selection

Project selection is a real problem of multicriteria group decision making (MCGDM) where each decision maker expresses his/her preferences depending on the nature of the alternatives and on his/her own knowledge over them. Thus, information, as much quantitative as qualitative, coexists. The traditional methods of MCGDM developed for project selection usually discriminates in favour of quantitative information at the expense of qualitative information, and this is due to the capability to integrate this first type of information inside their procedure. In this article, two new multicriteria 2-tuple group decision methods called “Preference Ranking Organisation Method for Enrichment Evaluation Multi Decision maker 2-Tuple-I and II” (PROMETHEE-MD-2T-I and II) are presented. They are able to integrate inside their procedure both quantitative and qualitative information in an uncertain context. This has been performed by integrating a 2-tuple linguistic representation model dealing with non-homogeneous and imprecise information data made up by valued intervals, numerical and linguistic values into the aggregation operators of Promethee methods. Although they have been developed for project selection problems, these proposed methods can be applied to all kinds of decision-making problems with heterogeneous and multigranular information.     

MPOC: an agglomerative algorithm for multicriteria partially ordered clustering

In the field of multicriteria decision aid, considerable attention has been paid to supervised classification problems where the purpose is to assign alternatives into predefined ordered classes. In these approaches, often referred to as sorting methods, it is usually assumed that classes are either known a priori or can be identified by the decision maker. On the other hand, when the objective is to identify groups (clusters) of alternatives sharing similar characteristics, the problem is known as a clustering problem, also called an unsupervised learning problem. This paper proposes an agglomerative clustering method based on a crisp outranking relation. The method regroups alternatives into partially ordered classes, based on a quality of partition measure which reflects the percentage of pairs of alternatives that are compatible with a decision-maker’s multicriteria preference model.     

Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis

The original rough set approach proved to be very useful in dealing with inconsistency problems following from information granulation. It operates on a data table composed of a set U of objects (actions) described by a set Q of attributes. Its basic notions are: indiscernibility relation on U, lower and upper approximation of either a subset or a partition of U, dependence and reduction of attributes from Q, and decision rules derived from lower approximations and boundaries of subsets identified with decision classes. The original rough set idea is failing, however, when preference-orders of attribute domains (criteria) are to be taken into account. Precisely, it cannot handle inconsistencies following from violation of the dominance principle. This inconsistency is characteristic for preferential information used in multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) problems, like sorting, choice or ranking. In order to deal with this kind of inconsistency a number of methodological changes to the original rough sets theory is necessary. The main change is the substitution of the indiscernibility relation by a dominance relation, which permits approximation of ordered sets in multicriteria sorting. To approximate preference relations in multicriteria choice and ranking problems, another change is necessary: substitution of the data table by a pairwise comparison table, where each row corresponds to a pair of objects described by binary relations on particular criteria. In all those MCDA problems, the new rough set approach ends with a set of decision rules playing the role of a comprehensive preference model. It is more general than the classical functional or relational model and it is more understandable for the users because of its natural syntax. In order to workout a recommendation in one of the MCDA problems, we propose exploitation procedures of the set of decision rules. Finally, some other recently obtained results are given: rough approximations by means of similarity relations, rough set handling of missing data, comparison of the rough set model with Sugeno and Choquet integrals, and results on equivalence of a decision rule preference model and a conjoint measurement model which is neither additive nor transitive.     

Extended VIKOR method in comparison with outranking methods

The VIKOR method was developed to solve MCDM problems with conflicting and noncommensurable (different units) criteria, assuming that compromising is acceptable for conflict resolution, the decision maker wants a solution that is the closest to the ideal, and the alternatives are evaluated according to all established criteria. This method focuses on ranking and selecting from a set of alternatives in the presence of conflicting criteria, and on proposing compromise solution (one or more). The VIKOR method is extended with a stability analysis determining the weight stability intervals and with trade-offs analysis. The extended VIKOR method is compared with three multicriteria decision making methods: TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, and ELECTRE. A numerical example illustrates an application of the VIKOR method, and the results by all four considered methods are compared.     

Orderings based on the banks set: Some new scoring methods for multicriteria decision making

This article introduces new methods for ranking alternatives in multicriteria decision making situations. Each is based on the normative position that the strength of an alternative is inversely related to the number of alternatives that could prevent it from being chosen. The scores discriminate among elements of the Banks set (Banks, Soc Choice Welfare, 1985, 1, 295–306). The new scoring methods are compared to traditional scoring methods and related to the amount of intransitivity (specifically, the size of the top‐cycle) of aggregated preference. The new scores are shown to measure important aspects of alternatives not captured by extant scoring methods and are illustrated in collective choice settings. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Complexity 20: 63–76, 2015     

Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture

This paper outlines a distributed GDSS suitable to be used over the Internet, based on the VIP Analysis methodology and software. VIP Analysis incorporates complementary approaches to deal with the aggregation of multicriteria performances by means of an additive value function under imprecise information. This proposed GDSS intends to support a decision panel forming a democratic decision unit, whose members wish to reach a final decision in a choice problem, based on consensus or on some majority rule. Its purpose is not to impose an aggregated model from the individual ones. Rather, the GDSS is designed to reflect to each member the consequences of his/her inputs, confronting them with analogous reflections of the group members' inputs. We propose aggregation procedures to provide a reflection of the group's inputs to each of its members, and an architecture for a GDSS implementing these procedures.     

An algorithm for ordinal sorting based on ELECTRE with categories defined by examples

This work proposes a Progressive Assisted Sorting Algorithm (PASA) based on a multicriteria evaluation ELECTRE-type method. The purpose of the PASA is to aid a decision maker to progressively sort a set of alternatives into a set of categories, which we considered are ordered (ordinal sorting), following a consistency principle. We consider the principle that if an alternative outranks (is as good as) a second one, then it must belong to the same category or to a better category. The set of alternatives already sorted by the decision maker will implicitly define the categories, and will constrain the range of categories where other alternatives may be sorted. We show how the same idea may be used in an aggregation/disaggregation approach, considering some parameters of ELECTRE are not fixed a priori, but are constrained only by the examples provided. In this context, we establish a “convex-shape property” stating that the range of possible categories for an alternative is always an interval of categories. A discussion contrasting this approach with ELECTRE TRI is included in the conclusions.     

Metric rationalization of social welfare functions

Metric rationalization of social decision rules has been intensively investigated when the social outcome is a nonempty subset of alternatives. The present paper proposes a similar framework for social welfare functions (SWFs)—that is when each social outcome is a ranking of alternatives. A metric rationalizable SWF reports as an approximation of the unanimity consensus the relative ranking of any pair of alternatives as in the closest profile where individuals all agree on those alternatives, the closeness being measured with respect to a metric on profiles. Two notions of unanimity are in consideration: top unanimity on an alternative holds when individuals all agree that it is top ranked while pairwise unanimity on a pair occurs when individuals all prefer an alternative to another. Without strong requirements on metrics, characterizations provided in both cases show that metric rationalizations of SWFs are essentially equivalent to the Pareto principle for SWFs. Furthermore, two interesting classes of metric rationalizable SWFs–multi-valued scoring SWFs and pairwise scoring SWFs–are each uniquely identified by means of some appropriate and appealing properties on metrics among which decomposability, neutrality and monotonicity are known.     

A case-based fuzzy multicriteria decision support model for tropical cyclone forecasting

This paper proposes a multi-stage framework for intelligent decision support. The proposed framework integrates case-based reasoning and fuzzy multicriteria decision making techniques. It potentially leads to more accurate, flexible and efficient retrieval of alternatives that are most similar and most useful to the current decision situation. Additionally, the framework provides intelligent assistance in articulating domain expert's preferences through outranking relations. We illustrated the proposed approach in the context of tropical cyclone prediction. Ten years of historical observation data about tropical cyclones was represented within fuzzy multicriteria decision-making problem. We describe a prototype intelligent decision support system, which helps the forecaster in retrieving best-fitted solutions in terms of both usefulness and similarity to the current observed case.     

Project Ranking in the Armenian Energy Sector Using a Multicriteria Method for Groups

Project ranking is a complex problem that is often faced by the decision makers involved in the planning process. The necessity to take into account several decision parameters apart from purely economic ones, such as socio-political, technical, institutional and environmental, lead to the use of multicriteria methods instead of single uni-criterion ones. Moreover, most of the times such decisions are taken in a group environment. A hybrid of ELECTRE III and PROMETHEE methods, MURAME, has been specially developed and constitutes the main part of an integrated project ranking methodology for groups. The experience of the application of the methodology in the Armenian energy sector is presented.     

Group preference aggregation in the multiplicative AHP The model of the group decision process and Pareto optimality

A recent paper has focused awareness on group aggregation procedures in the AHP, showing that geometric mean aggregation violates the desirable social choice axiom of Pareto optimality. We show that this violation can be attributed to the representation used to model the group decision process, thereby questioning the legitimacy of the Pareto optimality axiom. We furthermore propose a geometric mean group aggregation procedure which satisfies all the social choice axioms suggested.     

Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts

An interesting problem in group decision analysis is how many different agreements can occur, or conversely disagreements may exist, between two or more different rankings of a set of alternatives. In this paper it is assumed that a reference ranking has been established for the set of alternatives. This reference ranking may represent the ranking of a high authority decision maker or be just a virtual ranking to be used in determining the discrepancy between pairs of rankings. Then, the problem examined here is to evaluate the number of possible rankings when the ranking method is the number of agreements with some reference ranking. The analysis presented here illustrates that this problem is not trivial and moreover, its simple context conceals complexity in its depth. The purpose of this paper is to provide an evaluation of the number of possible agreements in rankings given to a set of concepts, alternatives or ideas, by two or more decision makers. The number of possible agreements takes on the values 0, 1, 2,…, n − 2, or n when n concepts are compared. This paper develops a recursive closed form formula for calculating the frequencies for the various numbers of agreements.