IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/annopr/v326y2023i2d10.1007_s10479-022-04649-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship

Author

Listed:
  • Jahangir Wasim

    (Heriot-Watt University)

  • Vijay Vyas

    (University of Portsmouth)

  • Pietro Amenta

    (University of Sannio)

  • Antonio Lucadamo

    (University of Sannio)

  • Gabriella Marcarelli

    (University of Sannio)

  • Alessio Ishizaka

    (NEOMA Business School)

Abstract

In group decisions, two issues need to be tackled: weighting opinions of different decision-makers and aggregating their evaluations. Many group aggregation techniques analyse these issues. These approaches can be correctly applied only if the weights assigned to all decision-makers are available. Unfortunately, there are situations where such weights are unavailable or incomplete, the negotiation required to better define them is not possible or decision-makers are unwilling to revise their judgments. These situations could pose a critical problem for the correct application of aggregation procedures. This problem is exaggerated if there are more than one group of decision-makers. In this paper, we present a new algorithm based on the Frobenius norm that considers the choice of the weights in aggregating judgments in a non-negotiable multi-group problem. This approach facilitates the computation of several sets of weights simultaneously, showing the roles played by each decision-maker and by each group in defining the global priority. To illustrate the method, we apply it in designing a new curriculum in entrepreneurship based on an entrepreneurial learning approach informed by perceptions of three stakeholders: entrepreneurship educators, entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship students. Data is collected by pairwise comparison within the analytic hierarchy process and is aggregated using our proposed approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Jahangir Wasim & Vijay Vyas & Pietro Amenta & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Alessio Ishizaka, 2023. "Deriving the weights for aggregating judgments in a multi-group problem: an application to curriculum development in entrepreneurship," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(2), pages 853-877, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:326:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04649-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10479-022-04649-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10479-022-04649-9
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10479-022-04649-9?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fiet, James O., 2001. "The pedagogical side of entrepreneurship theory," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 101-117, March.
    2. Dong, Qingxing & Cooper, Orrin, 2016. "A peer-to-peer dynamic adaptive consensus reaching model for the group AHP decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(2), pages 521-530.
    3. Robert Ronstadt, 1987. "The Educated Entrepreneurs: A New Era of Entrepreneurial Education is Beginning," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 11(4), pages 37-54, April.
    4. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Tobin Turner & Peter Gianiodis, 2018. "Entrepreneurship Unleashed: Understanding Entrepreneurial Education outside of the Business School," Journal of Small Business Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(1), pages 131-149, January.
    7. Ishizaka, Alessio & Siraj, Sajid, 2018. "Are multi-criteria decision-making tools useful? An experimental comparative study of three methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 264(2), pages 462-471.
    8. Heidi M. Neck & Patricia G. Greene, 2011. "Entrepreneurship Education: Known Worlds and New Frontiers," Journal of Small Business Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 49(1), pages 55-70, January.
    9. Tang, Ming & Liao, Huchang, 2021. "From conventional group decision making to large-scale group decision making: What are the challenges and how to meet them in big data era? A state-of-the-art survey," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Donald F. Kuratko, 2005. "The Emergence of Entrepreneurship Education: Development, Trends, and Challenges," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 29(5), pages 577-597, September.
    11. Ho, William & Ma, Xin, 2018. "The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 267(2), pages 399-414.
    12. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    13. Forman, Ernest & Peniwati, Kirti, 1998. "Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 108(1), pages 165-169, July.
    14. Saras D. Sarasvathy & Sankaran Venkataraman, 2011. "Entrepreneurship as Method: Open Questions for an Entrepreneurial Future," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 35(1), pages 113-135, January.
    15. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2016. "The precise consistency consensus matrix in a local AHP-group decision making context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 245-259, October.
    16. John T. Perry & Gaylen N. Chandler & Gergana Markova, 2012. "Entrepreneurial Effectuation: A Review and Suggestions for Future Research," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 36(4), pages 837-861, July.
    17. Gass, S. I. & Rapcsak, T., 2004. "Singular value decomposition in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(3), pages 573-584, May.
    18. José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador & Pilar Gargallo & Alfredo Altuzarra, 2016. "Systemic decision making in AHP: a Bayesian approach," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 261-284, October.
    19. Bernasconi, Michele & Choirat, Christine & Seri, Raffaello, 2014. "Empirical properties of group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: Theory and evidence," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 232(3), pages 584-592.
    20. Natalie M. Scala & Jayant Rajgopal & Luis G. Vargas & Kim LaScola Needy, 2016. "Group Decision Making with Dispersion in the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 355-372, March.
    21. Birley, Sue, 1985. "The role of networks in the entrepreneurial process," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 107-117.
    22. 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, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Amenta, Pietro & Lucadamo, Antonio & Marcarelli, Gabriella, 2021. "On the choice of weights for aggregating judgments in non-negotiable AHP group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 288(1), pages 294-301.
    2. Pietro Amenta & Alessio Ishizaka & Antonio Lucadamo & Gabriella Marcarelli & Vijay Vyas, 2020. "Computing a common preference vector in a complex multi-actor and multi-group decision system in Analytic Hierarchy Process context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 284(1), pages 33-62, January.
    3. Sasaki, Yasuo, 2023. "Strategic manipulation in group decisions with pairwise comparisons: A game theoretical perspective," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(3), pages 1133-1139.
    4. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2023. "Reducing incompatibility in a local AHP-group decision making context," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 326(1), pages 1-26, July.
    5. Paweł Karczmarek & Witold Pedrycz & Adam Kiersztyn, 2021. "Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process in a Graphical Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 463-481, April.
    6. Zhang, Hengjie & Dong, Yucheng & Chiclana, Francisco & Yu, Shui, 2019. "Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 580-598.
    7. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    8. Forsström-Tuominen, Heidi & Jussila, Iiro & Kolhinen, Johanna, 2015. "Business school students’ social construction of entrepreneurship: Claiming space for collective entrepreneurship discourses," Scandinavian Journal of Management, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 102-120.
    9. Juan Aguarón & María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Alberto Turón, 2019. "AHP-Group Decision Making Based on Consistency," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Laila Oubahman & Szabolcs Duleba, 2022. "A Comparative Analysis of Homogenous Groups’ Preferences by Using AIP and AIJ Group AHP-PROMETHEE Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Milan Ranđelović & Jelena Stanković & Kristijan Kuk & Gordana Savić & Dragan Ranđelović, 2018. "An Approach to Determining the Importance of Model Criteria in Certifying a City as Business-Friendly," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 48(2), pages 156-165, April.
    12. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    13. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    14. Aull-Hyde, Rhonda & Erdogan, Sevgi & Duke, Joshua M., 2006. "An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 171(1), pages 290-295, May.
    15. Michela Loi & Alain Fayolle & Marco van Gelderen & Elen Riot & Deema Refai & David Higgins & Radi Haloub & Marcus Alexandre Yshikawa Salusse & Erwan Lamy & Caroline Verzat & Fabrice Cavarretta, 2022. "Entrepreneurship Education at the Crossroads: Challenging Taken-for-Granted Assumptions and Opening New Perspectives," Post-Print hal-03983114, HAL.
    16. Ebner, Manuel & Fontana, Veronika & Schirpke, Uta & Tappeiner, Ulrike, 2022. "Stakeholder perspectives on ecosystem services of mountain lakes in the European Alps," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    17. Syed Hammad Mian & Abdulrahman Al-Ahmari, 2019. "Comparative analysis of different digitization systems and selection of best alternative," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 2039-2067, June.
    18. Stumpf, Lukas & Schöggl, Josef-Peter & Baumgartner, Rupert J., 2023. "Circular plastics packaging – Prioritizing resources and capabilities along the supply chain," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    19. Tian Yang & Changhao Liu & Raymond P. Côté & Jinwen Ye & Weifeng Liu, 2022. "Evaluating the Barriers to Industrial Symbiosis Using a Group AHP-TOPSIS Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(11), pages 1-30, June.
    20. Giuliano Sansone & Elisa Ughetto & Paolo Landoni, 2021. "Entrepreneurial intention: An analysis of the role of Student-Led Entrepreneurial Organizations," Journal of International Entrepreneurship, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 399-433, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:annopr:v:326:y:2023:i:2:d:10.1007_s10479-022-04649-9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.