IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v229y2013i2p462-469.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Huang, Yeu-Shiang
  • Chang, Wei-Chen
  • Li, Wei-Hao
  • Lin, Zu-Liang

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Huang, Yeu-Shiang & Chang, Wei-Chen & Li, Wei-Hao & Lin, Zu-Liang, 2013. "Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(2), pages 462-469.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:229:y:2013:i:2:p:462-469
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.043
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377221713001926
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Mateos, A. & Jimenez, A. & Rios-Insua, S., 2006. "Monte Carlo simulation techniques for group decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1842-1864, November.
    2. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    3. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    4. Manel Baucells & Rakesh K. Sarin, 2003. "Group Decisions with Multiple Criteria," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(8), pages 1105-1118, August.
    5. Timmermans, Danielle & Vlek, Charles, 1996. "Effects on Decision Quality of Supporting Multi-attribute Evaluation in Groups," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(2), pages 158-170, November.
    6. van Calker, K.J. & Berentsen, P.B.M. & Romero, C. & Giesen, G.W.J. & Huirne, R.B.M., 2006. "Development and application of a multi-attribute sustainability function for Dutch dairy farming systems," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(4), pages 640-658, June.
    7. Baucells, Manel & Shapley, Lloyd S., 2008. "Multiperson utility," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 329-347, March.
    8. Herrera, F. & Martinez, L. & Sanchez, P. J., 2005. "Managing non-homogeneous information in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 166(1), pages 115-132, October.
    9. Jackson, Matthew O. & Moselle, Boaz, 2002. "Coalition and Party Formation in a Legislative Voting Game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 49-87, March.
    10. 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.
    11. 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.
    12. Kirkwood, Craig W. & Corner, James L., 1993. "The Effectiveness of Partial Information about Attribute Weights for Ranking Alternatives in Multiattribute Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 54(3), pages 456-476, April.
    13. John Butler & Douglas J. Morrice & Peter W. Mullarkey, 2001. "A Multiple Attribute Utility Theory Approach to Ranking and Selection," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 47(6), pages 800-816, June.
    14. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(3), pages 1272-1289, August.
    15. Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Martin Weber, 1993. "The Effect of Attribute Ranges on Weights in Multiattribute Utility Measurements," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(8), pages 937-943, August.
    16. Peter H. Farquhar, 1984. "State of the Art---Utility Assessment Methods," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 30(11), pages 1283-1300, November.
    17. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    18. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2011. "An attribute weight based feedback model for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems with group consensus requirements in evidential reasoning context," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(1), pages 179-189, July.
    19. Bose, Utpal & Davey, Anne M. & Olson, David L., 1997. "Multi-attribute utility methods in group decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 691-706, December.
    20. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shan-Lin, 2010. "The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 206(3), pages 601-608, November.
    21. Yu, Lean & Wang, Shouyang & Lai, Kin Keung, 2009. "An intelligent-agent-based fuzzy group decision making model for financial multicriteria decision support: The case of credit scoring," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 942-959, June.
    22. Chuu, Shian-Jong, 2011. "Interactive group decision-making using a fuzzy linguistic approach for evaluating the flexibility in a supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 213(1), pages 279-289, August.
    23. Carreras, Francesc, 2005. "A decisiveness index for simple games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 163(2), pages 370-387, June.
    24. Herrera, F. & Herrera-Viedma, E. & Chiclana, F., 2001. "Multiperson decision-making based on multiplicative preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(2), pages 372-385, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Wenyi Zeng & Deqing Li & Peizhuang Wang, 2016. "Variable Weight Decision Making and Balance Function Analysis Based on Factor Space," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(05), pages 999-1014, September.
    3. Cheng, Li-Chen & Chen, Yen-Liang & Chiang, Yu-Chia, 2016. "Identifying conflict patterns to reach a consensus – A novel group decision approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 254(2), pages 622-631.
    4. Xia, Meimei & Chen, Jian, 2015. "Multi-criteria group decision making based on bilateral agreements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 756-764.
    5. Huang, Tony Cheng-Kui, 2013. "A novel group ranking model for revealing sequence and quantity knowledge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 654-666.
    6. Sun, Bingzhen & Ma, Weimin, 2015. "An approach to consensus measurement of linguistic preference relations in multi-attribute group decision making and application," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 83-92.
    7. Liu, Jiapeng & Liao, Xiuwu & Yang, Jian-bo, 2015. "A group decision-making approach based on evidential reasoning for multiple criteria sorting problem with uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(3), pages 858-873.
    8. Gagolewski, Marek, 2015. "Spread measures and their relation to aggregation functions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(2), pages 469-477.
    9. Liu, Bingsheng & Shen, Yinghua & Zhang, Wei & Chen, Xiaohong & Wang, Xueqing, 2015. "An interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy principal component analysis model-based method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(1), pages 209-225.

    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:eee:ejores:v:229:y:2013:i:2:p:462-469. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.