IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v30y2021i3d10.1007_s10726-021-09728-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Group Decision-Based Construction of Scenarios for Multicriteria Analysis in Conditions of Uncertainty on the Basis of Quantitative and Qualitative Information

Author

Listed:
  • L. R. Figueiredo

    (Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais)

  • E. A. Frej

    (Federal University of Pernambuco)

  • G. L. Soares

    (Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais)

  • P. Ya. Ekel

    (Pontifícia Universidade Católica de Minas Gerais)

Abstract

This study examines a general scheme of multicriteria decision-making under uncertainty based on quantitative and qualitative information. In its original form, the general scheme uses qualitative information at the final decision stage, only if the quantitative information is unable to generate unique solutions. Considering that many problems require objectives based on qualitative information at all decision stages, the results of Ramalho et al. (2019) can provide such solutions. However, the processing of qualitative information in Ramalho et al. (2019) is based on applying a very simple approach to aggregating individual preferences without analyzing any type of consensus information. Therefore, the present study sets out to show that representative combinations of initial data, states of nature or scenarios can be constructed by using qualitative information directly, based on aggregating individual preferences after achieving the necessary consensus. In particular, a new scheme for consensus construction is proposed. Using this scheme enables negative points inherent in traditional approaches to be avoided and uncertainty levels to be reduced when estimating coefficients of objective functions based on qualitative information. An illustrative example is presented to demonstrate the results that the new proposal can achieve.

Suggested Citation

  • L. R. Figueiredo & E. A. Frej & G. L. Soares & P. Ya. Ekel, 2021. "Group Decision-Based Construction of Scenarios for Multicriteria Analysis in Conditions of Uncertainty on the Basis of Quantitative and Qualitative Information," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(3), pages 665-696, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09728-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-021-09728-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-021-09728-z
    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/s10726-021-09728-z?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. R. O. Parreiras & P. Ya. Ekel & D. C. Morais, 2012. "Fuzzy Set Based Consensus Schemes for Multicriteria Group Decision making Applied to Strategic Planning," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 153-183, March.
    2. R. E. Bellman & L. A. Zadeh, 1970. "Decision-Making in a Fuzzy Environment," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 141-164, December.
    3. Saaty, Thomas L. & Vargas, Luis G. & Dellmann, Klaus, 2003. "The allocation of intangible resources: the analytic hierarchy process and linear programming," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 169-184, September.
    4. Yucheng Dong & Cong-Cong Li & Yinfeng Xu & Xin Gu, 2015. "Consensus-Based Group Decision Making Under Multi-granular Unbalanced 2-Tuple Linguistic Preference Relations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 217-242, March.
    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. 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.
    7. Francineide Morais Bezerra & Paulo Melo & João Paulo Costa, 2014. "Visual and Interactive Comparative Analysis of Individual Opinions: A Group Decision Support Tool," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 101-125, January.
    8. 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)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Matheus Pereira Libório & Petr Iakovlevitch Ekel & Patrícia Bernardes & Luiz Flávio Autran Monteiro Gomes & Douglas Alexandre Gomes Vieira, 2024. "Specialists’ knowledge and cognitive stress in making pairwise comparisons," OPSEARCH, Springer;Operational Research Society of India, vol. 61(1), pages 51-70, March.

    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. Bowen Zhang & Yucheng Dong & Enrique Herrera-Viedma, 2019. "Group Decision Making with Heterogeneous Preference Structures: An Automatic Mechanism to Support Consensus Reaching," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 28(3), pages 585-617, June.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Liu Fang & Peng Yanan & Zhang Weiguo & Pedrycz Witold, 2017. "On Consistency in AHP and Fuzzy AHP," Journal of Systems Science and Information, De Gruyter, vol. 5(2), pages 128-147, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    7. Dinulescu Ruxandra & Dobrin Cosmin, 2022. "Applying the fuzzy analytical hierarchy process for classifying and prioritizing healthcare quality attributes," Management & Marketing, Sciendo, vol. 17(1), pages 15-40, March.
    8. Wenqi Liu & Hengjie Zhang & Haiming Liang & Cong-cong Li & Yucheng Dong, 2022. "Managing Consistency and Consensus Issues in Group Decision-Making with Self-Confident Additive Preference Relations and Without Feedback: A Nonlinear Optimization Method," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 213-240, February.
    9. Sajid Ali & Sang-Moon Lee & Choon-Man Jang, 2017. "Determination of the Most Optimal On-Shore Wind Farm Site Location Using a GIS-MCDM Methodology: Evaluating the Case of South Korea," Energies, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    10. Ho, William, 2008. "Integrated analytic hierarchy process and its applications - A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 211-228, April.
    11. Fan, Zhi-Ping & Ma, Jian & Jiang, Yan-Ping & Sun, Yong-Hong & Ma, Louis, 2006. "A goal programming approach to group decision making based on multiplicative preference relations and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(1), pages 311-321, October.
    12. Zola, Fernanda Cavicchioli & Colmenero, João Carlos & Aragão, Franciely Velozo & Rodrigues, Thaisa & Junior, Aldo Braghini, 2020. "Multicriterial model for selecting a charcoal kiln," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    13. Somsuk, Nisakorn & Laosirihongthong, Tritos, 2014. "A fuzzy AHP to prioritize enabling factors for strategic management of university business incubators: Resource-based view," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 198-210.
    14. Fabio Blanco-Mesa & Anna M. Gil-Lafuente & José M. Merigó, 2018. "Subjective stakeholder dynamics relationships treatment: a methodological approach using fuzzy decision-making," Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 441-472, December.
    15. A. Nureize & J. Watada & S. Wang, 2014. "Fuzzy random regression based multi-attribute evaluation and its application to oil palm fruit grading," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 219(1), pages 299-315, August.
    16. Sánchez-Lozano, J.M. & García-Cascales, M.S. & Lamata, M.T., 2016. "GIS-based onshore wind farm site selection using Fuzzy Multi-Criteria Decision Making methods. Evaluating the case of Southeastern Spain," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 86-102.
    17. 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.
    18. Tzu-Chun Sheng & Alvin Chang & Shu-Hui Lan & Shih-Cheng Li, 2020. "Analysis of the Dividend Policy Decision-Making Mechanism of Chinese and Taiwanese Lithium Battery Industries," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-16, October.
    19. Tseng, Fang-Mei & Chiu, Yu-Jing & Chen, Ja-Shen, 2009. "Measuring business performance in the high-tech manufacturing industry: A case study of Taiwan's large-sized TFT-LCD panel companies," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 686-697, June.
    20. L. Sun & B. S. Greenberg, 2006. "Multicriteria Group Decision Making: Optimal Priority Synthesis from Pairwise Comparisons," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 317-339, August.

    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:grdene:v:30:y:2021:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09728-z. 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.