IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/infosf/v16y2014i5d10.1007_s10796-013-9407-z.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A new methodology to support group decision-making for IoT-based emergency response systems

Author

Listed:
  • Ni Li

    (Beihang University)

  • Minghui Sun

    (Beihang University)

  • Zhuming Bi

    (Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne)

  • Zeya Su

    (Beihang University)

  • Chao Wang

    (Beihang University)

Abstract

An emergency response system (ERS) can assist a municipality or government in improving its capabilities to respond urgent and severe events. The responsiveness and effectiveness of an ERS relies greatly on its data acquisition and processing system, which has been evolved with information technology (IT). With the rapid development of sensor networks and cloud computing, the emerging Internet of things (IoT) tends to play an increasing role in ERSs; the networks of sensors, public services, and experts are able to interact with each other and make scientific decisions to the emergencies based on real-time data. When group decision making is required in an ERS, one critical challenge is to obtain the good understanding of massive and diversified data and make consensus group decisions under a high-level stress and strict time constraint. Due to the nature of unorganized data and system complexity, an ERS depends on the perceptions and judgments of experts from different domains; it is challenging to assess the consensus of understanding on the collected data and response plans before appropriate decisions can be reached for emergencies. In this paper, the group decision-making to emergency situations is formulated as a multiple attribute group decision making (MAGDM) problem, the consensus among experts is modeled, and a new methodology is proposed to reach the understanding of emergency response plans with the maximized consensus in course of decision-making. In the implementation, the proposed methodology in integrated with computer programs and encapsulated as a service on the server. The objectives of the new methodology are (i) to enhance the comprehensive group cognizance on emergent scenarios and response plans and (ii) to accelerate the consensus for decision making with an intelligent clustering algorithm, (iii) to adjust the experts’ opinions without affecting the reliability of the decision when the consensus cannot be reached from the preliminary decision-making steps. Partitioning Around Medoids (PAM) has been applied as the clustering algorithm, Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is deployed to adjust evaluation values automatically. The methodology is applied in a case study to illustrate its effectiveness in converging group opinions and promoting the consensus of understanding on emergencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ni Li & Minghui Sun & Zhuming Bi & Zeya Su & Chao Wang, 2014. "A new methodology to support group decision-making for IoT-based emergency response systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 16(5), pages 953-977, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:infosf:v:16:y:2014:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-013-9407-z
    DOI: 10.1007/s10796-013-9407-z
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10796-013-9407-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/s10796-013-9407-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. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    2. Xu, Zeshui, 2005. "Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 249-254, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Chengen Wang & Lida Xu, 2008. "Parameter mapping and data transformation for engineering application integration," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 589-600, November.
    5. Ling Li & Li Xu & Hueiwang Anna Jeng & Dayanand Naik & Thomas Allen & Maria Frontini, 2008. "Creation of environmental health information system for public health service: A pilot study," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 531-542, November.
    6. Lida Xu & WenAn Tan & Hongyuan Zhen & Weiming Shen, 2008. "An approach to enterprise process dynamic modeling supporting enterprise process evolution," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 10(5), pages 611-624, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Kim, Soung Hie & Choi, Sang Hyun & Kim, Jae Kyeong, 1999. "An interactive procedure for multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete information: Range-based approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 139-152, October.
    9. Park, Kyung Sam & Kim, Soung Hie, 1997. "Tools for interactive multiattribute decisionmaking with incompletely identified information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 111-123, April.
    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. Fu Zhang & Weimin Ma, 2023. "Study on Chaotic Multi-Attribute Group Decision Making Based on Weighted Neutrosophic Fuzzy Soft Rough Sets," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-19, February.
    2. Afshin Kamyabniya & M. M. Lotfi & Mohsen Naderpour & Yuehwern Yih, 2018. "Robust Platelet Logistics Planning in Disaster Relief Operations Under Uncertainty: a Coordinated Approach," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 759-782, August.
    3. Kay Lefevre & Chetan Arora & Kevin Lee & Arkady Zaslavsky & Mohamed Reda Bouadjenek & Ali Hassani & Imran Razzak, 2022. "ModelOps for enhanced decision-making and governance in emergency control rooms," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 402-416, September.
    4. Sudesh Sheoran & Sanket Vij, 2023. "A Consumer-Centric Paradigm Shift in Business Environment with the Evolution of the Internet of Things: A Literature Review," Vision, , vol. 27(4), pages 431-442, August.

    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. Qiang Yang & Ping-an Du & Yong Wang & Bin Liang, 2017. "A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    2. 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.
    3. C H Han & B S Ahn, 2005. "Interactive group decision-making procedure using weak strength of preference," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 56(10), pages 1204-1212, October.
    4. Siqing Shan & Cangyan Li & Wei Yao & Jihong Shi & Jie Ren, 2014. "An Empirical Study on Critical Factors Affecting Employee Satisfaction," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(3), pages 447-460, May.
    5. 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.
    6. S H Choi & B S Ahn, 2009. "IP-MAGS: an incomplete preference-based multiple attribute group support system," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 60(4), pages 496-505, April.
    7. Kim, Soung Hie & Ahn, Byeong Seok, 1999. "Interactive group decision making procedure under incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 498-507, August.
    8. Fu-Ling Cai & Xiuwu Liao & Kan-Liang Wang, 2012. "An interactive sorting approach based on the assignment examples of multiple decision makers with different priorities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 87-108, August.
    9. Chulhwan Chris Bang, 2015. "Information systems frontiers: Keyword analysis and classification," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 217-237, February.
    10. Kim, Soung Hie & Choi, Sang Hyun & Kim, Jae Kyeong, 1999. "An interactive procedure for multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete information: Range-based approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 139-152, October.
    11. Fu, Chao & Yang, Shanlin, 2012. "An evidential reasoning based consensus model for multiple attribute group decision analysis problems with interval-valued group consensus requirements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(1), pages 167-176.
    12. Xunjie Gou & Zeshui Xu & Xinxin Wang & Huchang Liao, 2021. "Managing consensus reaching process with self-confident double hierarchy linguistic preference relations in group decision making," Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 51-79, March.
    13. Sam Park, Kyung & Sang Lee, Kyung & Seong Eum, Yun & Park, Kwangtae, 2001. "Extended methods for identifying dominance and potential optimality in multi-criteria analysis with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 134(3), pages 557-563, November.
    14. João N. Clímaco & Luis C. Dias, 2006. "An Approach to Support Negotiation Processes with Imprecise Information Multicriteria Additive Models," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 171-184, March.
    15. Contreras, I. & Marmol, A.M., 2007. "A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria group decision problems with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1530-1539, September.
    16. Xiaoyue Liu & Dawei Ju, 2021. "Hesitant Fuzzy 2-Dimension Linguistic Programming Technique for Multidimensional Analysis of Preference for Multicriteria Group Decision Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(24), pages 1-23, December.
    17. 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.
    18. Meng, Fanyong & Tan, Chunqiao & Chen, Xiaohong, 2017. "Multiplicative consistency analysis for interval fuzzy preference relations: A comparative study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 17-38.
    19. 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.
    20. Han, Chang Hee & Kim, Jae Kyeong & Choi, Sang Hyun, 2004. "Prioritizing engineering characteristics in quality function deployment with incomplete information: A linear partial ordering approach," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 235-249, October.

    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:infosf:v:16:y:2014:i:5:d:10.1007_s10796-013-9407-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.