IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v203y2010i1p176-184.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Visualizing preferences on spheres for group decisions based on multiplicative preference relations

Author

Listed:
  • Ma, Li-Ching

Abstract

Decision makers' choices are often influenced by visual background information. One of the difficulties in group decision is that decision makers may bias their judgment in order to increase the possibility of a preferred result. Hence, the method used to provide visual aids in helping decision making teams both to observe the background context and to perceive outliers is an important issue to consider. This study proposes an extended Decision Ball model to visualize a group's decisions. By observing the Decision Balls, each decision maker can: see individual ranking as well as similarities between alternatives, identify the differences between individual judgments and the group's collective opinion, observe the clusters of alternatives as well as clusters of decision makers, and discover outliers. Thus, this method can help decision makers make a more objective judgment.

Suggested Citation

  • Ma, Li-Ching, 2010. "Visualizing preferences on spheres for group decisions based on multiplicative preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 203(1), pages 176-184, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:203:y:2010:i:1:p:176-184
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0377-2217(09)00508-6
    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. Seiford, Lawrence M. & Zhu, Joe, 2003. "Context-dependent data envelopment analysis--Measuring attractiveness and progress," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 397-408, October.
    2. Rick L. Andrews & Ajay K. Manrai, 1999. "MDS Maps for Product Attributes and Market Response: An Application to Scanner Panel Data," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 584-604.
    3. Wolfgang Jank & P. K. Kannan, 2005. "Understanding Geographical Markets of Online Firms Using Spatial Models of Customer Choice," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(4), pages 623-634, December.
    4. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    5. Pradeep K. Chintagunta, 1992. "Estimating a Multinomial Probit Model of Brand Choice Using the Method of Simulated Moments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(4), pages 386-407.
    6. Dorit S. Hochbaum & Asaf Levin, 2006. "Methodologies and Algorithms for Group-Rankings Decision," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(9), pages 1394-1408, September.
    7. Wade D. Cook & Boaz Golany & Moshe Kress & Michal Penn & Tal Raviv, 2005. "Optimal Allocation of Proposals to Reviewers to Facilitate Effective Ranking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(4), pages 655-661, April.
    8. Lai, Vincent S. & Wong, Bo K. & Cheung, Waiman, 2002. "Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: A case using the AHP in software selection," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 134-144, February.
    9. Alan D. Meyer, 1991. "Visual Data in Organizational Research," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 218-236, May.
    10. Kiang, Melody Y., 2001. "Extending the Kohonen self-organizing map networks for clustering analysis," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 161-180, December.
    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.
    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. Ma, Li-Ching, 2016. "A new group ranking approach for ordinal preferences based on group maximum consensus sequences," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 171-181.
    2. Chun-xiang Guo & Ying Peng, 2015. "Lattice Order Group Decision Making with Interval Probability Based on Prospect Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 753-775, 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.

    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. Ma, Li-Ching, 2012. "Screening alternatives graphically by an extended case-based distance approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 96-103, January.
    2. Karami, Ezatollah, 2006. "Appropriateness of farmers' adoption of irrigation methods: The application of the AHP model," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 101-119, January.
    3. Wenshuai Wu & Gang Kou, 2016. "A group consensus model for evaluating real estate investment alternatives," Financial Innovation, Springer;Southwestern University of Finance and Economics, vol. 2(1), pages 1-10, December.
    4. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Stochastic preference analysis in numerical preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(2), pages 628-633.
    5. Wu, Zhibin & Huang, Shuai & Xu, Jiuping, 2019. "Multi-stage optimization models for individual consistency and group consensus with preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(1), pages 182-194.
    6. Li-Ching Ma, 2018. "Discovering Consensus Preferences Visually Based on Gower Plots," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 17(03), pages 741-761, May.
    7. 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.
    8. Greco, Salvatore & Ishizaka, Alessio & Tasiou, Menelaos & Torrisi, Gianpiero, 2019. "Sigma-Mu efficiency analysis: A methodology for evaluating units through composite indicators," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 278(3), pages 942-960.
    9. Lina Bairašauskienė, 2017. "Headmaster’s Competencies in Management Area: Evaluating the Significance Level of Managerial Competencies in Lithuanian Comprehensive Schools," European Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies Articles, Revistia Research and Publishing, vol. 2, ejms_v2_i.
    10. 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.
    11. Lin, Ming-Ian & Lee, Yuan-Duen & Ho, Tsai-Neng, 2011. "Applying integrated DEA/AHP to evaluate the economic performance of local governments in China," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 209(2), pages 129-140, March.
    12. Chen, Yen-Liang & Cheng, Li-Chen, 2009. "Mining maximum consensus sequences from group ranking data," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 198(1), pages 241-251, October.
    13. Wang, Ying-Ming & Fan, Zhi-Ping & Hua, Zhongsheng, 2007. "A chi-square method for obtaining a priority vector from multiplicative and fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 182(1), pages 356-366, October.
    14. Tomashevskii, I.L., 2015. "Eigenvector ranking method as a measuring tool: Formulas for errors," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 240(3), pages 774-780.
    15. 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.
    16. Ruiz-Villaverde, Alberto & Picazo-Tadeo, Andrés J. & González-Gómez, Francisco, 2015. "The ‘social choice’ of privatising urban water services: A case study of Madrid in Spain," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 616-629.
    17. Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    18. K. Rezaei-Moghaddam & E. Karami, 2008. "A multiple criteria evaluation of sustainable agricultural development models using AHP," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 407-426, August.
    19. Wen-Yu Chen & Chia-Yuan Hsu, 2012. "Assessing Travel Business Partners Using the Critical Incident Technique and the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(2), pages 295-310, April.
    20. Vassiliki Kazana & Angelos Kazaklis & Dimitrios Raptis & Christos Stamatiou, 2020. "A combined multi-criteria approach to assess forest management sustainability: an application to the forests of Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Region in Greece," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 294(1), pages 321-343, November.

    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:203:y:2010:i:1:p:176-184. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    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.