IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jmathe/v12y2024i11p1699-d1405360.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Multi-Model Assessing and Visualizing Consistency and Compatibility of Experts in Group Decision-Making

Author

Listed:
  • Bojan Srđević

    (Department of Water Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovica 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

  • Zorica Srđević

    (Department of Water Management, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Novi Sad, Trg D. Obradovica 8, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia)

Abstract

In this paper, an approach is proposed for assessing the performance of experts in the group from two perspectives: (1) individual consistencies and (2) deviations from the group decision. The quality of performance of the experts is based on combining the standard and rough analytic hierarchy process (AHP) with the technique for order of preference by similarity to the ideal solution (TOPSIS). The statistical method CRITIC is used to derive weights for the TOPSIS method before the experts are assessed based on demonstrated consistency and deviations from the group. Common performance indicators, such as consistency ratio, Euclidean distance, compatibility, and Spearman’s correlation coefficient, are proposed for re-grouping experts before making the final decisions. A genetic algorithm enables the efficient solving of this complex clustering problem. Implementing the described approach and method can be useful in comparable assessment frameworks. A critical aspect is conducting a thorough pre-assessment of the competence of potential decision makers, often referred to as experts who may not consistently exhibit apparent expertise. The competence of decision makers (which does not have to be associated with compatibility) is evidenced by selected consistency parameters, and in a way, a pre-assessment of their competence follows Plato’s ‘government of the wise’ principle. In the presented study, the compatibility of individuals in the group with the collective position (group decision) is measured by parameters related to their compatibility with the group solution and statistical deviation while ranking decision elements. The proposed multi-model-based approach stands out for its resilience in conducting thorough pre-assessment of the quality (competence) of potential decision makers, often regarded as experts who might not consistently display evident expertise. The wetland study area in Serbia is used as an example application, where seven measures for reducing the risk of drought were evaluated by twelve experts coming from different sectors and with different backgrounds and expertise.

Suggested Citation

  • Bojan Srđević & Zorica Srđević, 2024. "Multi-Model Assessing and Visualizing Consistency and Compatibility of Experts in Group Decision-Making," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:11:p:1699-:d:1405360
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/11/1699/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-7390/12/11/1699/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. L Mikhailov, 2000. "A fuzzy programming method for deriving priorities in the analytic hierarchy process," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 51(3), pages 341-349, March.
    2. 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.
    3. Dominik Siemon, 2022. "Elaborating Team Roles for Artificial Intelligence-based Teammates in Human-AI Collaboration," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 871-912, October.
    4. Kou, Gang & Lin, Changsheng, 2014. "A cosine maximization method for the priority vector derivation in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 235(1), pages 225-232.
    5. María Teresa Escobar & José María Moreno-jiménez, 2007. "Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures in Ahp-Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 287-301, July.
    6. Vanessa Dayeh & Ben W. Morrison, 2020. "The Effect of Perceived Competence and Competitive Environment on Team Decision-Making in the Hidden-Profile Paradigm," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 1181-1205, December.
    7. Özge Şahin Zorluoğlu & Özgür Kabak, 2020. "Weighted Cumulative Belief Degree Approach for Project Portfolio Selection," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(4), pages 679-722, August.
    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. Changsheng Lin & Gang Kou & Yi Peng & Fawaz E. Alsaadi, 2022. "Aggregation of the nearest consistency matrices with the acceptable consensus in AHP-GDM," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 316(1), pages 179-195, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Lundy, Michele & Siraj, Sajid & Greco, Salvatore, 2017. "The mathematical equivalence of the “spanning tree” and row geometric mean preference vectors and its implications for preference analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 257(1), pages 197-208.
    4. 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.
    5. Zhu, Bin & Xu, Zeshui, 2014. "Analytic hierarchy process-hesitant group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 239(3), pages 794-801.
    6. 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.
    7. Virgilio López-Morales & Joel Suárez-Cansino, 2017. "Reliable Intervals Method in Decision-Based Support Models for Group Decision-Making," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 16(01), pages 183-204, January.
    8. Alfredo Altuzarra & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2010. "Consensus Building in AHP-Group Decision Making: A Bayesian Approach," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 58(6), pages 1755-1773, December.
    9. de Luca, Stefano, 2014. "Public engagement in strategic transportation planning: An analytic hierarchy process based approach," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 110-124.
    10. Jerónimo Aznar & Francisco Guijarro & José Moreno-Jiménez, 2011. "Mixed valuation methods: a combined AHP-GP procedure for individual and group multicriteria agricultural valuation," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 190(1), pages 221-238, October.
    11. Lazim Abdullah & Jin Yong Pang, 2016. "Application of Analytic Hierarchy Process for Assessing Sustainable Development among Underprivileged Communities," Journal of Sustainable Development, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 9(5), pages 1-70, September.
    12. 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.
    13. Betul Yagmahan & Hilal Yılmaz, 2023. "An integrated ranking approach based on group multi-criteria decision making and sensitivity analysis to evaluate charging stations under sustainability," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 96-121, January.
    14. Irina Vinogradova-Zinkevič, 2023. "Comparative Sensitivity Analysis of Some Fuzzy AHP Methods," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 11(24), pages 1-41, December.
    15. Alfredo Altuzarra & Pilar Gargallo & José María Moreno-Jiménez & Manuel Salvador, 2022. "Identification of Homogeneous Groups of Actors in a Local AHP-Multiactor Context with a High Number of Decision-Makers: A Bayesian Stochastic Search," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-20, February.
    16. Manuel Salvador & Alfredo Altuzarra & Pilar Gargallo & José María Moreno-Jiménez, 2015. "A Bayesian Approach to Maximising Inner Compatibility in AHP-Systemic Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 655-673, July.
    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. Dong Cheng & Faxin Cheng & Zhili Zhou & Juan Wang, 2017. "Group prioritisation with unknown expert weights in incomplete linguistic context," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(12), pages 2633-2643, September.
    19. Zorica Srđević & Bojan Srđević & Kosana Suvočarev & Laslo Galamboš, 2020. "Hybrid Constructed Wetland Selection as a Group Decision-Making Problem," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(1), pages 295-310, January.
    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.

    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:gam:jmathe:v:12:y:2024:i:11:p:1699-:d:1405360. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.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.