IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jstats/v4y2021i1p9-121d496063.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Predictor Analysis in Group Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Stan Lipovetsky

    (Independent Researcher, 13417 Inverness Rd., Minnetonka, Minneapolis, MN 55305, USA)

Abstract

Priority vectors in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) are commonly estimated as constant values calculated by the pairwise comparison ratios elicited from an expert. For multiple experts, or panel data, or other data with varied characteristics of measurements, the priority vectors can be built as functions of the auxiliary predictors. For example, in multi-person decision making, the priorities can be obtained in regression modeling by the demographic and socio-economic properties. Then the priorities can be predicted for individual respondents, profiled by each predictor, forecasted in time, studied by the predictor importance, and estimated by the characteristic of significance, fit and quality well-known in regression modeling. Numerical results show that the suggested approaches reveal useful features of priority behavior, that can noticeably extend the AHP abilities and applications for numerous multiple-criteria decision making problems. The considered methods are useful for segmentation of the respondents and finding optimum managerial solutions specific for each segment. It can help to decision makers to focus on the respondents’ individual features and to increase customer satisfaction, their retention and loyalty to the promoted brands or products.

Suggested Citation

  • Stan Lipovetsky, 2021. "Predictor Analysis in Group Decision Making," Stats, MDPI, vol. 4(1), pages 1-14, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jstats:v:4:y:2021:i:1:p:9-121:d:496063
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/4/1/9/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2571-905X/4/1/9/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stan Lipovetsky, 2020. "Personalized Key Drivers for Individual Responses in Regression Modeling," International Journal of Risk and Contingency Management (IJRCM), IGI Global, vol. 9(3), pages 15-30, July.
    2. Stan Lipovetsky & Michael Conklin, 2001. "Analysis of regression in game theory approach," Applied Stochastic Models in Business and Industry, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 319-330, October.
    3. Stan Lipovetsky & W. Michael Conklin, 2015. "Predictor relative importance and matching regression parameters," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(5), pages 1017-1031, May.
    4. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    5. Lipovetsky, Stan, 2018. "Quantum paradigm of probability amplitude and complex utility in entangled discrete choice modeling," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 62-73.
    6. Lipovetsky, Stan, 1996. "The synthetic hierarchy method: An optimizing approach to obtaining priorities in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 550-564, September.
    7. Lipovetsky, Stan & Michael Conklin, W., 2002. "Robust estimation of priorities in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 110-122, February.
    8. Lipovetsky, Stan & Tishler, Asher, 1999. "Interval estimation of priorities in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 153-164, April.
    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. S. Lipovetsky, 2009. "Global Priority Estimation in Multiperson Decision Making," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 77-91, January.
    2. Stan Lipovetsky & Michael Conklin, 2018. "Decreasing Respondent Heterogeneity by Likert Scales Adjustment via Multipoles," Stats, MDPI, vol. 1(1), pages 1-7, November.
    3. Xu, Zeshui & Chen, Jian, 2008. "Some models for deriving the priority weights from interval fuzzy preference relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 184(1), pages 266-280, January.
    4. Lipovetsky, Stan & Michael Conklin, W., 2002. "Robust estimation of priorities in the AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 110-122, February.
    5. Stan Lipovetsky, 2023. "Quantum-like Data Modeling in Applied Sciences: Review," Stats, MDPI, vol. 6(1), pages 1-9, February.
    6. Mikhailov, L., 2004. "A fuzzy approach to deriving priorities from interval pairwise comparison judgements," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 159(3), pages 687-704, December.
    7. Pera, Rebecca & Viglia, Giampaolo & Furlan, Roberto, 2016. "Who Am I? How Compelling Self-storytelling Builds Digital Personal Reputation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 44-55.
    8. Hugh Chen & Scott M. Lundberg & Su-In Lee, 2022. "Explaining a series of models by propagating Shapley values," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Emrah Arbak, 2017. "Identifying the provisioning policies of Belgian banks," Working Paper Research 326, National Bank of Belgium.
    10. Xingwei Hu, 2020. "A theory of dichotomous valuation with applications to variable selection," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 39(10), pages 1075-1099, November.
    11. Hahn, Eugene D., 2006. "Link function selection in stochastic multicriteria decision making models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(1), pages 86-100, July.
    12. Dmitry Sharapov & Paul Kattuman & Diego Rodriguez & F. Javier Velazquez, 2021. "Using the SHAPLEY value approach to variance decomposition in strategy research: Diversification, internationalization, and corporate group effects on affiliate profitability," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 608-623, March.
    13. Hancock, Thomas O. & Broekaert, Jan & Hess, Stephane & Choudhury, Charisma F., 2020. "Quantum choice models: A flexible new approach for understanding moral decision-making," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 37(C).
    14. Lipovetsky, Stan & Conklin, W. Michael, 2006. "Data aggregation and Simpson's paradox gauged by index numbers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(1), pages 334-351, July.
    15. May, Jerrold H. & Shang, Jennifer & Tjader, Youxu Cai & Vargas, Luis G., 2013. "A new methodology for sensitivity and stability analysis of analytic network models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(1), pages 180-188.
    16. Hammer, P.L. & Kogan, A. & Lejeune, M.A., 2006. "Modeling country risk ratings using partial orders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(2), pages 836-859, December.
    17. Elena Pokryshevskaya & Evgeny Antipov, 2013. "Importance-performance analysis for internet stores: a system based on publicly available panel data," HSE Working papers WP BRP 08/MAN/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    18. Pelin Ayranci & Phung Lai & Nhathai Phan & Han Hu & Alexander Kolinowski & David Newman & Deijing Dou, 2022. "OnML: an ontology-based approach for interpretable machine learning," Journal of Combinatorial Optimization, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 770-793, August.
    19. Khoa Tran & Hai-Canh Vu & Lam Pham & Nassim Boudaoud & Ho-Si-Hung Nguyen, 2024. "Robust-MBDL: A Robust Multi-Branch Deep-Learning-Based Model for Remaining Useful Life Prediction of Rotating Machines," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-25, May.
    20. 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.

    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:jstats:v:4:y:2021:i:1:p:9-121:d:496063. 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.