IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0172679.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making

Author

Listed:
  • Qiang Yang
  • Ping-an Du
  • Yong Wang
  • Bin Liang

Abstract

This study aims to present a novel approach for determining the weights of decision makers (DMs) based on rough group decision in multiple attribute group decision-making (MAGDM) problems. First, we construct a rough group decision matrix from all DMs’ decision matrixes on the basis of rough set theory. After that, we derive a positive ideal solution (PIS) founded on the average matrix of rough group decision, and negative ideal solutions (NISs) founded on the lower and upper limit matrixes of rough group decision. Then, we obtain the weight of each group member and priority order of alternatives by using relative closeness method, which depends on the distances from each individual group member’ decision to the PIS and NISs. Through comparisons with existing methods and an on-line business manager selection example, the proposed method show that it can provide more insights into the subjectivity and vagueness of DMs’ evaluations and selections.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0172679
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172679
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172679
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0172679&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0172679?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1991. "The Politics of Government Decision-Making: A Theory of Regulatory Capture," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(4), pages 1089-1127.
    2. H. Theil, 1963. "On the Symmetry Approach to the Committee Decision Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 380-393, April.
    3. Stewart, TJ, 1992. "A critical survey on the status of multiple criteria decision making theory and practice," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 20(5-6), pages 569-586.
    4. Samuel E. Bodily, 1979. "Note--A Delegation Process for Combining Individual Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(10), pages 1035-1041, October.
    5. 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.
    6. Pawlak, Zdzisaw & Sowinski, Roman, 1994. "Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 443-459, February.
    7. Simon, Herbert A, 1979. "Rational Decision Making in Business Organizations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(4), pages 493-513, September.
    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. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Solomon, Anthony & Wishart, Nicole & Dublish, Sandipa, 1998. "Multi-attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 107(3), pages 507-529, June.
    10. 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. Luis Serrano-Gomez & Jose Ignacio Munoz-Hernandez, 2019. "Monte Carlo approach to fuzzy AHP risk analysis in renewable energy construction projects," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Adhirashree Vannarath & Arun Kumar Thalla, 2020. "Evaluation, ranking, and selection of pretreatment methods for the conversion of biomass to biogas using multi-criteria decision-making approach," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 40(4), pages 510-525, December.

    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. 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.
    2. Khaled Jabeur & Jean-Marc Martel & Slim Ben Khélifa, 2004. "A Distance-Based Collective Preorder Integrating the Relative Importance of the Group's Members," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 327-349, July.
    3. Krejci, Igor & Voriskova, Andrea, 2010. "Analysis of the Method for the Selection of Regions with Concentrated State Aid," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 2(3), pages 1-8, September.
    4. 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.
    5. Qiang Yang & Ping-an Du & Yong Wang & Bin Liang, 2018. "Developing a rough set based approach for group decision making based on determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 757-779, October.
    6. 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.
    7. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    8. Chang, Yu-Hern & Yeh, Chung-Hsing, 2001. "Evaluating airline competitiveness using multiattribute decision making," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 405-415, October.
    9. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2013. "On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 997-1019, November.
    10. Hocine, Amine & Kouaissah, Noureddine, 2020. "XOR analytic hierarchy process and its application in the renewable energy sector," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    11. Höfer, Tim & Sunak, Yasin & Siddique, Hafiz & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Wind farm siting using a spatial Analytic Hierarchy Process approach: A case study of the Städteregion Aachen," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 222-243.
    12. Wu-E Yang & Chao-Qun Ma & Zhi-Qiu Han, 2017. "Linguistic multi-criteria decision-making with representing semantics by programming," International Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 48(2), pages 225-235, January.
    13. Stewart, Theodor J. & Losa, Fabio B., 2003. "Towards reconciling outranking and value measurement practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 145(3), pages 645-659, March.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Sen Liu & Wei Yu & Ling Liu & Yanan Hu, 2019. "Variable weights theory and its application to multi-attribute group decision making with intuitionistic fuzzy numbers on determining decision maker’s weights," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-21, March.
    17. Wang, Xiaoting & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2008. "Ranking irregularities when evaluating alternatives by using some ELECTRE methods," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 45-63, February.
    18. Heidary Dahooie, Jalil & Qorbani, Ali Reza & Daim, Tugrul, 2021. "Providing a framework for selecting the appropriate method of technology acquisition considering uncertainty in hierarchical group decision-making: Case Study: Interactive television technology," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    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. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2012. "Minimizing Group Discordance Optimization Model for Deriving Expert Weights," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(6), pages 863-875, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:plo:pone00:0172679. 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    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.