IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v15y2006i1d10.1007_s10726-005-1159-9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Malcolm J. Beynon

    (Cardiff University)

Abstract

DS/AHP is a nascent method of multi-criteria decision-making, based on the Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence and indirectly the Analytic Hierarchy Process. It is concerned with the identification of the levels of preference that decision makers have towards certain decision alternatives (DAs), through preference judgements made over a number of different criteria. The working result from a DS/AHP analysis is the body of evidence (BOE), which includes a series of mass values that represent the exact beliefs in the best DA(s) existing within certain subsets of DAs. This paper considers the role of DS/AHP as an aid to group decision-making, through the utilisation of a distance measure (between BOEs). Here, the distance measure enables the identification of the members of the decision-making group who are in most agreement, with respect to the judgements they have individually made. The utilisation of a single linkage dendrite approach to clustering elucidates an appropriate order to the aggregation of the judgements of the group members. This develops the DS/AHP method as a tool to identify inter-group alliances, as well as introduce a ‘majority rule’ approach to decision-making through consensus building.

Suggested Citation

  • Malcolm J. Beynon, 2006. "The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-42, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:15:y:2006:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-005-1159-9
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-005-1159-9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-005-1159-9
    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/s10726-005-1159-9?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. Xu, Xiaozhan & Martel, Jean-Marc & Lamond, Bernard F., 2001. "A multiple criteria ranking procedure based on distance between partial preorders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 69-80, August.
    2. Robert L. Armacost & Jamshid C. Hosseini & Julie Pet-Edwards, 1999. "Using the Analytic Hierarchy Process as a Two-phase Integrated Decision Approach for Large Nominal Groups," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 8(6), pages 535-555, November.
    3. Bana E Costa, Carlos A. & Stewart, Theodor J. & Vansnick, Jean-Claude, 1997. "Multicriteria decision analysis: Some thoughts based on the tutorial and discussion sessions of the ESIGMA meetings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 28-37, May.
    4. Hinsz, Verlin B., 1999. "Group Decision Making with Responses of a Quantitative Nature: The Theory of Social Decision Schemes for Quantities, , , , , , , , , ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 28-49, October.
    5. Hollingshead, Andrea B., 1996. "The Rank-Order Effect in Group Decision Making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 181-193, December.
    6. Iqbal Ali & Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1986. "Note---Ordinal Ranking and Intensity of Preference: A Linear Programming Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(12), pages 1642-1647, December.
    7. Kenneth J. Arrow, 1950. "A Difficulty in the Concept of Social Welfare," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(4), pages 328-328.
    8. Mehrez, Abraham, 1997. "The interface between OR/MS and decision theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 99(1), pages 38-47, May.
    9. 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.
    10. Ray, Thomas G. & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 1998. "Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 129-136, April.
    11. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    12. Beynon, Malcolm, 2002. "DS/AHP method: A mathematical analysis, including an understanding of uncertainty," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 140(1), pages 148-164, July.
    13. 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.
    14. Lipshitz, Raanan & Strauss, Orna, 1997. "Coping with Uncertainty: A Naturalistic Decision-Making Analysis," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 69(2), pages 149-163, February.
    15. Matsatsinis, Nikolaos F. & Samaras, Andreas P., 2001. "MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 130(2), pages 414-429, April.
    16. Beynon, Malcolm & Curry, Bruce & Morgan, Peter, 2000. "The Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence: an alternative approach to multicriteria decision modelling," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 37-50, February.
    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. Lu, Xi & Mo, Hongming & Deng, Yong, 2015. "An evidential opinion dynamics model based on heterogeneous social influential power," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 98-107.
    2. Frikha, Ahmed & Moalla, Hela, 2015. "Analytic hierarchy process for multi-sensor data fusion based on belief function theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 133-147.
    3. Y. Chen & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2012. "A Decision Rule Aggregation Approach to Multiple Criteria-Multiple Participant Sorting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 727-745, September.
    4. Wen-Hsien Tsai & Ching-Chien Yang & Jun-Der Leu & Ya-Fen Lee & Chih-Hao Yang, 2013. "An Integrated Group Decision Making Support Model for Corporate Financing Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 1103-1127, November.
    5. Danielle Costa Morais & Adiel Teixeira Almeida & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "A Sorting Model for Group Decision Making: A Case Study of Water Losses in Brazil," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(5), pages 937-960, September.

    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. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    2. Vaidya, Omkarprasad S. & Kumar, Sushil, 2006. "Analytic hierarchy process: An overview of applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 169(1), pages 1-29, February.
    3. Ren, Jingzheng & Lützen, Marie, 2017. "Selection of sustainable alternative energy source for shipping: Multi-criteria decision making under incomplete information," Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 1003-1019.
    4. Alessandro Luè & Alberto Colorni, 2015. "Conflict Analysis for Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study of a Transportation System in a Tourist Area," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 613-632, July.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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).
    8. Jian Hu & Sanjay Mehrotra, 2012. "Robust and Stochastically Weighted Multiobjective Optimization Models and Reformulations," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 60(4), pages 936-953, August.
    9. Y. Chen & D. Marc Kilgour & Keith W. Hipel, 2012. "A Decision Rule Aggregation Approach to Multiple Criteria-Multiple Participant Sorting," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(5), pages 727-745, September.
    10. N. F. Matsatsinis & E. Grigoroudis & A. Samaras, 2005. "Aggregation and Disaggregation of Preferences for Collective Decision-Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(3), pages 217-232, May.
    11. Amelia Bilbao-Terol & Mariano Jiménez & Mar Arenas-Parra, 2016. "A group decision making model based on goal programming with fuzzy hierarchy: an application to regional forest planning," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 245(1), pages 137-162, October.
    12. Frikha, Ahmed & Moalla, Hela, 2015. "Analytic hierarchy process for multi-sensor data fusion based on belief function theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 241(1), pages 133-147.
    13. Wang, Ying-Ming & Yang, Jian-Bo & Xu, Dong-Ling, 2006. "Environmental impact assessment using the evidential reasoning approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1885-1913, November.
    14. Brent, Alan C. & Rogers, David E.C. & Ramabitsa-Siimane, Tsaletseng S.M. & Rohwer, Mark B., 2007. "Application of the analytical hierarchy process to establish health care waste management systems that minimise infection risks in developing countries," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(1), pages 403-424, August.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Beynon, Malcolm J., 2005. "A novel technique of object ranking and classification under ignorance: An application to the corporate failure risk problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 167(2), pages 493-517, December.
    18. Tasneem Bani-Mustafa & Nicola Pedroni & Enrico Zio & Dominique Vasseur & Francois Beaudouin, 2020. "A hierarchical tree-based decision-making approach for assessing the relative trustworthiness of risk assessment models," Journal of Risk and Reliability, , vol. 234(6), pages 748-763, December.
    19. Jacinto González-Pachón & Carlos Romero, 2007. "Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 154(1), pages 123-132, October.
    20. Lianmeng Jiao & Quan Pan & Yan Liang & Xiaoxue Feng & Feng Yang, 2016. "Combining sources of evidence with reliability and importance for decision making," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 24(1), pages 87-106, 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:spr:grdene:v:15:y:2006:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-005-1159-9. 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.