IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v20y2011i1d10.1007_s10726-010-9202-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Multiagent Approach for Collective Decision Making in Knowledge Management

Author

Listed:
  • Imène Brigui-Chtioui

    (GRIISG – Institut Supérieur de Gestion)

  • Inès Saad

    (MIS, University of Picardie Jules Vernes
    Amiens School of Management)

Abstract

In this paper we propose an argumentative multiagent model based on a mediator agent in order to automate the resolution of conflicts between decision makers for identifying knowledge that need to be capitalized and that we call “crucial knowledge”. We follow both an argumentative approach and a multi-agent system based on a mediator agent. This new approach allows the mediator agent to elicit preference of decision makers which can be different or even contradictory while exploiting and managing their multiple points of view to identify crucial knowledge. Concrete experiments have been conducted on real data from an automotive company and on randomly generated data. We have observed that a non-argumentative approach is more sensitive to the variation of the number of knowledge than an argumentative one. Indeed, the classification results using the multiagent system are consistent with classifications of human decision makers in nearly 80% of studied cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Imène Brigui-Chtioui & Inès Saad, 2011. "A Multiagent Approach for Collective Decision Making in Knowledge Management," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 20(1), pages 19-37, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:20:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9202-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-010-9202-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-010-9202-x
    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/s10726-010-9202-x?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. Saad, Inès & Chakhar, Salem, 2009. "A decision support for identifying crucial knowledge requiring capitalizing operation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 889-904, June.
    2. Ines Saad & Camille Rosenthal-Sabroux & Michel Grundstein, 2005. "Improving the Decision Making Process in the Design Project by Capitalizing on Company’s Crucial Knowledge," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 131-145, March.
    3. Greco, Salvatore & Matarazzo, Benedetto & Slowinski, Roman, 2001. "Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 1-47, February.
    4. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3890 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4141 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:dau:papers:123456789/3744 is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Chakhar, Salem & Ishizaka, Alessio & Labib, Ashraf & Saad, Inès, 2016. "Dominance-based rough set approach for group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 206-224.

    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. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4080 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Saad, Inès & Chakhar, Salem, 2009. "A decision support for identifying crucial knowledge requiring capitalizing operation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 195(3), pages 889-904, June.
    3. Chakhar, Salem & Ishizaka, Alessio & Labib, Ashraf & Saad, Inès, 2016. "Dominance-based rough set approach for group decisions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 206-224.
    4. Bouzayane, Sarra & Saad, Inès, 2020. "A multicriteria approach based on rough set theory for the incremental Periodic prediction," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(1), pages 282-298.
    5. repec:dau:papers:123456789/4156 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Wen-Min Lu & Qian Long Kweh & Chung-Wei Wang, 2021. "Integration and application of rough sets and data envelopment analysis for assessments of the investment trusts industry," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 296(1), pages 163-194, January.
    7. Pang, Jifang & Liang, Jiye, 2012. "Evaluation of the results of multi-attribute group decision-making with linguistic information," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 294-301.
    8. Eduardo Fernández & José Rui Figueira & Jorge Navarro, 2023. "A theoretical look at ordinal classification methods based on comparing actions with limiting boundaries between adjacent classes," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 325(2), pages 819-843, June.
    9. Doumpos, M. & Marinakis, Y. & Marinaki, M. & Zopounidis, C., 2009. "An evolutionary approach to construction of outranking models for multicriteria classification: The case of the ELECTRE TRI method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 496-505, December.
    10. Skorupski, Jacek & Uchroński, Piotr, 2017. "A fuzzy model for evaluating metal detection equipment at airport security screening checkpoints," International Journal of Critical Infrastructure Protection, Elsevier, vol. 16(C), pages 39-48.
    11. Bouyssou, Denis & Marchant, Thierry, 2007. "An axiomatic approach to noncompensatory sorting methods in MCDM, II: More than two categories," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 178(1), pages 246-276, April.
    12. Becchio, Cristina & Bottero, Marta Carla & Corgnati, Stefano Paolo & Dell’Anna, Federico, 2018. "Decision making for sustainable urban energy planning: an integrated evaluation framework of alternative solutions for a NZED (Net Zero-Energy District) in Turin," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C), pages 803-817.
    13. Rotaru Ionela Magdalena & Borza Sorin, 2014. "Conception And Fabrication In Automotive Industry Using Knowledge Management Principles," Balkan Region Conference on Engineering and Business Education, Sciendo, vol. 1(1), pages 359-364, August.
    14. Fernandez, Eduardo & Navarro, Jorge & Bernal, Sergio, 2010. "Handling multicriteria preferences in cluster analysis," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(3), pages 819-827, May.
    15. Pawel Lezanski & Maria Pilacinska, 2018. "The dominance-based rough set approach to cylindrical plunge grinding process diagnosis," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 989-1004, June.
    16. Tsoukias, Alexis, 2008. "From decision theory to decision aiding methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 187(1), pages 138-161, May.
    17. Choudhary, Devendra & Shankar, Ravi, 2012. "An STEEP-fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS framework for evaluation and selection of thermal power plant location: A case study from India," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 510-521.
    18. McKenna, R. & Bertsch, V. & Mainzer, K. & Fichtner, W., 2018. "Combining local preferences with multi-criteria decision analysis and linear optimization to develop feasible energy concepts in small communities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 268(3), pages 1092-1110.
    19. García Cáceres, Rafael Guillermo & Aráoz Durand, Julián Arturo & Gómez, Fernando Palacios, 2009. "Integral analysis method - IAM," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(3), pages 891-903, February.
    20. Bouyssou, Denis & Pirlot, Marc, 2009. "An axiomatic analysis of concordance-discordance relations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 468-477, December.
    21. Azam, Nouman & Zhang, Yan & Yao, JingTao, 2017. "Evaluation functions and decision conditions of three-way decisions with game-theoretic rough sets," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 261(2), pages 704-714.
    22. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.

    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:20:y:2011:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-010-9202-x. 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.