×

An interactive sorting approach based on the assignment examples of multiple decision makers with different priorities. (English) Zbl 1251.90215

Summary: Although group decision-making is often adopted by many organizations in today’s highly complicated business environment, the multiple criteria sorting (MCS) problem in the context of group decision-making has not been studied sufficiently. To this end, we propose a new interactive method to assist a group of decision makers (DMs) with different priorities. With the goal of relieving the cognitive effort exerted by DMs, this method uses the assignment examples provided by the DMs to draw the parameters for the group preference model. In the iterative MCS process that we employ, the DMs are supported from two perspectives. When the assignment examples provided by the DMs are inconsistent, a RINCON algorithm is developed to identify all the possible solutions that the DMs can use to resolve the conflicts. When the examples are consistent, the potential and the fittest assignments of each alternative are deduced using linear programming techniques. These are then presented to the DMs to help them provide more information for the decision-making process. Furthermore, the priority of each DM is objectively and subjectively evaluated, and then progressively updated to reflect the decision-making performance of a DM at each iteration. Meanwhile, the priorities are integrated into the linear programming model to deduce the fittest assignment, as well as into the RINCON algorithm. Hence, the assignment examples of the DMs with higher priorities are emphasized in the fittest assignment, and are less likely to be revised for inconsistency. A practical example featuring MBA programs is also presented to demonstrate the proposed method.

MSC:

90B50 Management decision making, including multiple objectives
91B10 Group preferences
Full Text: DOI

References:

[1] Almeida-Dias, J., Figueira, J. R., & Roy, B. (2010). ELECTRE TRI-C: a multiple criteria sorting method based on central reference actions. European Journal of Operational Research, 204, 565–580. · Zbl 1181.90140 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.10.018
[2] Araz, C., & Ozkarahan, I. (2007). Supplier evaluation and management system for strategic sourcing based on a new multicriteria sorting procedure. International Journal of Production Economics, 106, 585–606. · doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.08.008
[3] Baucells, M., & Sarin, R. K. (2003). Group decisions with multiple criteria. Management Science, 49, 1105–1118. · Zbl 1232.91163 · doi:10.1287/mnsc.49.8.1105.16400
[4] Behzadian, M., Kazemzadeh, R. B., Albadvi, A., & Aghdasi, M. (2010). PROMETHEE: a comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications. European Journal of Operational Research, 200, 198–215. · Zbl 1189.90074 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.01.021
[5] Bregar, A., Györkös, J., & Jurič, M. B. (2008). Interactive aggregation/disaggregation dichotomic sorting procedure for group decision analysis based on the threshold model. Informatica, 19, 161–190. · Zbl 1147.68702
[6] Cabrerizo, F. J., Alonso, S., & Herrera-Viedma, E. (2009). A consensus model for group decision making problems with unbalanced fuzzy linguistic information. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 8, 109–131. · Zbl 1178.68533 · doi:10.1142/S0219622009003296
[7] Chen, Y., Hipel, K. W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2007). Multiple-criteria sorting using case-based distance models with an application in water resources management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics Part A Systems and Humans, 37, 680–691. · doi:10.1109/TSMCA.2007.902629
[8] Chen, Y., Li, K. W., Kilgour, D. M., & Hipel, K. W. (2008). A case-based distance model for multiple criteria ABC analysis. Computers & Operations Research, 35, 776–796. · Zbl 1278.90014 · doi:10.1016/j.cor.2006.03.024
[9] Damart, S., Dias, L. C., & Mousseau, V. (2007). Supporting groups in sorting decisions, methodology and use of a multi-criteria aggregation/disaggregation DSS. Decision Support Systems, 43, 1464–1475. · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.06.002
[10] Dembczyński, K., Greco, S., & Slowinski, R. (2009). Rough set approach to multiple criteria classification with imprecise evaluation and assignments. European Journal of Operational Research, 198, 626–636. · Zbl 1163.90540 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.09.033
[11] Dias, L., Mousseau, V., & Figueira, J. (2002). An aggregation/disaggregation approach to obtain robust conclusion with ELECTRE TRI. European Journal of Operational Research, 138, 332–348. · Zbl 1003.90512 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00250-8
[12] Dias, L. C., & Clímaco, J. N. (2000). ELECTRE TRI for groups with imprecise information on parameter values. Group Decision and Negotiation, 9, 355–377. · doi:10.1023/A:1008739614981
[13] Doumpos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (2004). A multicriteria classification approach based on pairwise comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 158, 378–389. · Zbl 1067.90067 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2003.06.011
[14] Doumpos, M., & Zopounidis, C. (2007). Model combination for credit risk assessment: a stacked generalization approach. Annals of Operation Research, 151, 289–306. · Zbl 1132.91488 · doi:10.1007/s10479-006-0120-x
[15] Doumpos, M., Zanakis, S., & Zopounidis, C. (2001). Multicriteria preference disaggregation for classification problems with an application to global investing risk. Decision Sciences, 32, 333–385. · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.2001.tb00963.x
[16] Fernandez, E., Navarro, J., & Bernal, S. (2009). Multicriteria sorting using a valued indifference relation under a preference disaggregation paradigm. European Journal of Operational Research, 198, 602–609. · Zbl 1163.90545 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2008.09.020
[17] Figueira, J., & Roy, B. (2002). Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos’ procedure. European Journal of Operational Research, 139, 317–326. · Zbl 1001.90036 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00370-8
[18] González-Pachón, J., & Romero, C. (2007). Inferring consensus weights from pairwise comparison matrices without suitable properties. Annals of Operation Research, 154, 123–132. · Zbl 1142.91400 · doi:10.1007/s10479-007-0182-4
[19] Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Słowiński, R. (2001). Rough sets theory for multi-criteria decision analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 129, 1–47. · Zbl 1008.91016 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(00)00167-3
[20] Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Słowiński, R. (2002). Rough sets methodology for sorting problems in presence of multiple attributes and criteria. European Journal of Operational Research, 138, 247–259. · Zbl 1008.90509 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00244-2
[21] Greco, S., Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (2009). In Lecture notes in computer science: Vol. 5783. The possible and the necessary for multiple criteria group decision (pp. 203–214). Berlin: Springer.
[22] Greco, S., Matarazzo, B., & Słowiński, R. (2010). Dominance-based rough set approach to decision under uncertainty and time preference. Annals of Operation Research, 176, 41–75. · Zbl 1233.91080 · doi:10.1007/s10479-009-0566-8
[23] Jabeur, K., & Martel, J.-M. (2004). A distance-based collective preorder integrating the relative importance of the group’s members. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 327–349. · doi:10.1023/B:GRUP.0000042894.00775.75
[24] Jabeur, K., & Martel, J.-M. (2007). An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making. European Journal of Operational Research, 180, 1272–1289. · Zbl 1121.90356 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2006.05.032
[25] Kim, S. H., Cho, S. H., & Kim, J. K. (1999). An interactive procedure for multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete information, range-based approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 118, 139–152. · Zbl 0946.91006 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00309-9
[26] Köksalan, M., & Özpeynirci, S. B. (2009). An interactive sorting method for additive utility functions. Computers & Operations Research, 36, 2565–2572. · Zbl 1179.91057 · doi:10.1016/j.cor.2008.11.006
[27] Köksalan, M., & Ulu, C. (2003). An interactive approach for placing alternatives in preference classes. European Journal of Operational Research, 144, 429–439. · Zbl 1028.90524 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00138-8
[28] Köksalan, M., Mousseau, V., Özpeynirci, Ö., & Özpeynirci, S. B. (2009). A new outranking-based approach for assigning alternatives to ordered classes. Naval Research Logistics, 56, 74–85. · Zbl 1158.90364 · doi:10.1002/nav.20315
[29] Li, Y., Liao, X., & Zhao, W. (2009). A rough set approach to knowledge discovery in analyzing competitive advantages of firms. Annals of Operation Research, 168, 205–223. · Zbl 1179.90187 · doi:10.1007/s10479-008-0399-x
[30] Liao, X., Li, Y., & Lu, B. (2007). A model for selecting an ERP system based on linguistic information processing. Information Systems, 32, 1005–1017. · doi:10.1016/j.is.2006.10.005
[31] Lin, C.-T., Lee, C., & Wu, C.-S. (2010). Fuzzy group decision making in pursuit of a competitive marketing strategy. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 9, 281–300. · Zbl 1186.90066 · doi:10.1142/S0219622010003828
[32] Matsatsinis, N. F., Grigoroudis, E., & Samaras, A. (2005). Aggregation and disaggregation of preferences for collective decision-making. Group Decision and Negotiation, 14, 217–232. · doi:10.1007/s10726-005-7443-x
[33] Mota, C. M. M., & Almeida, A. T. (2011). A multicriteria decision model for assigning priority classes to activities in project management. Annals of Operation Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-011-0853-z .
[34] Mousseau, V., & Dias, L. (2004). Valued outranking relations in ELECTRE providing manageable disaggregation procedure. European Journal of Operational Research, 156, 467–482. · Zbl 1056.90088 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00120-6
[35] Mousseau, V., & Słowiński, R. (1998). Inferring an ELECTRE TRI model from assignment examples. Journal of Global Optimization, 12, 157–174. · Zbl 0904.90093 · doi:10.1023/A:1008210427517
[36] Mousseau, V., Figueira, J., & Dias, L. (2003). Resolving inconsistencies among constraints on the parameters of an MCDA model. European Journal of Operational Research, 147, 72–93. · Zbl 1011.90530 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(02)00233-3
[37] Mousseau, V., Dias, L. C., & Figueira, J. (2006). Dealing with inconsistent judgments in multiple criteria sorting models. 4OR: A Quarterly Journal of Operations Research, 4, 145–158. · Zbl 1141.90449 · doi:10.1007/s10288-005-0076-8
[38] Nemery, Ph., & Lamboray, C. (2008). FlowSort, a flow-based sorting method with limiting and central profiles. Top, 16, 90–113. · Zbl 1163.91335 · doi:10.1007/s11750-007-0036-x
[39] Neves, L. P., Martins, A. G., Antunes, C. H., & Dias, L. C. (2008). A multi-criteria decision approach to sorting actions for promoting energy efficiency. Energy Policy, 36, 2351–2363. · doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2007.11.032
[40] Ngo The, A., & Mousseau, V. (2002). Using assignment examples to infer category limits for the ELECTRE TRI method. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 11, 29–43. · Zbl 1037.90542 · doi:10.1002/mcda.314
[41] Perny, P. (1998). Multicriteria filtering methods based on concordance/non- discordance principles. Annals of Operation Research, 80, 137–167. · Zbl 0907.90011 · doi:10.1023/A:1018907729570
[42] 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, 79, 249–265. · Zbl 0815.90003 · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(94)90356-5
[43] Rao, C., & Peng, J. (2009). Fuzzy group decision making model based on credibility theory and gray relative degree. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 8, 515–527. · Zbl 1187.68562 · doi:10.1142/S0219622009003533
[44] Rocha, C., & Dias, L. (2008). An algorithm for ordinal sorting based on ELECTRE with categories defined by examples. Journal of Global Optimization, 42, 255–277. · Zbl 1171.90003 · doi:10.1007/s10898-007-9240-3
[45] Shi, Y., Peng, Y., Kou, G., & Chen, Z. X. (2005). Classifying credit card accounts for business intelligence and decision making: a multiple-criteria quadratic programming approach. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 4, 581–599. · doi:10.1142/S0219622005001775
[46] Tavana, M., Sodenkamp, M., & Suhl, L. (2010). A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement. Annals of Operation Research, 181, 393–421. · Zbl 1209.90206 · doi:10.1007/s10479-010-0727-9
[47] Tzeng, G. H., & Huang, C. Y. (2011). Combined DEMATEL technique with hybrid MCDM methods for creating the aspired intelligent global manufacturing & logistics systems. Annals of Operation Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-010-0829-4 . · Zbl 1251.90112
[48] Vetschera, R., Chen, Y., Keith, W., & Kilgour, D. M. (2010). Robustness and information levels in case-based multiple criteria sorting. European Journal of Operational Research, 202, 841–852. · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2009.06.026
[49] Xu, Z. S. (2005). An approach to group decision making based on incomplete linguistic preference relations. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 4, 153–160. · doi:10.1142/S0219622005001349
[50] Yeh, C. H., & Chang, Y. H. (2009). Modeling subjective evaluation for fuzzy group multicriteria decision making. European Journal of Operational Research, 194, 464–473. · Zbl 1154.90641 · doi:10.1016/j.ejor.2007.12.029
[51] Zahir, S. (2006). Eliciting ratio preferences for the analytic hierarchy process with visual interfaces: a new model of preference measurement. International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, 5, 245–261. · doi:10.1142/S0219622006001939
[52] Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2002). Multicriteria classification and sorting methods: a literature review. European Journal of Operational Research, 138, 229–246. · Zbl 1010.90032 · doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00243-0
[53] Zopounidis, C., Doumpos, M., & Zanakis, S. (1999). Stock evaluation using a preference disaggregation methodology. Decision Sciences, 30, 313–333. · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1999.tb01612.x
This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. In some cases that data have been complemented/enhanced by data from zbMATH Open. This attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming completeness or a perfect matching.