Journal of the military operations research society of Korea (한국국방경영분석학회지)

Military Operations Research Society of Korea (한국국방경영분석학회)
권호 표지

Group Decision Support with Analytic Hierarchy Process

계층적 분석기법을 활용한 그룹의사결정 지원

  • Published : 2002.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is well suited to group decision making and offers numerous benefits as a synthesizing mechanism in group decisions. To date, the majority of AHP applications have been in group settings. One reason for this may be that groups often have an advantage over individual when there exists a significant difference between the importance of quality in the decision and the importance of time in which to obtain the decision. Another reason may be the best alternative is selected by comparing alternative solutions, testing against selected criteria, a task ideally suited for AHP. In general, aggregation methods employed in group AHP can be largely classified into two methods: geometric mean method and (weighted) arithmetic mean method. In a situation where there do not exist clear guidelines for selection between them, two methods do not always guarantee the same group decision result. We propose a simulation approach for building group consensus without efforts to make point estimates from individual diverse preference judgments, displaying possible disagreements as is natural in group members'different viewpoints.

Keywords

References

  1. Aczel J. and Saaty T.L. (1983), Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27 93-102
  2. Ahn B.S. (2000), Short communication to the analytic hierarchy process in an uncertain environment: A simulation approach by Hauser and Tadikamalla, European Journal of Operational Research 124 217-218
  3. Bard J.F. and Souk S.F. (1990), A tradeoff analysis for rough terrain cargo handlers using the AHP: An example of group decision making, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 37 (3) 222-227
  4. Benjamin C.O. Ehie I.C. and Omurtag Y. (1992), Planning facilities at the University of Missouri-Rolla, Interfaces 22 (4) 95-105
  5. Cook W. and Kress M. (1985), Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference, Management Science 31 26-32 https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.31.1.26
  6. Cook W. and Seiford L. (1978), Priority ranking and consensus formation, Management Science 24 1721-1732
  7. Dyer R.F. and Forman E.H. (1992), Group decision support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Decision Support Systems 8 99-124
  8. Goicoechea A. Hansen D.R. and Duckstein L. (1982), Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Application, John Wiley & Sons, New York
  9. Harsanyi J,C. (1955), Cardinal Welfare, Individual Ethics, and interpersonal Comparisons of Utility Theory. Journal of Political Economy 63 309-321
  10. Hauser D. and Tadikamalla P. (1996), The Analytic Hierarchy Process in an uncertain environment: A simulation approach, European journal of Operational Research 91 27-37
  11. Keeney R.L. and Kirkwood C.W. (1975), Group decision making using cardinal social welfare function, Management Science 22 430-437
  12. Kemeny J.G. and Snell L.J. (1962), Preference ranking: An axiomatic approach, in mathematical models in the social sciences, Ginn., New York, 9-23
  13. Korhonen P. Moskowitz H. Wallenius J. and Zionts S. (1986), An interactive approach to multiple criteria optimization with multiple decision-makers, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 33 589-602
  14. Ramanathan R. and 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
  15. Saaty T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York
  16. Saaty T.L. (1989), Group Decision Making and the AHP. In the Analytic Hierarchy Process: Application and Studies (Edited by B. Golden, E. Wasil, and P. Harker), Springer-Verlag, Berlin
  17. Saaty T.L. and Kearns K.P. (1985) Analytic Planning: The Organization of systems, Pergamon Press, Oxford
  18. Vargas L.G. (1982), Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients, Mathematical and Computer Modeling 3 69-81
  19. Zionts S. and Wallenius J. (1976), An interactive programming method for solving the multiple criteria problem, Management Science 22 652-663
  20. Zionts S. (1981), A multiple criteria method for choosing among discrete alternatives, European Journal of Operational Research 7 143-147