Browse > Article

Group Decision Support with Analytic Hierarchy Process  

An, Byung-Suk (한성대학교 경영학부)
Publication Information
Journal of the military operations research society of Korea / v.28, no.1, 2002 , pp. 83-96 More about this Journal
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
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Aczel J. and Saaty T.L. (1983), Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgements, Journal of Mathematical Psychology 27 93-102
2 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
3 Benjamin C.O. Ehie I.C. and Omurtag Y. (1992), Planning facilities at the University of Missouri-Rolla, Interfaces 22 (4) 95-105
4 Dyer R.F. and Forman E.H. (1992), Group decision support with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, Decision Support Systems 8 99-124
5 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
6 Vargas L.G. (1982), Reciprocal matrices with random coefficients, Mathematical and Computer Modeling 3 69-81
7 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
8 Saaty T.L. (1980), The Analytic Hierarchy Process, McGraw-Hill, New York
9 Zionts S. and Wallenius J. (1976), An interactive programming method for solving the multiple criteria problem, Management Science 22 652-663
10 Cook W. and Seiford L. (1978), Priority ranking and consensus formation, Management Science 24 1721-1732
11 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
12 Zionts S. (1981), A multiple criteria method for choosing among discrete alternatives, European Journal of Operational Research 7 143-147
13 Harsanyi J,C. (1955), Cardinal Welfare, Individual Ethics, and interpersonal Comparisons of Utility Theory. Journal of Political Economy 63 309-321
14 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
15 Keeney R.L. and Kirkwood C.W. (1975), Group decision making using cardinal social welfare function, Management Science 22 430-437
16 Cook W. and Kress M. (1985), Ordinal ranking with intensity of preference, Management Science 31 26-32   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Goicoechea A. Hansen D.R. and Duckstein L. (1982), Multiobjective Decision Analysis with Engineering and Business Application, John Wiley & Sons, New York
18 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
19 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
20 Saaty T.L. and Kearns K.P. (1985) Analytic Planning: The Organization of systems, Pergamon Press, Oxford