4.7 Article

The group consensus based evidential reasoning approach for multiple attributive group decision analysis

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
Volume 206, Issue 3, Pages 601-608

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2010.03.011

Keywords

Decision analysis; Multiple attributive group decision analysis; Evidential reasoning approach; Group consensus; Compatibility measure

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [70631003, 90718037, 70801024]
  2. MOE of China [200803590007]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many multiple attribute decision analysis problems include both quantitative and qualitative attributes with various kinds of uncertainties such as ignorance, fuzziness, interval data, and interval belief degrees. An evidential reasoning (ER) approach developed in the 1990s and in recent years can be used to model these problems. In this paper, the ER approach is extended to group consensus (GC) situations for multiple attributive group decision analysis problems. In order to construct and check the GC, a compatibility measure between two belief structures is developed first. Considering two experts' utilities, the compatibility between their assessments is naturally constructed using the compatibility measure. Based on the compatibility between two experts' assessments, the GC at a specific level that may be the attribute level, the alternative level, or the global level, can be constructed and reached after the group analysis and discussion within specified times. Under the condition of GC, we conduct a study on the forming of group assessments for alternatives, the achievement of the aggregated utilities of assessment grades, and the properties and procedure of the extended ER approach. An engineering project management software selection problem is solved by the extended ER approach to demonstrate its detailed implementation process, and its validity and applicability. (C) 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available