Skip to main content
Log in

Abstract

In practice most organisational decisions are made by groups that bring into the problem multiple perspectives, both complementary and contradictory. When having a group of decision makers, usually individuals’ preferences are either led to consensus or are aggregated with the use of some function like the median, the arithmetic or geometric mean. We focus in the second case, where individual’s preferences need to be aggregated. Our approach is based on the fact that when two decision makers are asked to give their preference between a pair of criteria using a specific scale, it is possible that they will give slightly different answers, even when they actually have the same opinion. This difference will not affect the case of a single decision maker, as it will be consistent throughout the whole process. However, it can affect a group decision when the values will be used as an input for the aggregation function. A novel approach is presented that enhances group decision making through a group calibration process. The proposed process adjusts individuals’ preferences based on their answers on a set of standardized questions prior to the aggregation phase. The method focuses The whole concept is applied to the group analytical network process method and it is illustrated through a telecommunications project case. The decision under examination concerns the selection of the right place for deploying a new telecom service of a multinational-based telecommunications company where a group of geographically dispersed decision makers form an ad-hoc virtual team in order to select the location for a new technical support centre.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alonso S, Herrera-Viedma E, Chiclana F, Herrera F (2010) A web based consensus support system for group decision making problems and incomplete preferences. Inf Sci 180(23):4477–4495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aull-Hyde R, Erdogan S, Duke JM (2006) An experiment on the consistency of aggregated comparison matrices in ahp. Eur J Oper Res 171(1):290–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balinski ML, Laraki R (2010) Majority judgment: measuring, ranking, and electing. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Basak I, Saaty T (1993) Group decision making using the analytic hierarchy process. Math Comput Model 17(4–5):101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belton V, Gear T (1997) On the meaning of relative importance. J Multi-Criteria Decis Anal 6(6):335–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonner BL, Baumann MR, Dalal RS (2002) The effects of member expertise on group decision-making and performance. Organ Behav Human Decis Process 88(2):719–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonner BL, Gonzalez CM, Sommer D (2004) Centrality and accuracy in group quantity estimations. Group Dyn 8(3):155–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) Using the fuzzy majority approach for gis-based multicriteria group decision-making. Comput Geosci 36(3):302–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen S-M, Niou S-J (2011) Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on fuzzy preference relations. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):3865–3872

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen M-Y, Huang M-J, Cheng Y-C (2009) Measuring knowledge management performance using a competitive perspective: an empirical study. Expert Syst Appl 36(4):8449–8459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Figueira J, Greco S, Ehrgott M (2005) Multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys. International series in operations research & management science. Springer, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Forman E, Peniwati K (1998) Aggregating individual judgments and priorities with the analytic hierarchy process. Eur J Oper Res 108(1):165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang Y, Xu Z, Yu X (2012) Compatibility measures and consensus models for group decision making with intuitionistic multiplicative preference relations. Appl Soft Comput 13(4):2075–2086

    Google Scholar 

  • Kadziński M, Greco S, Słowiński R (2011) Selection of a representative value function for robust ordinal regression in group decision making. Group Decis Negot 22(3):429–462

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirytopoulos KA, Voulgaridou D, Rokou E (2011) ANP solver: an alternative tool for implementing the anp method. Int J Appl Decis Sci 4(1):34–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Lago PP, Beruvides MG, Jian J-Y, Canto AM, Sandoval A, Taraban R (2007) Structuring group decision making in a web-based environment by using the nominal group technique. Comput Ind Eng 52(2): 277–295

    Google Scholar 

  • Lai VS, Wong BK, Cheung W (2002) Group decision making in a multiple criteria environment: a case using the ahp in software selection. Eur J Oper Res 137(1):134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leyva-López JC, Fernández-González E (2003) A new method for group decision support based on electre iii methodology. Eur J Oper Res 148(1):14–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rokou E, Kirytopoulos K, Voulgaridou D (2012) Analytic network process algorithm. In: DSS, pp 185–196

  • Saaty TL (1996) Decision making with dependence and feedback: the analytic network process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TM (2008) Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int J Serv Sci 1(1):83–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Shang JS (2007) Group decision-making: head-count versus intensity of preference. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 41(1):22–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saaty TL, Vargas LG (2007) Dispersion of group judgments. Math Comput Model 46(7–8):918–925

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders C, Miranda S (1998) Information acquisition in group decision making. Inf Manag 34(2):55–74. [Cited By (since 1996): 22 Export Date: 22 February 2013 Source: Scopus]

    Google Scholar 

  • Stengel D (2013) Aggregating incomplete individual ratings in group resource allocation decisions. Group Decis Negot 22(2):235–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z (2013) Compatibility analysis of intuitionistic fuzzy preference relations in group decision making. Group Decis Negot 22(3):463–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss EN, Rao VR (1987) AHP design issues for large-scale systems. Decis Sci 18(1):43–61

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive remarks that helped significantly the improvement of this paper. The authors are also thankful to Mr. Yiannis Vithynos and Dr. Dimitra Voulgaridou for their help in the development of the illustrative case.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elena Rokou.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rokou, E., Kirytopoulos, K. A Calibrated Group Decision Process. Group Decis Negot 23, 1369–1384 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9374-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-013-9374-2

Keywords

Navigation