DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Considering the Willingness to Reject and the Indifferent Preference

거부 및 무차별 선호 조건을 고려한 다기준 그룹 의사결정

  • Choi, Ji-Yoon (Department of Industrial Management Engineering, Korea University) ;
  • Kim, Jae-Hee (Division of Business Administration, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Kim, Sheung-Kown (Graduate School of Management of Technology, Korea University)
  • 최지윤 (고려대학교 산업경영공학과) ;
  • 김재희 (전북대학교 경영학부) ;
  • 김승권 (고려대학교 기술경영전문대학원)
  • Received : 2011.11.09
  • Accepted : 2012.02.15
  • Published : 2012.03.01

Abstract

The paper deals with the development of a model for group decision making under multiple criteria. The Multi-criteria group decision making (MCGDM) is the process to determine the best compromise solution in a set of competing alternatives that are evaluated by decision makers having their own preferences on conflicting objectives. For MCGDM, we propose a Mixed-Integer Programming (MIP) model that implements a revised median approach by noticing that the original median approach cannot consider the willingness to reject and the indifferent preference conditions. The proposed MIP model tries to select a common best Pareto-optimal solution by maximizing the overall desirability considering the willingness to reject and the indifferent preference that represent the tolerance measure of each decision maker. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed model, we compared the results of the proposed model with those of the median approach. The results showed that the proposed MIP model produces more realistic and better compromised alternative by incorporating the decision maker's willingness to reject and the indifferent preferences over each criteria.

Keywords

References

  1. Armstrong, R. D., Cook, W. D., and Seiford, L. M. (1982), Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation : The Case of Ties, Management Science, 28(6), 638-645. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.6.638
  2. Cho, N. W., Kim, J. H., and Kim, S. K. (2006), An Interactive Multicriteria Group Decision Making with the Minimum Distance Measure, Journal of the Korean Institute of Industrial Engineers, 32(1), 42-50.
  3. Cook, W. D. and Seiford, L. M. (1978), Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation, Management Science, 24(16), 1721-1732. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.24.16.1721
  4. Cook, W. D. and Seiford, L. M. (1982), On the Borda-Kendall Consensus Method for Priority Ranking Problems, Management Science, 28(6), 621-637. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.28.6.621
  5. Jensen, R. E. (1986), Comparison of Consensus Methods for Priority Ranking Problems, Decision Sciences, 17(2), 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1986.tb00221.x
  6. Steuer, R. E. (1992), Manual for the ADBASE multiple objective linear programming package, University of Georgia, Athens.
  7. Steuer, R. E. (1994), Random Problem Generation and the Computation of Efficient Extreme Points in Multiple Objective Linear Programming, Computational Optimization and Applications, 1994(1), 333-347.
  8. Xanthopulos, Z., Melachrinoudis, E., and Solomon, M. M. (2000), Interactive Multiobjective Group Decision Making with Interval Parameter, Management Science, 46(12), 1585-1601. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.12.1585.12071