A hierarchical integration method under social constraints to maximize satisfaction in multiple criteria group decision making systems

Aggregating multiple opinions or assessments in a decision has always been a challenging field topic for researchers. Over the last decade, different approaches, mainly based on weighting data sources or decision-makers (DMs), have been proposed to resolve this issue, although social choice theory, focused on frameworks to combine individual opinions, is generally overlooked. To resolve this situation, a novel methodology is developed in this paper based on social choice theory and statistical mathematics. This method innovates by dividing the assessment into components which provides a multiple assessment analysis, assigning weights to each source regarding their position compared to the group for each considered criteria. This multiple-weighting process maximises individual and group satisfaction. Furthermore, the method makes it possible to manage previously assigned influence. An example is given to illustrate the proposed methodology. Additionally, sensitivity analysis is performed and comparisons with other methods are made. Finally, conclusions are presented.The first author acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports [grant number FPU18/01471]. The second and third author wish to recognise their support from the Serra Hunter programme. Finally, this work was supported by the Catalan agency AGAUR through its research group support program (2017SGR00227). This research is part of the R&D project IAQ4EDU, reference no. PID2020-117366RB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501100011033.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version

Evaluation of group decision making based on group preferences under a multi-criteria environment

Arrow’s impossibility theorem stated that no single group decision making (GDM) method is perfect, in other words, different GDM methods can produce different or even conflicting rankings. So, 1) how to evaluate GDM methods and 2) how to reconcile different or even conflicting rankings are two important and difficult problems in GDM process, which have not been fully studied. This paper aims to develop and propose a group decision-making consensus recognition model, named GDMCRM, to address these two problems in the evaluation of GDM methods under a multi-criteria environment in order to identify and achieve optimal group consensus. In this model, the ordinal and cardinal GDM methods are both implemented and studied in the process of evaluating the GDM methods. What’s more, this proposed model can reconcile different or even conflicting rankings generated by the eight GDM methods, based on empirical research on two real-life datasets: financial data of 12 urban commercial banks and annual report data of seven listed oil companies. The results indicate the proposed model not only can largely satisfy the group preferences of multiple stakeholders, but can also identify the best compromise solution from the opinion of all the participants involved in the group decision process. First published online 20 October 202

A systematic review on multi-criteria group decision-making methods based on weights: analysis and classification scheme

Interest in group decision-making (GDM) has been increasing prominently over the last decade. Access to global databases, sophisticated sensors which can obtain multiple inputs or complex problems requiring opinions from several experts have driven interest in data aggregation. Consequently, the field has been widely studied from several viewpoints and multiple approaches have been proposed. Nevertheless, there is a lack of general framework. Moreover, this problem is exacerbated in the case of experts’ weighting methods, one of the most widely-used techniques to deal with multiple source aggregation. This lack of general classification scheme, or a guide to assist expert knowledge, leads to ambiguity or misreading for readers, who may be overwhelmed by the large amount of unclassified information currently available. To invert this situation, a general GDM framework is presented which divides and classifies all data aggregation techniques, focusing on and expanding the classification of experts’ weighting methods in terms of analysis type by carrying out an in-depth literature review. Results are not only classified but analysed and discussed regarding multiple characteristics, such as MCDMs in which they are applied, type of data used, ideal solutions considered or when they are applied. Furthermore, general requirements supplement this analysis such as initial influence, or component division considerations. As a result, this paper provides not only a general classification scheme and a detailed analysis of experts’ weighting methods but also a road map for researchers working on GDM topics or a guide for experts who use these methods. Furthermore, six significant contributions for future research pathways are provided in the conclusions.The first author acknowledges support from the Spanish Ministry of Universities [grant number FPU18/01471]. The second and third author wish to recognize their support from the Serra Hunter program. Finally, this work was supported by the Catalan agency AGAUR through its research group support program (2017SGR00227). This research is part of the R&D project IAQ4EDU, reference no. PID2020-117366RB-I00, funded by MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033.Peer ReviewedPostprint (published version