Group aggregation of pairwise comparisons using multi-objective optimization

AbstractIn group decision making, multiple decision makers (DMs) aim to reach a consensus ranking of alternatives in a decision problem. The differing expertise, experience and, potentially conflicting, interests of the DMs will result in the need for some form of conciliation to achieve consensus. Pairwise comparisons are commonly used to elicit values of preference of a DM. The aggregation of the preferences of multiple DMs must additionally consider potential conflict between DMs and how these conflicts may result in a need for compromise to reach group consensus.We present an approach to aggregating the preferences of multiple DMs, utilizing multi-objective optimization, to derive and highlight underlying conflict between the DMs when seeking to achieve consensus. Extracting knowledge of conflict facilitates both traceability and transparency of the trade-offs involved when reaching a group consensus.Further, the approach incorporates inconsistency reduction during the aggregation process to seek to diminish adverse effects upon decision outcomes. The approach can determine a single final solution based on either global compromise information or through utilizing weights of importance of the DMs.Within multi-criteria decision making, we present a case study within the Analytical Hierarchy Process from which we derive a richer final ranking of the decision alternatives

Decision support model for the selection of asphalt wearing courses in highly trafficked roads

The suitable choice of the materials forming the wearing course of highly trafficked roads is a delicate task because of their direct interaction with vehicles. Furthermore, modern roads must be planned according to sustainable development goals, which is complex because some of these might be in conflict. Under this premise, this paper develops a multi-criteria decision support model based on the analytic hierarchy process and the technique for order of preference by similarity to ideal solution to facilitate the selection of wearing courses in European countries. Variables were modelled using either fuzzy logic or Monte Carlo methods, depending on their nature. The views of a panel of experts on the problem were collected and processed using the generalized reduced gradient algorithm and a distance-based aggregation approach. The results showed a clear preponderance by stone mastic asphalt over the remaining alternatives in different scenarios evaluated through sensitivity analysis. The research leading to these results was framed in the European FP7 Project DURABROADS (No. 605404).The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement No. 605404

Multi-Criteria Analysis in Compound Decision Processes. The AHP and the Architectural Competition for the Chamber of Deputies in Rome (Italy)

In 1967, a national architectural competition was released for a preliminary project proposal, aimed at the realization of the new building for the Chamber of Deputies in Rome. The outcomes of that competition were unusual: eighteen projects were declared joint winners, and no winner was consequently selected. With reference to that event, this research aims to examine the usefulness of the evaluation tools that are currently employed and the positive effects that one of these techniques would have had, as support for the identification of the “winner” project, are highlighted. Therefore, an hypothetical examination/adjustment of the decision process of that competition through the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is developed, analyzing the outputs obtained by the implementations of this technique on the final decision. In addition to confirming the usefulness of the evaluation tools for compound and conflicting decision processes, the results of this experiment led to a further understanding of the socio-cultural dynamics related to the original outcomes of the competition analyzed. View Full-Tex

A Methodology for the Selection of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Methods in Real Estate and Land Management Processes

Real estate and land management are characterised by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governmental factors. In Europe, Public Administrators must address the complex decision-making problems that need to be resolved, while also acting in consideration of the expectations of the different stakeholders involved in settlement transformation. In complex situations (e.g., with different aspects to be considered and multilevel actors involved), decision-making processes are often used to solve multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses, which support the choices of those who are making the decision. Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) methods are included among the examination and evaluation techniques considered useful by the European Community. Such analyses and techniques are performed using methods, which aim to reach a synthesis of the various forms of input data needed to define decision-making problems of a similar complexity. Thus, one or more of the conclusions reached allow for informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. According to the technical literature on MCDA, numerous methods are applicable in different decision-making situations, however, advice for selecting the most appropriate for the specific field of application and problem have not been thoroughly investigated. In land and real estate management, numerous queries regarding evaluations often arise. In brief, the objective of this paper is to outline a procedure with which to select the method best suited to the specific queries of evaluation, which commonly arise while addressing decision-making problems. In particular issues of land and real estate management, representing the so-called “settlement sector”. The procedure will follow a theoretical-methodological approach by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of the multi-criteria analysis method

The Use of the AHP in Civil Engineering Projects

Most engineering, economic, social and institutional decisions are made with explicit notions of optimal behavior and implicit human motivations. In such a process, manipulation of both tangible and intangible data and satisfaction of multiple criteria are essential to the success of decision-making. In this paper an approach to multiple-criteria decision making known as the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is presented. Some mathematical details of the procedure are briefly discussed. The application of the method to a real life civil engineering project for the selection of an appropriate bridge design is also presented.multi-criteria decision making, analytic hierarchy process, bridge design

Public initiatives of settlement transformation. A theoretical-methodological approach to selecting tools of multi-criteria decision analysis

In Europe, the operating context in which initiatives of settlement transformation are currently initiated is characterized by a complex, elaborate combination of technical, regulatory and governance-related factors. A similar set of considerations makes it necessary to address the complex decision-making problems to be resolved through multidisciplinary, comparative approaches designed to rationalize the process and treat the elements to be considered in systematic fashion with respect to the range of alternatives available as solutions. Within a context defined in this manner, decision-making processes must often be used to obtain multidisciplinary and multidimensional analyses to support the choices made by the decision-makers. Such analyses are carried out using multi-criteria tools designed to arrive at syntheses of the numerous forms of input data needed to describe decision-making problems of similar complexity, so that one or more outcomes of the synthesis make possible informed, well thought-out, strategic decisions. The technical literature on the topic proposes numerous tools of multi-criteria analysis for application in different decision-making contexts. Still, no specific contributions have been drawn up to date on the approach to take in selecting the tool best suited to providing adequate responses to the queries of evaluation that arise most frequently in the various fields of application, and especially in the settlement sector. The objective of this paper is to propose, by formulating a taxonomy of the endogenous and exogenous variables of tools of multi-criteria analysis, a methodology capable of selecting the tool best suited to the queries of evaluation which arise regarding the chief categories of decision-making problems, and particularly in the settlement sector