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

Integrating experts’ weights generated dynamically into the consensus reaching process and its applications in managing non-cooperative behaviors

This work was supported in part by the NSF of China under grants 71171160 and 71571124, in part by the SSEM Key Research Center at Sichuan Province under grant xq15b01, in part by the FEDER funds under grant TIN2013-40658-P, and in part by Andalusian Excellence Project under grant TIC-5991.The consensus reaching process (CRP) is a dynamic and iterative process for improving the consensus level among experts in group decision making. A large number of non-cooperative behaviors exist in the CRP. For example, some experts will express their opinions dishonestly or refuse to change their opinions to further their own interests. In this study, we propose a novel consensus framework for managing non-cooperative behaviors. In the proposed framework, a self-management mechanism to generate experts' weights dynamically is presented and then integrated into the CRP. This self-management mechanism is based on multi-attribute mutual evaluation matrices (MMEMs). During the CRP, the experts can provide and update their MMEMs regarding the experts' performances (e.g., professional skill, cooperation, and fairness), and the experts' weights are dynamically derived from the MMEMs. Detailed simulation experiments and comparison analysis are presented to justify the validity of the proposed consensus framework in managing the non-cooperative behaviors.National Natural Science Foundation of China 71171160 71571124SSEM Key Research Center at Sichuan Province xq15b01European Union (EU) TIN2013-40658-PAndalusian Excellence Project TIC-599

A web-based multi-perspective decision support system for information security planning

With the increasing exposure and vulnerability to cyber attacks, it becomes necessary to develop methodologies and systems that are capable of dealing with the complex and multifaceted nature of decision situations encountered in security planning and management. In this paper we present the theoretical basis, architecture and design of a web-based multi-perspective decision support system (DSS) and an underlying decision multi-criteria decision framework that is consistent with security and decision theory. The system is illustrated through a multi-stakeholder scenario that captures the complexity encountered in a multi-criteria security control selection decision problem

Granular computing and optimization model-based method for large-scale group decision-making and its application

In large-scale group decision-making process, some decision makers hesitate among several linguistic terms and cannot compare some alternatives, so they often express evaluation information with incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relations. How to obtain suitable large-scale group decision-making results from incomplete preference information is an important and interesting issue to concern about. After analyzing the existing researches, we find that: i) the premise that complete preference relation is perfectly consistent is too strict, ii) deleting all incomplete linguistic preference relations that cannot be fully completed will lose valid assessment information, iii) semantics given by decision makers are greatly possible to be changed during the consistency improving process. In order to solve these issues, this work proposes a novel method based on Granular computing and optimization model for large-scale group decision-making, considering the original consistency of incomplete hesitant fuzzy linguistic preference relation and improving its consistency without changing semantics during the completion process. An illustrative example and simulation experiments demonstrate the rationality and advantages of the proposed method: i) semantics are not changed during the consistency improving process, ii) completion process does not significantly alter the inherent quality of information, iii) complete preference relations are globally consistent, iv) final large-scale group decision-making result is acquired by fusing complete preference relations with different weights

Managing Incomplete Preference Relations in Decision Making: A Review and Future Trends

In decision making, situations where all experts are able to efficiently express their preferences over all the available options are the exception rather than the rule. Indeed, the above scenario requires all experts to possess a precise or sufficient level of knowledge of the whole problem to tackle, including the ability to discriminate the degree up to which some options are better than others. These assumptions can be seen unrealistic in many decision making situations, especially those involving a large number of alternatives to choose from and/or conflicting and dynamic sources of information. Some methodologies widely adopted in these situations are to discard or to rate more negatively those experts that provide preferences with missing values. However, incomplete information is not equivalent to low quality information, and consequently these methodologies could lead to biased or even bad solutions since useful information might not being taken properly into account in the decision process. Therefore, alternative approaches to manage incomplete preference relations that estimates the missing information in decision making are desirable and possible. This paper presents and analyses methods and processes developed on this area towards the estimation of missing preferences in decision making, and highlights some areas for future research

Distance-based consensus models for fuzzy and multiplicative 3 preference relations

This paper proposes a distance-based consensus model for fuzzy preference relations where the weights of fuzzy preference relations are automatically determined. Two indices, an individual to group consensus index (ICI) and a group consensus index (GCI), are introduced. An iterative consensus reaching algorithm is presented and the process terminates until both the ICI and GCI are controlled within predefined thresholds. The model and algorithm are then extended to handle multiplicative preference relations. Finally, two examples are illustrated and comparative analyses demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed methods

Analyzing Multiple Product Development Projects Based On Information and Resource Constraints

Product development (PD) and engineering design processes are often characterized by the information flowing among activities. In PD, this flow forms a complex activity weba process that can be viewed as a complex system. Most literature on the subject of information flow in PD focuses on a single project, where precedence information constraints (based solely on necessary information and possible assumptions) determine the execution sequence for the activities and the resultant project lead-time. In this paper, we consider multiple PD projects that share a common set of design resources. Especially in this setting, precedence information availability is insufficient to assure that activities will execute on time. We extend the information flow modeling literature by including resource availability. We model several PD projects as a portfolio, where activity execution is based on both information and resource availability. We demonstrate the effects of accounting for resource constraints on both individual projects and portfolio lead-time distributions

Are incomplete and self-confident preference relations better in multicriteria decision making? A simulation-based investigation

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Incomplete preference relations and self-confident preference relations have been widely used in multicriteria decision-making problems. However, there is no strong evidence, in the current literature, to validate their use in decision-making. This paper reports on the design of two bounded rationality principle based simulation methods, and detailed experimental results, that aim at providing evidence to answer the following two questions: (1) what are the conditions under which incomplete preference relations are better than complete preference relations?; and (2) can self-confident preference relations improve the quality of decisions? The experimental results show that when the decision-maker is of medium rational degree, incomplete preference relations with a degree of incompleteness between 20% and 40% outperform complete preference relations; otherwise, the opposite happens. Furthermore, in most cases the quality of the decision making improves when using self-confident preference relations instead of incomplete preference relations. The paper ends with the presentation of a sensitivity analysis that contributes to the robustness of the experimental conclusions