Loading…

An interactive consensus reaching model with updated weights of clusters in large-scale group decision making

Consensus reaching process generates a group decision approved by all experts despite their possible divergent preferences. To circumvent a calculated and nominal consensus without exchanges of views, an interactive consensus reaching strategy is necessary even though it may bring costs, especially...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Engineering applications of artificial intelligence 2022-01, Vol.107, p.104532, Article 104532
Main Authors: Liao, Huchang, Wu, Zheng, Tang, Ming, Wan, Zhengjun
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Consensus reaching process generates a group decision approved by all experts despite their possible divergent preferences. To circumvent a calculated and nominal consensus without exchanges of views, an interactive consensus reaching strategy is necessary even though it may bring costs, especially for large-scale group decision making problems. To allow experts to make cost-effective preference modifications to reach consensus in large-scale group decision making, this study proposes a dynamic interactive consensus reaching model. Firstly, a minimum-cost-consensus model that focuses on clusters in a large-scale context is introduced, in which the unit preference adjustment cost can be determined objectively. Then, we apply the minimum-cost-consensus solution to develop a feedback mechanism to activate discussions between experts and support preference modifications. The modification degree is defined towards each expert cluster to measure the cost performance of a cluster pertaining to the modifications. On this basis, we update the weights of clusters so as to improve the cost performance. An illustrative example about the grading management of high-alert medication is presented. By comparison, the interactive consensus model only costs 10.1 percent more than an automatic consensus model but gets group consensus with the exchanges of expert views.
ISSN:0952-1976
1873-6769
DOI:10.1016/j.engappai.2021.104532