Loading…

Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making

•Propose a MAUT group decision model which differs from traditional ones.•Consider the 2nd and 3rd moments of preferences as well as alternative priorities.•Result in a more realistic and acceptable group decision.•Avoid the difficulty of attaining commitment encountered in traditional approaches. M...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of operational research 2013-09, Vol.229 (2), p.462-469
Main Authors: Huang, Yeu-Shiang, Chang, Wei-Chen, Li, Wei-Hao, Lin, Zu-Liang
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!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-e9242c390171c8b0cf836e3f71d56eb17005faf0955b1a031ba4bff9f28d03c73
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-e9242c390171c8b0cf836e3f71d56eb17005faf0955b1a031ba4bff9f28d03c73
container_end_page 469
container_issue 2
container_start_page 462
container_title European journal of operational research
container_volume 229
creator Huang, Yeu-Shiang
Chang, Wei-Chen
Li, Wei-Hao
Lin, Zu-Liang
description •Propose a MAUT group decision model which differs from traditional ones.•Consider the 2nd and 3rd moments of preferences as well as alternative priorities.•Result in a more realistic and acceptable group decision.•Avoid the difficulty of attaining commitment encountered in traditional approaches. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) elicits an individual decision maker’s preferences for single attributes and develops a utility function by mathematics formulation to add up the preferences of the entire set of attributes when assessing alternatives. A common aggregation method of MAUT for group decisions is the simple additive weighting (SAW) method, which does not consider the different preferential levels and preferential ranks for individual decision makers’ assessments of alternatives in a decision group, and thus seems too intuitive in achieving the consensus and commitment for group decision aggregation. In this paper, the preferential differences denoting the preference degrees among different alternatives and preferential priorities denoting the favorite ranking of the alternatives for each decision maker are both considered and aggregated to construct the utility discriminative values for assessing alternatives in a decision group. A comparative analysis is performed to compare the proposed approach to the SAW model, and a satisfaction index is used to investigate the satisfaction levels of the final two resulting group decisions. In addition, a feedback interview is conducted to understand the subjective perceptions of decision makers while examining the results obtained from these two approaches for the second practical case. Both investigation results show that the proposed approach is able to achieve a more satisfying and agreeable group decision than that of the SAW method.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.043
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1372633203</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0377221713001926</els_id><sourcerecordid>2961131251</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-e9242c390171c8b0cf836e3f71d56eb17005faf0955b1a031ba4bff9f28d03c73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kLtOxDAQRS0EEsvjB6gi0dAkzNhJnJVoEOIlLaKB2nKcceSQjRc7QeLvSbRUFFTT3HM19zB2gZAhYHndZdT5kHFAkQHPIBcHbIWV5GlZlXDIViCkTDlHecxOYuwAAAssVuzltm0DtXp0fki8TabR9W78TmsdqUnc0Lgv10y6T3aBLAUaDMXE-pC0wU-7pCHj4oymW_3hhvaMHVndRzr_vafs_eH-7e4p3bw-Pt_dblKTF9WY0prn3Ig1oERT1WBsJUoSVmJTlFSjBCistrAuiho1CKx1Xlu7trxqQBgpTtnVvncX_OdEcVRbFw31vR7IT1GhkLwUgoOYo5d_op2fwjB_N6fyCssc8qWQ71Mm-BjnqWoX3FaHb4WgFsOqU4thtRhWwNVseIZu9hDNU78cBRWNWww1LpAZVePdf_gP_qaEQQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1348164047</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making</title><source>ScienceDirect Freedom Collection</source><creator>Huang, Yeu-Shiang ; Chang, Wei-Chen ; Li, Wei-Hao ; Lin, Zu-Liang</creator><creatorcontrib>Huang, Yeu-Shiang ; Chang, Wei-Chen ; Li, Wei-Hao ; Lin, Zu-Liang</creatorcontrib><description>•Propose a MAUT group decision model which differs from traditional ones.•Consider the 2nd and 3rd moments of preferences as well as alternative priorities.•Result in a more realistic and acceptable group decision.•Avoid the difficulty of attaining commitment encountered in traditional approaches. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) elicits an individual decision maker’s preferences for single attributes and develops a utility function by mathematics formulation to add up the preferences of the entire set of attributes when assessing alternatives. A common aggregation method of MAUT for group decisions is the simple additive weighting (SAW) method, which does not consider the different preferential levels and preferential ranks for individual decision makers’ assessments of alternatives in a decision group, and thus seems too intuitive in achieving the consensus and commitment for group decision aggregation. In this paper, the preferential differences denoting the preference degrees among different alternatives and preferential priorities denoting the favorite ranking of the alternatives for each decision maker are both considered and aggregated to construct the utility discriminative values for assessing alternatives in a decision group. A comparative analysis is performed to compare the proposed approach to the SAW model, and a satisfaction index is used to investigate the satisfaction levels of the final two resulting group decisions. In addition, a feedback interview is conducted to understand the subjective perceptions of decision makers while examining the results obtained from these two approaches for the second practical case. Both investigation results show that the proposed approach is able to achieve a more satisfying and agreeable group decision than that of the SAW method.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0377-2217</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1872-6860</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.043</identifier><identifier>CODEN: EJORDT</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Amsterdam: Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Agglomeration ; Assessments ; Comparative analysis ; Decision analysis ; Decision making ; Decision making models ; Decision making units ; Group decision ; Mathematical analysis ; Mathematical models ; Multi-attribute utility theory ; Perception ; Preference aggregation ; Ratings &amp; rankings ; Studies ; Utilities ; Utility functions</subject><ispartof>European journal of operational research, 2013-09, Vol.229 (2), p.462-469</ispartof><rights>2013 Elsevier B.V.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Sequoia S.A. Sep 1, 2013</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-e9242c390171c8b0cf836e3f71d56eb17005faf0955b1a031ba4bff9f28d03c73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-e9242c390171c8b0cf836e3f71d56eb17005faf0955b1a031ba4bff9f28d03c73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Huang, Yeu-Shiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Wei-Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Wei-Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Zu-Liang</creatorcontrib><title>Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making</title><title>European journal of operational research</title><description>•Propose a MAUT group decision model which differs from traditional ones.•Consider the 2nd and 3rd moments of preferences as well as alternative priorities.•Result in a more realistic and acceptable group decision.•Avoid the difficulty of attaining commitment encountered in traditional approaches. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) elicits an individual decision maker’s preferences for single attributes and develops a utility function by mathematics formulation to add up the preferences of the entire set of attributes when assessing alternatives. A common aggregation method of MAUT for group decisions is the simple additive weighting (SAW) method, which does not consider the different preferential levels and preferential ranks for individual decision makers’ assessments of alternatives in a decision group, and thus seems too intuitive in achieving the consensus and commitment for group decision aggregation. In this paper, the preferential differences denoting the preference degrees among different alternatives and preferential priorities denoting the favorite ranking of the alternatives for each decision maker are both considered and aggregated to construct the utility discriminative values for assessing alternatives in a decision group. A comparative analysis is performed to compare the proposed approach to the SAW model, and a satisfaction index is used to investigate the satisfaction levels of the final two resulting group decisions. In addition, a feedback interview is conducted to understand the subjective perceptions of decision makers while examining the results obtained from these two approaches for the second practical case. Both investigation results show that the proposed approach is able to achieve a more satisfying and agreeable group decision than that of the SAW method.</description><subject>Agglomeration</subject><subject>Assessments</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Decision analysis</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Decision making models</subject><subject>Decision making units</subject><subject>Group decision</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Multi-attribute utility theory</subject><subject>Perception</subject><subject>Preference aggregation</subject><subject>Ratings &amp; rankings</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Utilities</subject><subject>Utility functions</subject><issn>0377-2217</issn><issn>1872-6860</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2013</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kLtOxDAQRS0EEsvjB6gi0dAkzNhJnJVoEOIlLaKB2nKcceSQjRc7QeLvSbRUFFTT3HM19zB2gZAhYHndZdT5kHFAkQHPIBcHbIWV5GlZlXDIViCkTDlHecxOYuwAAAssVuzltm0DtXp0fki8TabR9W78TmsdqUnc0Lgv10y6T3aBLAUaDMXE-pC0wU-7pCHj4oymW_3hhvaMHVndRzr_vafs_eH-7e4p3bw-Pt_dblKTF9WY0prn3Ig1oERT1WBsJUoSVmJTlFSjBCistrAuiho1CKx1Xlu7trxqQBgpTtnVvncX_OdEcVRbFw31vR7IT1GhkLwUgoOYo5d_op2fwjB_N6fyCssc8qWQ71Mm-BjnqWoX3FaHb4WgFsOqU4thtRhWwNVseIZu9hDNU78cBRWNWww1LpAZVePdf_gP_qaEQQ</recordid><startdate>20130901</startdate><enddate>20130901</enddate><creator>Huang, Yeu-Shiang</creator><creator>Chang, Wei-Chen</creator><creator>Li, Wei-Hao</creator><creator>Lin, Zu-Liang</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier Sequoia S.A</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7SC</scope><scope>7TB</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>JQ2</scope><scope>L7M</scope><scope>L~C</scope><scope>L~D</scope><scope>7TA</scope><scope>JG9</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20130901</creationdate><title>Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making</title><author>Huang, Yeu-Shiang ; Chang, Wei-Chen ; Li, Wei-Hao ; Lin, Zu-Liang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-e9242c390171c8b0cf836e3f71d56eb17005faf0955b1a031ba4bff9f28d03c73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2013</creationdate><topic>Agglomeration</topic><topic>Assessments</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Decision analysis</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Decision making models</topic><topic>Decision making units</topic><topic>Group decision</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Multi-attribute utility theory</topic><topic>Perception</topic><topic>Preference aggregation</topic><topic>Ratings &amp; rankings</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Utilities</topic><topic>Utility functions</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Huang, Yeu-Shiang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chang, Wei-Chen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Li, Wei-Hao</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lin, Zu-Liang</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts</collection><collection>Mechanical &amp; Transportation Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Computer Science Collection</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies Database with Aerospace</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts – Academic</collection><collection>Computer and Information Systems Abstracts Professional</collection><collection>Materials Business File</collection><collection>Materials Research Database</collection><jtitle>European journal of operational research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Huang, Yeu-Shiang</au><au>Chang, Wei-Chen</au><au>Li, Wei-Hao</au><au>Lin, Zu-Liang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making</atitle><jtitle>European journal of operational research</jtitle><date>2013-09-01</date><risdate>2013</risdate><volume>229</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>462</spage><epage>469</epage><pages>462-469</pages><issn>0377-2217</issn><eissn>1872-6860</eissn><coden>EJORDT</coden><abstract>•Propose a MAUT group decision model which differs from traditional ones.•Consider the 2nd and 3rd moments of preferences as well as alternative priorities.•Result in a more realistic and acceptable group decision.•Avoid the difficulty of attaining commitment encountered in traditional approaches. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) elicits an individual decision maker’s preferences for single attributes and develops a utility function by mathematics formulation to add up the preferences of the entire set of attributes when assessing alternatives. A common aggregation method of MAUT for group decisions is the simple additive weighting (SAW) method, which does not consider the different preferential levels and preferential ranks for individual decision makers’ assessments of alternatives in a decision group, and thus seems too intuitive in achieving the consensus and commitment for group decision aggregation. In this paper, the preferential differences denoting the preference degrees among different alternatives and preferential priorities denoting the favorite ranking of the alternatives for each decision maker are both considered and aggregated to construct the utility discriminative values for assessing alternatives in a decision group. A comparative analysis is performed to compare the proposed approach to the SAW model, and a satisfaction index is used to investigate the satisfaction levels of the final two resulting group decisions. In addition, a feedback interview is conducted to understand the subjective perceptions of decision makers while examining the results obtained from these two approaches for the second practical case. Both investigation results show that the proposed approach is able to achieve a more satisfying and agreeable group decision than that of the SAW method.</abstract><cop>Amsterdam</cop><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.043</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0377-2217
ispartof European journal of operational research, 2013-09, Vol.229 (2), p.462-469
issn 0377-2217
1872-6860
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1372633203
source ScienceDirect Freedom Collection
subjects Agglomeration
Assessments
Comparative analysis
Decision analysis
Decision making
Decision making models
Decision making units
Group decision
Mathematical analysis
Mathematical models
Multi-attribute utility theory
Perception
Preference aggregation
Ratings & rankings
Studies
Utilities
Utility functions
title Aggregation of utility-based individual preferences for group decision-making
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T14%3A59%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Aggregation%20of%20utility-based%20individual%20preferences%20for%20group%20decision-making&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20operational%20research&rft.au=Huang,%20Yeu-Shiang&rft.date=2013-09-01&rft.volume=229&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=462&rft.epage=469&rft.pages=462-469&rft.issn=0377-2217&rft.eissn=1872-6860&rft.coden=EJORDT&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.ejor.2013.02.043&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2961131251%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c458t-e9242c390171c8b0cf836e3f71d56eb17005faf0955b1a031ba4bff9f28d03c73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1348164047&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true