A Fuzzy Group Prioritization Method for Deriving Weights and its Software Implementation
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2013.23Keywords:
Method, Decision-level, FuzzyAbstract
Several Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) methods involve pairwise comparisons to obtain the preferences of decision makers (DMs). This paper proposes a fuzzy group prioritization method for deriving group priorities/weights from fuzzy pairwise comparison matrices. The proposed method extends the Fuzzy Preferences Programming Method (FPP) by considering the different importance weights of multiple DMs . The elements of the group pairwise comparison matrices are presented as fuzzy numbers rather than exact numerical values, in order to model the uncertainty and imprecision in the DMs’ judgments. Unlike the known fuzzy prioritization techniques, the proposed method is able to derive crisp weights from incomplete and fuzzy set of comparison judgments and does not require additional aggregation procedures. A prototype of a decision tool is developed to assist DMs to implement the proposed method for solving fuzzy group prioritization problems in MATLAB. Detailed numerical examples are used to illustrate the proposed approach.Downloads
References
[1] E. Choo, and W. Wedley, “A common framework for deriving preference values from pairwise comparison matrices,” Computers & Operations Research, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 893–908, May 2004.
[2] K. V. Ittersum, J. M. Pennings, B. Wansink, and H. C. van Trijp, “The validity of attribute-importance measurement: A review,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 60, no. 11, pp. 1177–1190, Nov. 2007.
[3] W. Edwards, “How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 326-340, May 1977.
[4] D. V. Winterfeldt, and W. Edwards, Decision analysis and behavioural research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
[5] W. Edwards, and F. H. Barron, “SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multiattribute utility measurement,” Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, vol. 60, no. 3, pp. 306–325, Dec. 1994.
[6] L. Thurstone, “A law of comparative judgment,” Psychological review, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 273-286, 1927.
[7] T. L. Saaty. The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, Priority setting, resource allocation. NY, McGraw-Hill, 1980.
[8] T. L. Saaty. Decision making with dependence and feedback: the Analytic Network Process. RWA Publications, PA: USA, 1996.
[9] J. Brans, B. Mareschal, “Promethee methods: In multiple criteria decision analysis: state of the art surveys,” International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol. 78, no. 2, pp. 163- 186, 2005.
[10] K. S. Chin, D. L. Xu, J. B. Yang, and J. Lama, “Group-based ER–AHP system for product project screening,” Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 1909-1929, Nov. 2008.
[11] A. Chu , R. Kalaba , and K. Springam, “A comparison of two methods for determining the weights of belonging to fuzzy sets,” Journal of Optimization Theory and Application, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 531-541, Apr. 1979.
[12] T. L. Saaty, L. G. Vargas, “Comparison of Eigenvalue, Logarithmic Least Squares and Least Squares Methods in Estimating Rations,” Mathematical Modelling, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 309-324, Mar. 1984.
[13] L. Mikhailov, “A Fuzzy Programming Method for Deriving Prioritises in Analytic Hierarchy Process,” The Journal of Operational Research Society, vol. 51, no. 3, pp. 341-349, Mar. 2000.
[14] J. J. Buckley, “Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis,” Fuzzy Sets and System, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 233-247, Dec. 1984.
[15] P. M. Laarhoven, and W. Pedrycz, “A fuzzy extension of Saaty's priority theory,” Fuzzy Sets and System, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 229-241, Feb. 1983.
[16] D. Chang, “Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 95, no. 3, pp. 649- 655, Dec. 1996.
[17] L. Mikhailov, “Deriving priorities from fuzzy pair-wise comparison judgments,” Fuzzy Sets and System, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 365-385, Mar. 2003.
[18] R. Ramanathan, and L. S. Ganesh, “Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’ weightages,” European Journal of Operational Research, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 249–265, Dec. 1994.
[19] R.C. Van Den Honert, “Decisional power in group decision making: a note on the allocation of group members’ weights in the multiplicative AHP and SMART,” Group Decision and Negotiation, vol. 10, no.1, pp. 275–86, May 2001.
[20] L. Mikhailov, H. Didehkhani, and S. Sadi-Nezhad, “Weighted Prioritization Models in the Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process,” International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 681–694, Jul. 2011.
[21] R. N. Tiwari, S. Dharmar, and J. R. Rao, “Fuzzy goal programming-an additive model,” Fuzzy Sets and System, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 27–34, Oct. 1987.
[22] D. J. Higham, and N. J. Higham, MATLAB Guide. Second Edition, USA, PA, SIAM, 2005.
[23] J. G. Castellot, and J. L. Bello, "ADT-3D Tumor Detection Assistant in 3D," International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, vol.1, no.1, pp. 6-15, Dec. 2008.
Downloads
Published
-
Abstract57
-
PDF28
Submit Article
Information
