Tsai, H; Wang, L C and Lee, J W (2006) Exploration of ranking method of group decision making. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
Ordinal summing method is the most popular ranking method of group decision making. When using this method, the final ranking of projects is determined by summing up the ordinals given by individual decision makers. Therefore, the individual decision makers' evaluation is the key factor affecting the final group-ranking result of each project. However, since it is not possible to effectively distinguish the degree of difference in evaluation results among individual decision makers, the deviated evaluation behaviour of the individual decision makers, if any, will be difficult to discover, and the final ranking is easy to be affected by few decision makers' extreme evaluations. This research proposes an improved ranking procedure based on utilizing fuzzy relation matrix and eigenvector method that conform to human judgments. Through the validation of a simulated case, the improved procedure proposed in this research can actually examine the consistency of group ranking and the difference of individual decision makers' evaluations through a rigorous quantitative method. It effectively improves the disadvantages of group decision making and greatly upgrades the quality of decision making.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | fuzzy relation; group decision making; ranking method |
| Index terms: | eigenvector, judgment, decision-making, exploration, group decision making, quantitative method, validation |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, dispute resolution, environmental resource management, data analysis and analytics, professional development, decision analysis, measurement and scaling |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Information Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here