Theory and MethodologyEliciting and mapping qualitative preferences to numeric rankings in group decision making
Introduction
From strategy planning committees to quality management teams, organizational members are collaborating on problem solving. Flexible organizations, in the form of teams consisting of individuals with diverse skills from different disciplines, seem to be the preferred approach for dealing the complexity and diversity of everyday business problems (Finholt and Sproull, 1990). In response to these changes in the organization of work, researchers and developers are building and studying a new class of computer systems, called groupware. Early groupware focused exclusively on group decision making (Huber, 1984; Kull, 1982); but more recently other types have emerged that target a range of coordination and collaboration activities. Recent studies have also shown that some groupware features: (1) the evaluation of decision alternatives, (2) voting (Kull, 1982; Nunamaker et al., 1989); and (3) group memory retention (Grohowski et al., 1990; Finholt and Sproull, 1990) contribute to group process gains in groupwork. And although, much research has been conducted on the use of groupware, little attention is given to improving voting and evaluation techniques currently implemented in groupware.
A common activity of group work is evaluating and deciding upon various decision alternatives. Take for example, the situation in which a team must evaluate a set of proposals and agree upon one or a subset of the alternatives for implementation. Each member of the team is required to evaluate all proposals based on some set of criteria (some of which maybe qualitative) and to provide a composite score for each proposal. The scores are then analyzed and merged into a “group rank” for each proposal, then final decision is made. The expression of individual preferences among a set of decision alternatives may appear to be simple and straight forward on the surface, but there are several issues that must be addressed. In this paper, we present an approach to preference evaluation that involves a multi-stage qualitative discriminant process. Our approach extends evaluation techniques currently used in groupware, and overcomes their main limitations that have been identified in the literature. It offers simple techniques for: (1) eliciting preferences from users of diverse backgrounds; (2) mapping qualitative evaluations to numeric estimates; (3) analyzing data relevant to evaluating consensus formation; (4) easy implementation in manual and computer supported group activities.
Section snippets
Preference elicitation and evaluation techniques
Current preference elicitation and evaluation numerical techniques fall into one of four general categories: (1) point estimates on interval scales; (2) point estimates on ratio scales; (3) interval estimates on ratio scales; and (4) interval estimates on interval scales. More recently, point estimate techniques have been criticized for the following limitations: (1) They do not address the fuzziness which is characteristic of many human decision making problems (Bryson et al., 1995; Weber, 1987
The qualitative discriminant process
The approach presented here provides a process and a structured comparison technique for making qualitative distinctions among decision alternatives, which overcome the four main limitations of current groupware techniques. It also facilitates the mapping of the qualitative distinctions to numeric estimates from vague real numbers (VRN, cf. Parik, 1983). Our approach falls within and area of measurement theory concerned with preference elicitation and representation (Krantz, 1968; Roberts, 1979
The general procedure
A tree structure (see Fig. 1), of qualitative categories is used to discriminate among the objects. Let B be the bucket that contains the set of all objects before ranking, and Bi, Bij, and Bijk be the buckets for objects assigned to Qi, Qij, and Qijk respectively. Then, B is the root of the tree and applies to the set of objects, while Bi, Bij, and Bijk, represent successive levels. Let B* be the bucket that contains the ordered set of all objects after ranking. Although we have defined only
Case illustration
The information management steering committee of Midwest American Manufacturing Corp. (MAMC), which comprises (1) the Chief Executive Officer, (2) the Chief Information Officer, and (3) the Chief Operating Officer, must prioritize for development and implementation a set of ten information technology improvement projects, which have been proposed by area managers. The committee is concerned that the projects are prioritized from highest to lowest potential contribution to the firm's strategic
Conclusions
We have presented a qualitative discriminant process for scoring and ranking in groupware. The QDP addresses four major limitations of current systems. These are: (1) the inability to deal with vagueness in human decision making; (2) difficulties in mapping qualitative evaluation to numeric estimates; (3) problems in aggregating individual preferences into meaningful group preference; and (4) the inability to deal with a large number of decision alternatives. The QDP was developed to support
References (27)
- et al.
An approach to using the analytic hierarchy process for solving multiple criteria decision making problems
European Journal of Operational Research
(1994) - et al.
Modelling pairwise comparisons on ratio scales
European Journal of Operational Research
(1995) Implementation of a visual interactive consensus decision support system
European Journal of Operational Research
(1985)- et al.
Pairwise comparison methods in multiple objective programming
European Journal of Operational Research
(1985) A hierarchical interactive method for ranking alternatives with multiple qualitative criteria
European Journal of Operational Research
(1986)- et al.
Supporting consensus formation in group support systems
Decision Support Systems
(1996) - et al.
Experiences at IBM with group support systems: A field study
Decision Support Systems
(1989) Decision making with incomplete information
European Journal of Operational Research
(1987)Fuzzy sets
Information Control
(1965)Strategic voting in a probabilistic framework
Econometrica
(1980)
Group preference aggregation rules based on strength of preference
Management Science
Electronic groups at work
Organization Science
Ranking in tournaments and group decision making
Management Science
Cited by (42)
K-means clustering for the aggregation of HFLTS possibility distributions: N-two-stage algorithmic paradigm
2021, Knowledge-Based SystemsCitation Excerpt :The generation of complex and flexible qualitative evaluation data sets occurs frequently in group-decision-making contexts, especially when a significant number of experts are involved [1–3].
Multiple attribute group decision making: A generic conceptual framework and a classification scheme
2017, Knowledge-Based SystemsGeneralized asymmetric linguistic term set and its application to qualitative decision making involving risk appetites
2016, European Journal of Operational ResearchCitation Excerpt :Meanwhile, our daily life is repeated with qualitative information, which could be considered a database of information as it closely resembles human subjective cognition. Therefore, many related QDM theories and methods have been proposed and applied (Brugha, 1998; Sabbadin, Fargier, & Lang, 1998; Ngwenyama & Bryson, 1999; Türkşen, 2002; Paul et al., 2002; Lee & Hurst, 2007; Willow, 2007; Montibeller & Belton, 2009; Wu, Zhang, Wu, & Olson, 2010; Ramey, 2013; Liao, Xu, Zeng, & Merigó, 2015; Cabrerizo, 2015). The complexity of objectives, the fuzziness of human thought, and the uncertainty associated with the qualitative information have led to the proposal of a specific technique allowing computing with words (CWW) by Zadeh (1975, 1996) and its subsequent application to the area of QDM (Rubin, 1998; Herrera & Martinez, 2000; Ying, 2002; Herrera, Alonso, Chiclana, & Herrera-Viedma, 2009; Zadeh, 2012; Yager, 2014; Massanet et al., 2014).
Graph-based multi-agent decision making
2012, International Journal of Approximate ReasoningA hybrid Delphi-SWOT paradigm for oil and gas pipeline strategic planning in Caspian Sea basin
2012, Energy PolicyCitation Excerpt :In spite of the potential for the Caspian states to meet the increasing global demand for energy resources, only a few Caspian oil and natural gas export projects have become operational in the region over the last decade (Shaffer, 2010). Bilgin (2007, 2010), Guliyev and Akhrarkhodjaeva (2009), Kakachia (2011), Newnham (2011), Pasquarè et al. (2011), Shaffer (2010) and Umbach (2010) have introduced a large number of factors that has played a significant role in shaping the Caspian energy developments. These factors take into consideration political (Russian influence in the region), economical, social and geological issues.
A new multiple attribute group decision making method in intuitionistic fuzzy setting
2011, Applied Mathematical Modelling