1 / 27

Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated Web-Based Decision Support Systems

Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated Web-Based Decision Support Systems. Ibrahim Ozer University of Ottawa. Presentation Outline. Introduction Problem Methods for Multicriteria Group Decision Making Decision-Making Process Diagram Illustrative Problem

lynda
Download Presentation

Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated Web-Based Decision Support Systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated Web-Based Decision Support Systems Ibrahim Ozer University of Ottawa

  2. Presentation Outline • Introduction • Problem • Methods for Multicriteria Group Decision Making • Decision-Making Process Diagram • Illustrative Problem • Best Site Selection • Detailed Methods • Web-based Tool for GDM Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  3. Introduction: Keywords • “Groups make better judgments than average individual members in analysis and evaluation tasks.” (McGrath, 1984; Nah & Benbasat, 1999). • “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.” (As read on T-Shirts). Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  4. Useful in judgmental tasks Produce better decisions than individual Reducing effects of individual bias Solutions more likely to be accepted Takes more time One capable person can decide as well as a group Satisfaction Negative effects of bias decisions Not necessarily a consensus Introduction: Advantages/Disadvantages Advantages Disadvantages

  5. Problem • Environmental and natural resource problems affecting coastal regions. • Aspects involve marine use and ecosystem multicriteria description: Resources, Habitat, Effluents, Activities • Decision Makers: Local Communities, Federal Scientists, Industrial Organizations, Non-Governmental Organizations, and Provincial Governments Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  6. Methods for Group Decision Making • Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) • Weighted Sum Method (WSM) • Weighted Product Method (WPM) • AHP Combined Method • Group Evaluation Method • Fuzzy AHP • Fuzzy AHP Combined • Fuzzy AHP Group Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  7. Identify Problem The Decision-Making Process: Individual DMers Select Alternative Develop Decision Criteria Allocate Weights to Criteria Implement Alternative Develop Alternatives Analyze Alternatives Evaluate Results Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  8. Illustrative Problem:Best Site Selection The ABC Restaurant Corporation is offering franchise opportunities. After completing all the requirements from the applicants, the company seeks the best site location from a set of alternative locations. There are three DMs to make the judgments: CEO, CFO, and CIO. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  9. Methods: 1. AHP The analytic hierarchy process (AHP), which provides a proven, effective means to deal with complex decision making, was first introduced by Thomas Saaty in 1970’s Evaluation phase is divided into four steps given below; 1. Generate pairwise matrices 2. Generate the weights of the measures 3. Normalize weights to get the consistency among measures 4. Calculate the overall ratings Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  10. Methods: 1. AHP Pairwise Comparison Matrix – Interactive Feedback from CEO Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  11. Methods: 1. AHP Overall Location Priorities for DMs Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  12. Methods: 2. WSM Evaluation of DMs by each DM. Overall priority of selecting a best location. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  13. Methods: 3. WPM Each alternative is compared with the others by multiplying a number of ratios, one for each criterion. Alternatives pairwise comparison matrix and priority for CEO Since the CEO has the highest value (0.724) among the other DMs, his option -Loc.2- will be chosen to select the best location. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  14. Methods: 4. AHP Combined Geometric mean approach is used to combine the inputs of all DMs. After pairwise comparison matrix is conducted, AHP is used to get overall ranking. Criteria pairwise comparison matrix and priority for combined. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  15. Methods: 5. Group Evaluation In Group Evaluation, each DM evaluates the other DMs instead of alternatives. Each DM ranked the other two DMs with respect to criterion. Pairwise comparison matrices are created as follow DMs pairwise comparison matrix and priority with respect to Visibility Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  16. Methods: 5. Group Evaluation Each weight of DMs is multiplied by relevant criterion to get the following pairwise comparison. We then weighted each alternative by multiplying their ranks by corresponding weight. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  17. Ã 1 1 0 0 A a2 a1 aM Methods: 6. Fuzzy AHP Although the AHP is to capture the expert’s knowledge, the traditionaly AHP still can not really reflect the human thinking style. Triangular fuzzy numbers are used based on arithmetic operations to express the decision maker’s evaluate on alternatives with respect to each criterion Triangular Fuzzy Number and Crisp Number Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  18. Methods: 7. Fuzzy AHP Combined Each decision maker (DM) individually assesses alternatives and criteria following to the normal Fuzzy AHP procedures and from their assessments, the geometric mean is calculated to obtain the final decision Normalized value of each criterion is multiplied by corresponding normalized alternative value and them sum them up. P2 (Loc.2) dominates the other locations. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  19. Methods: 8. Fuzzy AHP Group Weights for the DMs were empricially defined according to the AHP whereby each DM responded to the overall importance of all other DMs for this decision. Multiplying DMs judgment of criteria in fuzzy AHP by weight of each DM is called Fuzzy AHP Group. P2 (Loc.2) dominates the other locations. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  20. Methods Strengths and Weaknesses Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  21. Methods Strengths and Weaknesses – cont’d Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  22. Web-based Tool for Group Decision Making Java, object-oriented programming is used. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  23. Web-based Tool:Architecture of the Application Run Time Environment, are run to evaluate the clients pairwise comparisons and then those weights are delivered to the Web browser on the client side. The weights delivered to the server and stored in the database. Java Application is used in the run-time environment to do the required calculations and results based on the appropriate methodology. Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  24. Web-based Tool: Aquawebsite Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  25. Web-based Tool: Aquawebsite Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  26. Web-based Tool: Aquawebsite Multicriteria Group Decision Making

  27. Thank you

More Related