Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated

Document Sample
Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making Methods and Integrated Powered By Docstoc
					Multi-Criteria Group Decision Making
 Methods and Integrated Web-Based
      Decision Support Systems

             Ibrahim Ozer
          University of Ottawa
Presentation Outline

    1. Introduction
       –   Problem
    2. Methods for Multicriteria Group Decision
       Making
    3. Decision-Making Process Diagram
    4. Illustrative Problem
       –   Best Site Selection
    5. Detailed Methods
    6. Web-based Tool for GDM

                                                              2
                                 Multicriteria Group Decision Making
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
Introduction: Advantages/Disadvantages
 Advantages                        Disadvantages

 • Useful in judgmental       • Takes more time
   tasks                      • One capable person can
 • Produce better decisions     decide as well as a
   than individual              group
 • Reducing effects of        • Satisfaction
   individual bias            • Negative effects of bias
 • Solutions more likely to     decisions
   be accepted                • Not necessarily a
                                consensus
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
Methods for Group Decision Making

    1.   Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)
    2.   Weighted Sum Method (WSM)
    3.   Weighted Product Method (WPM)
    4.   AHP Combined Method
    5.   Group Evaluation Method
    6.   Fuzzy AHP
    7.   Fuzzy AHP Combined
    8.   Fuzzy AHP Group

                              Multicriteria Group Decision Making
The Decision-Making Process: Individual DMers


Identify Problem
                                                          Select Alternative


           Develop Decision   Allocate Weights
               Criteria          to Criteria                 Implement
                                                             Alternative

               Develop           Analyze
              Alternatives      Alternatives
                                                           Evaluate Results




                                               Multicriteria Group Decision Making
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.
                                       Best Site
                                                                                      Level 0: Goal
                                       Selection




                                                                                      Level 1: Criteria

            Visibility      Accessibility          Traffic           Convenience


                Location1         Location1           Location1           Location1


                Location2         Location2           Location2           Location2
                                                                                      Level 2: Alternatives

                Location3         Location3           Location3           Location3



                                                                  Multicriteria Group Decision Making
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
                              Objective
                                          into four steps given below; Level 0: Goal

                                          1. Generate pairwise matrices
                                          2. Generate the weights of the
Criteria 1       Criteria 2
                                          measures        Criteria N   Level 1: Criteria


                                          3. Normalize weights to get
                                          the consistency among        Level 2: Alternatives
             Alternative 1                Alternative 2
                                          measures
                                          4. Calculate the overall
                                          ratings
                                                                                               Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Methods: 1. AHP
   Pairwise Comparison Matrix – Interactive Feedback from CEO
Criteria            Visibility      Accessibility     Traffic       Convenience        Priority
Visibility              1                3               2                2             0.398
Accessibility           -                1               1/4              1/4           0.085
Traffic                 -                 -              1                1/2           0.218
Convenience             -                 -               -               1             0.299

                                         Criteria

                (           0.398         0.085      0.218        0.299    )

                     Visibility          Access     Traffic      Conv.                Priority
   Loc.1                    0.123         0.608      0.619        0.265         ==>   0.315
   Loc.2                    0.320         0.272      0.284        0.656         ==>   0.408
   Loc.3                    0.557         0.120      0.096        0.080         ==>   0.277


                                                               Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Methods: 1. AHP

           Overall Location Priorities for DMs

                   CEO       CFO         CIO

         Loc.1     0.315     0.135       0.483

         Loc.2     0.408     0.304       0.323

         Loc.3     0.277     0.561       0.194




                                   Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Methods: 2. WSM
                     Evaluation of DMs by each DM.

                  CEO        CFO           CIO          Priority
      CEO            1           5           7           0.724
      CFO            -           1           3           0.193
      CIO            -           -           1           0.083


            (0.724       0.193       0.083)

            CEO          CFO         CIO                     Priority
  Loc.1     0.315        0.135       0.483                  0.294
  Loc.2     0.408        0.304       0.323                  0.381
  Loc.3     0.277        0.561       0.194                  0.325
            Overall priority of selecting a best location.
                                                  Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Methods: 3. WPM

  Each alternative is compared with the others by multiplying a number of ratios,
  one for each criterion.
                                 Criteria
             (    0.398       0.085     0.218      0.299    )

                 Visibility   Access.    Traffic   Conv.
     Loc.1        0.123        0.608      0.619     0.265       ==>   R(Loc.1/Loc.2)=   0.660
     Loc.2        0.320        0.272      0.284     0.656       ==>   R(Loc.1/Loc.3)=   1.349
     Loc.3        0.557        0.120      0.096     0.080       ==>   R(Loc.2/Loc.3)=   2.043

         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
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           Visibility   Access.   Traffic      Conv.    Priority
            Visibility            1.00       2.62       1.39        1.39    0.357

            Access.               0.38       1.00       0.57        0.69    0.149

            Traffic               0.72       1.75       1.00        0.91    0.247

            Convenience           0.72       1.44       1.10        1.00    0.247
                          Criteria pairwise comparison matrix and priority for combined.

                                                                Priority
                         Overall Loc.1 Priority                  0.328
                         Overall Loc.2 Priority                  0.356
                         Overall Loc.3 Priority                  0.328


                                                       Multicriteria Group Decision Making
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

  Visibility              CEO              CFO             CIO         Priority

               CEO          1                5               8         0.711


               CFO          -                1               5         0.223


               CIO          -                -               1         0.066




               DMs pairwise comparison matrix and priority with respect to Visibility



                                                          Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Methods: 5. Group Evaluation
    Each weight of DMs is multiplied by relevant criterion to get the following pairwise
    comparison.
                                        CEO             CFO        CIO           Priority
              Visibility                0.398           0.503      0.145           0.405
              Accessibility             0.085           0.273      0.098           0.152
              Traffic                   0.218           0.145      0.327           0.208
              Convenience               0.299           0.079      0.430           0.314


    We then weighted each alternative by multiplying their ranks by corresponding weight.

                              (    0.405        0.152      0.208     0.314   )
                                  Visibility Access. Traffic Conv.
                  Loc.1            0.152        0.402      0.462     0.320        0.319
                  Loc.2            0.304        0.303      0.263     0.572        0.403
                  Loc.3            0.544        0.295      0.274     0.109        0.356

                                                            Multicriteria Group Decision Making
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

                    Ã
         1                               1




         0                               0
               a1   aM        a2                     A


             Triangular Fuzzy Number and Crisp Number

                                                 Multicriteria Group Decision Making
   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
               Criteria            Visibility                 Access.                 Traffic                  Conv.

               Visibility    1         1         1     1.93    2.93     3.93   1.55    2.44     3.33   1.01    1.71    2.44

               Access.      0.26     0.34       0.53    1       1        1     0.78    1.13     1.50   0.56    0.74    0.96

               Traffic      0.41     0.61       1.05   2.11    2.72     3.43    1       1        1     0.54    0.81    1.37

               Conv.        0.41     0.61       1.05   1.95    2.62     3.30   0.76    1.47     2.20    1       1       1
                         Normalized Matrix
                                                                        P1=         0.022        0.035        0.056
Visibility         0.083         0.117           0.150
                                                                        P2=         0.023        0.038        0.062
Access.            0.039         0.049           0.062
                                                                        P3=         0.020        0.034        0.056
Traffic            0.064           0.08          0.110        Normalized value of each criterion is multiplied by
                                                              corresponding normalized alternative value and them sum
Conv.              0.059           0.08          0.106        them up. P2 (Loc.2) dominates the other locations.
                                                                                Multicriteria Group Decision Making
  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.
          Criteria            Visibility                 Access.                  Traffic                 Conv.

          Visibility    1         1         1     1.58    2.62     3.63    0.90    1.38     1.95   0.90   1.38     1.95

          Access.      0.27     0.38       0.63    1       1        1      0.43    0.57     0.69   0.53   0.69     0.94

          Traffic      0.51     0.72       1.10   1.44    1.74     2.32     1       1        1     0.60   0.90     1.58

          Conv.        0.51     0.72       1.10   1.06    1.44     1.88    0.62    1.10     1.65    1      1        1
                            Normalized Matrix

Visibility             0.083          0.117        0.150                  P1=           0.021      0.033         0.051
Access.                0.039          0.049        0.062                  P2=           0.025      0.041         0.066
Traffic                0.064           0.08         0.110                 P3=           0.020      0.034         0.055
                                                                          P2 (Loc.2) dominates the other locations.
Conv.                  0.059           0.08        0.106
                                                                                    Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Methods Strengths and Weaknesses
      Methods              Strength                          Weakness

                Appropriate for GDM                Perfect consistency is very
                                                   difficult
                Handles multiple criteria          Time consuming with large
                                                   numbers
AHP             Doesn’t involve complex math       Doesn’t take into account the
                                                   uncertainty
                A certain value of consistency
                is allowed
                Easy to capture and convenient

WSM             Strong in a single dimensional     Difficulty emerges on multi-
                problems                           dimensional problems
                Eliminate any unit of measure;     No solution with equal weight
                thus, can be used in single and    of DMs
WPM             multi dimensional MCDM
                Instead of actual values, it can
                use relative ones.
                                            Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Methods Strengths and Weaknesses – cont’d
         Methods                Strength                         Weakness

AHP Combined         Simplifying the group pairwise    Uncertainty
                     comparisons.
                     Evaluating DMs                    Uncertainty
Group Evaluation
                     Reducing the noise by having      Additive utility
                     DMs weights
                     Deals with uncertainty            Time consuming
Fuzzy AHP
                     Similar scale to Saaty’s can be   Hard to convince DMs
                     used
Fuzzy AHP Combined   Reducing the # of matrices        Time consuming

Fuzzy AHP Group      Considering the weight of         Time consuming
                     DMs




                                                 Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Web-based Tool for Group Decision Making
                        Provincial                    NGO
                       Governments

                                                       User

                            User




                                                                               User
                                               WAN
                                                                             Industrial
                     Database
                                      Server                               Organizations
       Workstation




                                                                 User
                                   User



                               Local                           Federal
                            Communities                       Scientists

                         Java, object-oriented programming is used.
                                                        Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Web-based Tool:                                       Web Browser/
                                                      User Interface

Architecture of the Application
                                                      Client Machine



  Run Time Environment, are run to
  evaluate the clients pairwise
  comparisons and then those
                                                     Java Application
  weights are delivered to the Web
  browser on the client side.
                                                   Run Time Environment


                                                        Windows




  The weights delivered to the server
  and stored in the database. Java      Database                        Results provided using AHP
  Application is used in the run-time                                            Modeling

  environment to do the required         Server
  calculations and results based on
  the appropriate methodology.
                                                      Results/Reports


                                           Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Web-based Tool: Aquawebsite




                              Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Web-based Tool: Aquawebsite




                              Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Web-based Tool: Aquawebsite




                              Multicriteria Group Decision Making
Thank you
   ☺

				
DOCUMENT INFO