Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design

Zhang, H; Dong, Y; Chiclana, F; Yu, S

Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design

Zhang, H Dong, Y Chiclana, F Yu, S

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: European Journal of Operational Research, 2019, 275 (2), pp. 580 - 598
Issue Date:: 2019-06-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Consensus efficiency in group decision making A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design.pdf	Published Version	2.4 MB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Zhang, H	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Dong, Y	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Chiclana, F	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Yu, S https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4485-6743	en_US
dc.date.issued	2019-06-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	European Journal of Operational Research, 2019, 275 (2), pp. 580 - 598	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0377-2217	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/135008
dc.description.abstract	© 2018 Elsevier B.V. Consensus reaching processes (CRPs) aim to help decision-makers achieve agreement regarding the solution to a common decision problem, and consequently play an increasingly important role in the resolution of group decision making (GDM) problems. To date, a large number of CRPs have been reported. However, there is a lack of a general framework and criteria to evaluate the efficiency of the different CRPs. This paper aims to fill this gap in the research literature on CRPs. To achieve this goal, firstly, a comprehensive review regarding the different approaches to CRP is reported, and a series of CRPs as the comparison objects are presented. Secondly, the following comparison criteria for measuring the efficiency of CPRs are proposed: the number of adjusted decision-makers, the number of adjusted alternatives, the number of adjusted preference values, the distance between the original and the adjusted preference information (adjustment cost), and the number of negotiation rounds required to reach consensus. Following this, a detailed simulation experiment is designed to analyze the efficiency of different CRPs under the mentioned different comparison criteria. Furthermore, new multi-stage optimization-based CRPs are also developed, which the simulation experiment shows to have better comprehensive consensus efficiency in different GDM settings.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	European Journal of Operational Research	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1016/j.ejor.2018.11.052	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Operations Research	en_US
dc.title	Consensus efficiency in group decision making: A comprehensive comparative study and its optimal design	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	2	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	275	en_US
utslib.for	010206 Operations Research	en_US
utslib.for	0802 Computation Theory and Mathematics	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	2	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	275	en_US

Abstract:

© 2018 Elsevier B.V. Consensus reaching processes (CRPs) aim to help decision-makers achieve agreement regarding the solution to a common decision problem, and consequently play an increasingly important role in the resolution of group decision making (GDM) problems. To date, a large number of CRPs have been reported. However, there is a lack of a general framework and criteria to evaluate the efficiency of the different CRPs. This paper aims to fill this gap in the research literature on CRPs. To achieve this goal, firstly, a comprehensive review regarding the different approaches to CRP is reported, and a series of CRPs as the comparison objects are presented. Secondly, the following comparison criteria for measuring the efficiency of CPRs are proposed: the number of adjusted decision-makers, the number of adjusted alternatives, the number of adjusted preference values, the distance between the original and the adjusted preference information (adjustment cost), and the number of negotiation rounds required to reach consensus. Following this, a detailed simulation experiment is designed to analyze the efficiency of different CRPs under the mentioned different comparison criteria. Furthermore, new multi-stage optimization-based CRPs are also developed, which the simulation experiment shows to have better comprehensive consensus efficiency in different GDM settings.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/135008