Abstract
<p>The individual and group decisions in this study are denoted as the normalized interval weights of alternatives as in Interval AHP. It assumes that a decision maker uses crisp values in the interval weights in giving comparisons. The interval weights reflect uncertainty in a decision maker’s mind. Then, the group interval weight is obtained as a conjunction approximation of the individual interval weights. For a consensus, the group interval weight is obtained so as to intersect with all the individual interval weights. In other words, the group interval weight has something in common with each individual interval weight. The group decision depends on how much the decision makers are satisfied or dissatisfied with it. The satisfaction of a decision maker is measured by the ranges of the group interval weights which s/he can support. Similarly, the decision maker’s dissatisfaction is defined by the ranges which are out of his/her decision. It is better to maximize the satisfaction and simultaneously to minimize the dissatisfaction. However, there is a trade-off between these two objectives. In the proposed model, the importance of the satisfaction or dissatisfaction is given. Then, the decision makers find not only the group decision but also their satisfaction and dissatisfaction with it. </p>
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of the Analytic Hierarchy Process
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.