Abstract
Groups are generally considered to be more effective as compared to single individuals. The practical implementation of Operation Research methods in group negotiations needs simple contexts and clear cause-and-effect relationships easily discernible by everyone. This paper proposes a multi-criteria group decision-making approach allowing decision makers/experts involved in a negotiation process to better express and defend their preferences in the selection of the best alternative. In the proposed approach, the most appropriate alternative is the alternative with the largest number of appearances in the first position or in ranking lists, or the one determined based on negotiations of decision makers/experts. The proposed ARCAS approach is based on the use of the ARAS method, a new normalization procedure, and the SWARA method. In the proposed approach, each decision maker/expert involved in evaluation has an opportunity to set the preferred level of rating for each criterion used in such evaluation. Finally, a case study is presented in order to highlight the proposed approach. The obtained results confirm the usability and efficiency of the proposed approach.
Highlights
Compromise, negotiation and group decision theories have considerably developed in the 1970s and the 1980s (Munier, Shakun 1988). Raiffa et al (2002) analysed the complex phenomenon of the following four collaborative decision-making and synthesizedD
This paper proposes a multi-criteria group decision-making approach allowing decision makers/experts involved in a negotiation process to better express and defend their preferences in the selection of the best alternative
In contrast to a number of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) approaches proposing an evaluation based on group criteria weights and group performance ratings, a specific approach adapted for negotiation is proposed in this manuscript
Summary
Compromise, negotiation and group decision theories have considerably developed in the 1970s and the 1980s (Munier, Shakun 1988). Raiffa et al (2002) analysed the complex phenomenon of the following four collaborative decision-making and synthesized. Considering the relative agreement degrees and the importance of the weights of multiple decision makers, Chen (2015) presented a modified hybrid averaging method with an inclusion-based ordered weighted averaging operation for forming a collective decision environment He developed an extended TOPSIS method with an inclusion comparison approach for addressing MCGDM problems in the framework of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. The use of the mean values of criteria weights and performance ratings, obtained from the respondents involved in an evaluation, can be identified as a common approach, used in many integrations of MCDM methods and GDM techniques, for determining the overall performance ratings of the considered alternatives. Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis (SWARA) technique, which allows decision-makers to effectively determine the weighting of evaluation criteria, simultaneously proposing new dispute resolution methods from the economic, social and other points of view.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: 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.
