An Integrated Group Decision-Making Approach Considering Uncertainty Conditions
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Formal Metadata
| Title |
| |
| Title of Series | ||
| Number of Parts | 30 | |
| Author | 0000-0002-4457-3703 (ORCID) 0000-0003-2688-9840 (ORCID) | |
| License | CC Attribution - NonCommercial 4.0 International: You are free to use, adapt and copy, distribute and transmit the work or content in adapted or unchanged form for any legal and non-commercial purpose as long as the work is attributed to the author in the manner specified by the author or licensor. | |
| Identifiers | 10.5446/53703 (DOI) | |
| Publisher | ||
| Release Date | ||
| Language |
Content Metadata
| Subject Area | ||
| Genre | ||
| Abstract |
| |
| Keywords |
11
00:00
Computer animation
00:11
Computer animation
02:23
Computer animation
02:44
Computer animation
04:16
Computer animation
Transcript: English(auto-generated)
00:00
The paper I'm going to present deals with an integrated group decision-making approach considering uncertainty conditions. Group decision-making under uncertainty conditions are in the focus of many different organizations through small and medium enterprises,
00:21
including small family businesses, universities and other non-profit organizations. Due to nowadays dynamic and different aspects of business process, the organizations are facing with a variety of decision-making problems with different degrees of uncertainty conditions. This motivates the author to propose modified models
00:43
that improve group decision-making under uncertain conditions. The well-known criteria of Wout, Laplace, Horvitz and Savage are modified to integrate the point of view of experts with different importance when forming the final group decision.
01:04
This is realized by introducing weighted coefficients assigned to each expert. The advantage of such approach is the possibility to take into account the expert's opinion according to their expertise, background and closeness to the particular decision-making problems.
01:23
A drawback of the proposed approach could be considered the subjective factor of the super decision-maker or executive managers who determine the weighted coefficients of the experts within the group.
01:41
During the decision-making process, a set of different alternatives with a variety of different linking consequences need to be analyzed. That means the presence of uncertainty in decision-making. When making decisions in conditions of uncertainty,
02:00
it is assumed that the decision-maker has an idea of the goal to be achieved, but the information about the alternative and future events is incomplete. In the decision-making process, the preference of the decision-maker can be represented by a utility function over a set of alternatives and in different states.
02:25
In the current paper, we propose an algorithm for evaluation considering different criteria to cope with uncertainty condition that is shown in this figure, and it's composed of nine stages.
02:44
The first stage is related to the description of the specific problem for choosing an alternative. Stage two is related to identify the acceptable alternative appropriate to the problem at hand. At stage three, the possible states of the environment
03:01
in which these identified alternatives are implemented are determined. Depending on the specific of the identified problem, a group of experts for evaluating the alternative is selected on the stage four. Once the group of experts are determined,
03:21
the respective weighting coefficients are to be determined in accordance with the expertise and the degree of importance of each decision-maker from the group. Stage six is related to the process of alternative assessment toward identified conditions and to point of view of each expert.
03:42
To cope with the uncertainty at stage seven, one of the well-known Woutla-Plast-Hurwitz-Orszewicz criteria is to be chosen to determine the optimal strategy. Next, the corresponding optimization task for choosing an alternative
04:01
in the condition of group decision-making is to be formulated and solved on the next stage. On the last stage nine, the most preferable group alternative is determine. We've modified four group decision-making models
04:21
that are based on the well-known criteria. First of them is based on the Wout criteria, as shown on this slide, where we introduce the weight coefficient for the importance of each decision-making opinions important.
04:42
The second modified group decision-making model is based on the Woutla-Plast criterion, and the modification is shown on this page. The third modified model is based on the Hurwitz criterion, where we introduce also the weighted coefficient
05:02
for the importance of each decision-maker forming the group. And the last of the proposed model is based on the Savage criterion, and the modification is shown on this slide.
05:21
Numerical testing of group decision-making problem in condition of uncertainty is made for a specific example of choosing specialized software, namely customer relation management software. Due to dynamism, economic environment and companies' prospects are represented by three possible situations.
05:44
Situation 1 represents increasing revenue, the next is reducing revenue, and the third of them is maintaining the current state. Therefore, the subject of the decision is in the condition of uncertainty,
06:02
as the possible situations are known, but it is not known which of them will come true, and there is no information about the probability of realization of these situations. The selection of most appropriate
06:23
CRM software is made through the cost-benefit analysis that is expressed by the formula shown on this slide. Three experts have been appointed to carry out the evaluation process. An expert in the database,
06:41
one end-user of CRM software, and one expert from the IT support team. The cost-benefit estimation of three alternatives about the CRM software are done, taking into account the possible three situations for increasing, decreasing, and maintaining the current state of the company
07:04
as shown in the first table. Using the data from the previous table and formulated for decision-making models
07:21
based on the Wout, Laplace, and Hurwitz criteria, corresponding optimization texts are formulated and solved. Savage criterion requires drawing regret matrix, which is calculated by using the formula on this slide. The value of regret resulting to the lost profit
07:42
are shown in the table of regret matrix for three alternatives in respect of three situations, using a group of three experts. The described above problem is numerically tested for two scenarios or cases
08:01
that express different combinations between decision-maker opinions' importance. Case 1 expresses the most important is the opinion of expert 3, following by the expert 2, and the less important is the opinion of expert 1.
08:21
The case 1 is a variation of case 1, where the most important opinion is taken for the expert 2, followed by the expert 1, and the less important opinion is taken on the expert 3.
08:42
The result obtained from solving the respective optimization tasks based on the proposed model for group decision-making considering two scenarios for the importance of decision-maker opinions are illustrated in Fig. 2.
09:05
According to the Wouth and Horvitz criterion and particular input data, the final group decision is to choose alternative 3 in both cases for decision-maker opinions' importance.
09:20
If the strategy behind the savage principle is chosen, the final group decision is to select alternative A2 for both cases in decision-maker opinions' importance. But according to the strategy behind the Laplace criterion, the importance of decision-maker opinions
09:43
determine the alternative 2 for case 1 and alternative 1 for case 2 is the space choice. The alternative A1 is also a preferable group decision in accordance to the Horvitz strategy
10:01
and coefficient of optimism equal to 0.40. In conclusion, the major contributions of the article are related to the modified optimization strategy of Wouth, Laplace, Horvitz and Savage to consider expert opinion with different importance.
10:25
These opinions are based on the usage of calculated value for cost-benefit ratio for each particular problem. The components that make up the cost and benefit in case of implementation of software system are identified,
10:41
involving the data in mind the value of cost-benefit ratio. The proposed approach is applied to the selection of CRM software. In summary, it is shown that the final group decision depends not only the used strategy
11:03
behind the principle of Laplace, Horvitz and Savage, but it is also influenced by the introduced weighted coefficient expressing each expert opinion's importance in aggregated group decision.
11:21
The future developments concern the development of different models for more precise and objective estimation of the weights for expert opinion in the aggregation of final group decision. Another perspective direction is related to the use of different scales for alternative estimation
11:44
that differs from the used cost-benefit estimation ratio. Thank you.