Abstract:With society turning increasingly to sustainable development, sharper demands are being made concerning energy efficiency and other properties that mean reductions in the negative effects of the building on the environment and people. This means that architects must have a suitably adapted solution already in the early design phase, as this has the greatest influence on the final result. Current tools and methods used for this are either focused only on individual topics or are too complex and not adapted for independent use by architects. The paper presents a simplified method for evaluating building sustainability (SMEBS) which addresses these needs. It is intended as a tool to aid architects in the early project planning phases as it allows a quick evaluation of the extent to which the demands of sustainable building are fulfilled. The method was developed on the basis of a study of international building sustainability assessment methods (BSAM) and standards in this field. Experts in sustainable construction were invited to determine weights for assessment parameters using the analytical hierarchy process (AHP). Their judgments reflect the specific characteristics of the local environment.

a b s t r a c tGroup decision making is an important part of multiple criteria decision making and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). The aim of this paper was to compare group AHP methods. Seven simple group AHP aggregation techniques that could be attractive for applications selected from the vast array of group AHP models proposed in the literature were selected for evaluation. We developed three new measures of evaluation: group Euclidean distance, group minimum violations, and distance between weights for the purpose of evaluation. The results of seven group AHP methods of the theoretical example were evaluated by three new evaluation measures, satisfactory index and fitting performance index. Furthermore, a case study of a decision making problem from the construction engineering field was performed and nine group AHP aggregation techniques, seven of them formerly presented and two new two stage group approaches were applied. Finally, the case study was evaluated using all five measures for each of the nine group decision making methods. The results showed that not all group AHP methods are equally convenient and that the selection of the method depended on the specific application.

Motiviranje zaposlenih u slovenskim i hrvatskim drvoprerađivačkim poduzećima u uvjetima gospodarske krize Received -prispjelo:13. 12. 2010. Accepted -prihvaćeno: 27. 4. 2011. UDK: 630*79 doi:10.5552/drind.2011 Original scientifi c paper • Izvorni znanstveni rad

No abstract

The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is a method for solving multiple criteria decision problems, as well as group decision making. The weighted geometric mean method (WGMM) is appropriate when aggregation of individual judgements (AIJ) is used. This paper presents a new proof which confirms the theorem that if the comparison matrices of all decision makers are of acceptable consistency, then the weighted geometric mean complex judgement matrix (WGMCJM) also is of acceptable consistency. This theorem was presented and first proved by Xu (2000), but Lin et al. ( 2008) rejected the proof. We also discuss under what conditions the WGMCJM is of acceptable consistency when not all comparison matrices of decision makers are of acceptable consistency. For this case we determine the upper bound for the consistency ratio of WGMCJM and provide numerical examples.