Consensus in Group Decision Making and Social Networks

Herrera‐Viedma, Enrique; Cabrerizo, Francisco Javier; Chiclana, Francisco; Wu, Jian; Cobo, Manuel J.; Konstantin, Samuylov

doi:10.24846/v26i3y201701

Cited by 47 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As future word, we plan to develop a new‐consistency–based induced ordering weighted operator to fuse all the expert preferences allocating more importance to those that present higher linguistic consistency in their judgments. Moreover, the issue of the consensus when dealing with LPR taking into account the uncertainty in the meaning of the words will be addressed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with incomplete information in linguistic group decision making by means of Interval Type‐2 Fuzzy Sets

Ureña

Kou

et al. 2019

Int J Intell Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nowadays, in the social network–based decision‐making processes, like the ones involved in e‐commerce and e‐democracy, multiple users with different backgrounds may take part and diverse alternatives might be involved. This diversity enriches the process, but at the same time, increases the uncertainty of opinions. This uncertainty can be considered from two different perspectives: (i) the uncertainty in the meaning of the words given as preferences, that is, motivated by the heterogeneity of the decision makers; and (ii) the uncertainty inherent to any decision‐making process that may lead to an expert not being able to provide all their judgments. The main objective of this study is to address these two types of uncertainty. To do so, the following approaches are proposed: First, to capture, process, and keep the uncertainty in the meaning of the linguistic assumption, the Interval Type‐2 Fuzzy Sets are introduced as a way to model the experts' linguistic judgments. Second, a measure of the coherence of the information provided by each decision maker is proposed. Finally, a consistency‐based completion approach is introduced to deal with the uncertainty presented in the expert judgments. The proposed approach is tested in an e‐democracy decision‐making scenario.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dealing with incomplete information in linguistic group decision making by means of Interval Type‐2 Fuzzy Sets

Ureña

Kou

et al. 2019

Int J Intell Syst

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In future studies, we will investigate the resolution of heterogeneous multi-attribute group decision making problems, in which the decision information is expressed as hesitant fuzzy elements, dual hesitant fuzzy elements, hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets and probabilistic linguistic term sets. Besides, the consensus problem is a hot topic in group decision making (Capuano et al, 2017;Del Moral et al, 2018;Herrera-Viedma et al, 2017). In our future work, we attempt to study the consensus reaching model in group decision making based on dual hesitant fuzzy preference relations by considering social influence.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritized Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Aggregation Operators Based on <italic>t</italic>-Norms and <italic>t</italic>-Conorms with Their Applications in Decision Making

Zhao¹,

Xu²

2018

Informatica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main contributions of this paper are shown as: (1) we define dual hesitant fuzzy t-norms and t-conorms; (2) based on dual hesitant fuzzy t-norms and t-conorms, we introduce a family of prioritized dual hesitant fuzzy operators to aggregate dual hesitant fuzzy information of alternatives with regard to the prioritized attributes; (3) we propose a method to handle the dual hesitant fuzzy multi-attribute decision making (MADM) problems with prioritized attributes; (4) we show that compared to other relevant studies, the developed prioritized aggregation operators take full advantage of the given decision information, avoid the loss of original information, and thus yield better final decision results.

show abstract

“…A different method to reach consensus, without negatively affecting R&S GDM, is eliminating the outlier opinions, instead of the member of the decision-making group, in three steps: The consistency checking process, the consensus reaching process and the selection process [116]. Other authors suggest that considering the decision-making group as a social network could enhance the consensus level [117]. Some consensus degree models have been introduced that could be fruitful to monitor and measure the consensus level and reach the maximum consensus [118][119][120].…”

Section: Managerial Implicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Literature Review of the Concepts of Resilience and Sustainability in Group Decision-Making

Ardebili

Padoano

2020

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The most critical decisions usually involve several decision makers with different roles and opportunities to commit key resources. Several group decision-making (GDM) approaches can support the identification of a joint or compromise decision in less conflicting settings, where there is a group of subjects (e.g’, partners) who pursue a common overall objective. However, considering the uncertainty in future events and complexity of modern-day systems, decision processes do not always produce beneficial results or give the participants a positive perception of their role in the process. Group decision-making should then take into consideration some aspects that might insure future resilience and sustainability, particularly the achievement of the objectives in view of future risks and the transparency and participation that are needed to limit problems in the implementation phase of the decision. The literature survey presented in this study identified a research gap regarding GDM. Differently from traditional GDM, which was first discussed in the early 1980s and whose body of knowledge is pretty defined, resilient and sustainable GDM (R&S GDM) is fairly new. The main objective of this study is then identifying the main attributes for supporting sustainable and resilient group decisions. To this aim, a preliminary focused systematic review was conducted to study the existing group decision-making methods in the literature and how the concepts of sustainability and resilience have been employed. After defining the search keywords and exclusion criteria for the individuation of the articles, the first screening process was carried out and the most relevant articles were selected. The last steps of the systematic review were the classification of the articles and the full paper examination to extract the main factors of R&S GDM. Seven attributes were listed as the key factors of R&S GDM. In light of those factors, a group decision process concerning an injection moulding line in Tajikistan was investigated. The case study highlighted that over self-confidence, information flow and transparency were the main reasons for faulty decisions, thus suggesting that information system and information fluidity play an important role in R&S GDM. Finally, the most important managerial implications of R&S GDM are reported.

show abstract

Consensus in Group Decision Making and Social Networks

Cited by 47 publications

References 32 publications

Dealing with incomplete information in linguistic group decision making by means of Interval Type‐2 Fuzzy Sets

Dealing with incomplete information in linguistic group decision making by means of Interval Type‐2 Fuzzy Sets

Prioritized Dual Hesitant Fuzzy Aggregation Operators Based on <italic>t</italic>-Norms and <italic>t</italic>-Conorms with Their Applications in Decision Making

A Literature Review of the Concepts of Resilience and Sustainability in Group Decision-Making

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About