Group Analytic Hierarchy Process Based on Consensus Making Model

Yamada, Yoshiyasu; Sugiyama, Manabu; Yamaki, Naokazu

doi:10.15807/jorsj.40.236

Cited by 20 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is an answer to this question to introduce another measurement function and consider its optimization problem on the solution set of Problem (1.3). For example, Yamada et al (1997) proposed such a function. However they did not touch upon exis tence of the solution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On a Maximization Problem Arising From a Positive Reciprocal Matrix in Ahp

Shiraishi

Obata²

2002

Bulletin of Informatics and Cybernetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On a Maximization Problem Arising From a Positive Reciprocal Matrix in Ahp

Shiraishi

Obata²

2002

Bulletin of Informatics and Cybernetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of questionnaires are basically averaged in Step 4, and therefore, a final decision may diverge from the opinions of many DMT members especially when there are many different opinions in the DMT. To solve this problem, we plan to introduce GAHP (group analytic hierarchy process) [8] that enables decision-making without members' unsatisfaction.…”

Section: Considerationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision-Making about Software Release Time Using Analytic Hierarchy Process

Arao

Machida

Toda

et al. 2014

2014 IIAI 3rd International Conference on Advanced Applied Informatics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper shows a systematic method to decide software release time using AHP (analytic hierarchy process). The method helps a project team to make a correct decision about the software release time by combining multiple evaluations obtained from different viewpoints. In general, it is difficult to obtain quantitative evaluations of all the aspects to be considered in a software development project, due to the lack of methodologies, manpower, and information. Therefore, qualitative evaluation based on the intuition and experience of specialists in software development, software sales activities, management, etc. is incorporated into the decision-making process.

show abstract

“…given by A (B,C) , and i u be the true value of object i . Each evaluator is considered to have different evaluating criterion, and let α(β,γ) be the weight of A(B,C), for characterizing the evaluator's attitude, then we assume that (3,5), (4,5) (" ≈ " means "approximation"). This situation is also described by the graph shown in Figure2.…”

Section: The Error Model Of Multi-evaluator Ahpmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Our approach is different from theirs and gives the following specific profits which are not seen in [3] ; The physical meaning of weights of evaluators is clarified by the specific formula obtained in our analysis. Further the so called group decision making [4], [5] in AHP is a special case of multi-evaluator AHP, by which we can evaluate the reliabilities of evaluators.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%