WAGE: Weighting with AHP, Grey Numbers, and Entropy for Multiple-Criteria Group Decision Making Problem

Oh, Kwang–Joong; Kang, Hyung Ku; Park, Jong Chang; Youn, Hee Yong

doi:10.1109/cse.2013.62

Cited by 4 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Some weighting techniques for decision support were weighting with subjective opinion of experts [38], weighting of subjective and objective of each DM [16], subjective weighting [39], the weighting with agent-interest approach [27], weighting with Bayesian networks [34], the weight of fuzzy GDM, [28], the adjustment weights of experts [9], multi-spatial [40], the rule of thumb (RT) weighting, [41], the determination of average weight [42], the improvement of average weight [43], the hybrid weighting [23], modifying the weights [44], the linguistics weighting [45], argument value for the weights [46], the weighting between participants [47].…”

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the model weighting based on the expertise of DM was also developed by [34] for the modification of the weighting involving several experts with Bayesian networks (BN) metho d, such as the problem of weighting preprocessing and doing pairwise comparisons of each variable criterion. The use of Entropy method in [14], [23], [44] for the subjectivity-objectivity weighting, parameter was used in other decision-making problems to fill the weight value.…”

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In [44] and [60], it was to make modifications to weighting method AHP with TOPSIS an d Grey method. These two researchers modified weighting in the method of AHP by applying TOPSIS method, grey theory and Entropy method to develop the problem of multiple-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM).…”

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The purpose of this model was to minimize subjectivity and vagueness in determining the weights of DMs. The weakness of the model [44] was it could not accommodate the interests of all DMs to determine the parameters or criteria. Meanwhile, according to [60], it was required a decision model using AHP to be integrated with the Grey-TOPSIS on the issues of Content Management System (CMS) for information technology project.…”

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Weighting Model for Group Decision Support System: A Review

Hamdani¹,

Wardoyo²,

Mustofa³

2018

IJEECS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper was conducted a survey of research findings related to decision-making in groups using weighting techniques This paper conducts a survey of research findings related to decision-making in groups using weighting techniques, therefore, a new weighting model can be proposed.. In order to make a decision, this model works based on the weighting parameters, criteria or decision makers (DM) to give ranking preference in the decision results. Weighting could be done objectively or subjectively by statistical calculations. Subjective weighting based on an understanding or expertise of the decision-making process, furthermore, a numerical value was needed to make it objective. The previous weighting models need to be modified for the development of group decision support systems (GDSS). It is required to accommodate the interests of all stakeholders to link the DM relationship. We formed several groups of weighting methods that currently use for the trend of group decision-making (GDM). It showed that the classical multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) models are still dominant in solving GDSS problems, therefore, it was necessary to apply hybrid MCDM with an approach method of stakeholders models and social networks (SN) to improve decision model that has been applied in the previous research.

show abstract

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Results and Analysis 31 Discussion Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Weighting Model for Group Decision Support System: A Review

Hamdani¹,

Wardoyo²,

Mustofa³

2018

IJEECS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The classical weighting with hybrid models has been proposed to solve the problems of GDM in research. The example of those models are weights modified without involving the interests of stakeholders [31], the weighting made between participants from various stakeholders [29], hybrid models performed to determine the distance of the weight of each of the methods used in each of the criteria using AHP, fuzzy AHP, TOPSIS, Grey theory, fuzzy TOPSIS, Grey-TOPSIS [32] Grey model is used to improve the model of MCDM [32]- [34]. The combination of grey models with MCDM models uses SAW, TOPSIS and grey relational analysis (GRA).…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Method of Weight Update in Group DecisionMaking to Accommodate the Interests of All the Decision Makers

Hamdani¹,

Wardoyo²,

Mustofa³

2017

IJISA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract-The weight updates are required for group decision-making which has similar parameters used by the decision maker (DM). Each DM as the stakeholder may have similar or different parameters in selecting parameters. Therefore, we have to accommodate the interests of all decision makers (DMs) to obtain alternative decisions. DM who has selected the parameters inputs the initial weight ( based on the classical methods, and then recalculates to obtain the updated weights ( until the final weight ( is obtained for the alternative of group decision-making (GDM). The initial weight uses a weighting directly or multi criteria decision-making (MCDM). This method aims to provide the fairness for all DMs who have different knowledge in determining the value of the weights and the selection parameters. In order to obtain alternative decisions, we used technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) method to update weight. In this paper, the alternative output of the decisions is applied in two stages: the decisions of each DM and the group, where this output consists of four types of alternatives. Based on the proposed method, the result of GDM shows that the third alternative is recommended in decision-making. This method is effectively performed in decision-making which has different parameters and weights of each DM to support group decision.

show abstract