Searching for consensus in ahp-group decision making. A bayesian perspective

This paper sets out to identify the initial positions of the different decisionmakers who intervene in a group decision making process with a reducednumber of actors, and to establish possible consensus paths between theseactors. As a methodological support, it employs one of the most widely-knownmulticriteria decision techniques, namely, the Analytic Hierarchy Process(AHP). Assuming that the judgements elicited by the decision makers follow theso-called multiplicative model (Crawford and Williams, 1985; Altuzarra et al.,1997; Laininen and Hämäläinen, 2003) with log-normal errors and unknownvariance, a Bayesian approach is used in the estimation of the relative prioritiesof the alternatives being compared. These priorities, estimated by way of themedian of the posterior distribution and normalised in a distributive manner(priorities add up to one), are a clear example of compositional data that will beused in the search for consensus between the actors involved in the resolution ofthe problem through the use of Multidimensional Scaling tools

Group preference structures in AHP–group decision making

This paper presents a procedure that allows us to determine the preference structures(PS) associated to each of the different groups of actors that can be identified in a groupdecision making problem with a large number of individuals. To that end, it makesuse of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980) as the technique to solvediscrete multicriteria decision making problems. This technique permits the resolutionof multicriteria, multienvironment and multiactor problems in which subjective aspectsand uncertainty have been incorporated into the model, constructing ratio scales correspondingto the priorities relative to the elements being compared, normalised in adistributive manner (wi = 1). On the basis of the individuals’ priorities we identifydifferent clusters for the decision makers and, for each of these, the associated preferencestructure using, to that end, tools analogous to those of Multidimensional Scaling.The resulting PS will be employed to extract knowledge for the subsequent negotiationprocesses and, should it be necessary, to determine the relative importance of thealternatives being compared using anyone of the existing procedures