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

This paper sets out to identify the initial positions of the different decision makers who intervene in a group decision making process with a reduced number of actors, and to establish possible consensus paths between these actors. As a methodological support, it employs one of the most widely-known multicriteria decision techniques, namely, the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP). Assuming that the judgements elicited by the decision makers follow the so-called multiplicative model (Crawford and Williams, 1985; Altuzarra et al., 1997; Laininen and Hämäläinen, 2003) with log-normal errors and unknown variance, a Bayesian approach is used in the estimation of the relative priorities of the alternatives being compared. These priorities, estimated by way of the median of the posterior distribution and normalised in a distributive manner (priorities add up to one), are a clear example of compositional data that will be used in the search for consensus between the actors involved in the resolution of the 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 group decision making problem with a large number of individuals. To that end, it makes use of the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1980) as the technique to solve discrete multicriteria decision making problems. This technique permits the resolution of multicriteria, multienvironment and multiactor problems in which subjective aspects and uncertainty have been incorporated into the model, constructing ratio scales corresponding to the priorities relative to the elements being compared, normalised in a distributive manner (wi = 1). On the basis of the individuals’ priorities we identify different clusters for the decision makers and, for each of these, the associated preference structure using, to that end, tools analogous to those of Multidimensional Scaling. The resulting PS will be employed to extract knowledge for the subsequent negotiation processes and, should it be necessary, to determine the relative importance of the alternatives being compared using anyone of the existing procedures

How to improve the formal analytic reasoning and scientific motivation in the intellectual training of medical students

A review article of the The New England Journal of Medicine refers that almost a century ago, Abraham Flexner, a research scholar at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, undertook an assessment of medical education in 155 medical schools in operation in the United States and Canada. Flexner’s report emphasized the nonscientific approach of American medical schools to preparation for the profession, which contrasted with the university-based system of medical education in Germany. At the core of Flexner’s view was the notion that formal analytic reasoning, the kind of thinking integral to the natural sciences, should hold pride of place in the intellectual training of physicians. This idea was pioneered at Harvard University, the University of Michigan, and the University of Pennsylvania in the 1880s, but was most fully expressed in the educational program at Johns Hopkins University, which Flexner regarded as the ideal for medical education. (...)