No abstract

This paper examines consensus building in AHP-group decision making from a Bayesian perspective. In accordance with the multicriteria procedural rationality paradigm, the methodology employed in this study permits the automatic identification, in a local context, of “agreement” and “disagreement” zones among the actors involved. This approach is based on the analysis of the pairwise comparison matrices provided by the actors themselves. In addition, the study integrates the attitudes of the actors implicated in the decision-making process and puts forward a number of semiautomatic initiatives for establishing consensus. This information is given to the actors as the first step in the negotiation processes. The knowledge obtained will be incorporated into the system via the learning process developed during the resolution of the problem. The proposed methodology, valid for the analysis of incomplete or imprecise pairwise comparison matrices, is illustrated by an example.

The two procedures traditionally followed for group decision making with the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) are the Aggregation of Individual Judgments (AIJ) and the Aggregation of Individual Priorities (AIP). In both cases, the geometric mean is used to synthesise judgments and individual priorities into a collective position. Unfortunately, positional measures (means) are only representative if dispersion is reduced. It is therefore necessary to develop decision tools that allow: (i) the identification of groups of actors that present homogeneous and differentiated behaviours; and, (ii) the aggregation of the priorities of the near groups to reach collective positions with the greatest possible consensus. Following a Bayesian approach to AHP in a local context (a single criterion), this work proposes a methodology to solve these problems when the number of actors is not high. The method is based on Bayesian comparison and selection of model tools which identify the number and composition of the groups as well as their priorities. This information can be very useful to identify agreement paths among the decision makers that can culminate in a more representative decision-making process. The proposal is illustrated by a real-life case study.

Systemic decision making is a new approach for dealing with complex multiactor decision making problems in which the actors' individual preferences on a fixed set of alternatives are incorporated in a holistic view in accordance with the "principle of tolerance". The new approach integrates all the preferences, even if they are encapsulated in different individual theoretical models or approaches; the only requirement is that they must be expressed as some kind of probability distribution. In this paper, assuming the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is the multicriteria technique employed to rank alternatives, the authors present a new methodology based on a Bayesian analysis for dealing with AHP systemic decision making in a local context (a single criterion). The approach integrates the individual visions of reality into a collective one by means of a tolerance distribution, which is defined as the weighted geometric mean of the individual preferences expressed as probability distributions. A mathematical justification of this distribution, a study of its statistical properties and a Monte Carlo method for drawing samples are also provided. The paper further presents a number of decisional tools for the evaluation of the acceptance of the tolerance distribution, the construction of tolerance paths that increase representativeness and the extraction of the relevant knowledge of the subjacent multiactor decisional process from a cognitive perspective. Finally, the proposed methodology is applied to the AHP-multiplicative model with lognormal errors and a case study related to a real-life experience in local participatory budgets for the Zaragoza City Council (Spain).

No abstract