An objective and interactive‐information‐based feedback mechanism for the consensus‐reaching process considering a non‐support degree for minority opinions

Abstract

The consensus-reaching process (CRP) to achieve higher unanimity and ensure common agreement before deriving a final decision has become an important procedure in group decision-making problems. The demand for high-quality decision results has motivated the development of large-scale group decision-making (LGDM). In such cases, the issue of minority opinion has gained awareness due to the related effects on enhancing consensus and decision quality. A minority opinion cannot exert an effect unless the majority attach importance to whether that opinion is supported or not. To reflect the effect of minority opinions on consensus, this paper establishes a LGDM framework with an objective and interactive-information-based feedback mechanism for the CRP. Given the natural forms of human expression, multi-granular linguistic information and a 2-tuple linguistic model are used. First, initial weights are objectively assigned to decision-makers (DMs) to weaken the impact of the majority. Subsequently, a non-support degree function is newly defined to reflect the extent to which other DMs dissent from a minority opinion. More importantly, feedback rules are constructed to make corresponding adjustments to the powers of discourse among all DMs in the attempt to reach consensus. Finally, the proposed three-phase LGDM framework is applied to new product development (NPD), and simulation experiments are conducted based on two algorithms to verify the framework's applicability and feasibility.

Using co-creation methods for research integrity guideline development - How, what, why and when?

“…pictures, buzzwords]" because "you're used to seeing it in a specific context where you might not end up as serious and productive", but nonetheless "thought it was useful" in the context of the SOPs4RI workshops (IN 8). Another interviewee noted that "I'm a bit older and that means that for me, they were not too helpful", and reflected that the 'inspirations' were confusing since "the interpretation of the inspirational pictures…are left to the people that participated, and therefore they might have different meanings" ( IN 11). Despite these differences in opinion, most interviewees agreed that the 'inspirations' likely had at least ain the words of one interviewee -"subliminal, subconscious effect" (IN 1) and stimulated participants' thought processes.…”

“…However, they also have some limitations. Nie and colleagues (11) argue that the focus on reaching agreements among the group majority might lead to missing out on diverging views. Yet, such views could be vital for developing RI guidelines that are sensitive to the specific needs of research stakeholders from different countries and disciplines.…”