论多标准小组决策的组合可接受性熵共识度量法

IF 3.6 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT Group Decision and Negotiation Pub Date : 2024-07-30 DOI:10.1007/s10726-024-09891-z
Jana Goers, Graham Horton
{"title":"论多标准小组决策的组合可接受性熵共识度量法","authors":"Jana Goers, Graham Horton","doi":"10.1007/s10726-024-09891-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In group decisions, achieving consensus is important, because it increases commitment to the result. For cooperative groups, Combinatorial Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (CMAA) is a group decision framework that can achieve consensus efficiently. It is based on a novel Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy (CAE) consensus metric. As an output measure, the CAE metric is unique in its ability to identify the evaluations that have the greatest impact on consensus and to prevent premature consensus. This paper is intended to complement the original CMAA publication by providing additional insights into the CAE consensus metric. The design requirements for the CAE algorithm are presented, and it is shown how these requirements follow from the properties of cooperative decisions. The CAE-based consensus-building algorithm is contrasted both qualitatively and quantitatively with a representative example of the conventional input distance and input averaging approach to multi-criteria consensus-building. A simulation experiment illustrates the ability of the CAE-based algorithm to converge quickly to the correct decision as defined for cooperative decisions. The metric is able to meet a new, more stringent definition of hard consensus. The CAE approach highlights the need to distinguish between competitive and cooperative group decisions. Attention in the literature has been paid almost exclusively to the former type; the CAE approach demonstrates the greater efficiency and effectiveness that can be achieved with an approach that is designed specifically for the latter.</p>","PeriodicalId":47553,"journal":{"name":"Group Decision and Negotiation","volume":"71 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy Consensus Metric for Multi-Criteria Group Decisions\",\"authors\":\"Jana Goers, Graham Horton\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10726-024-09891-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>In group decisions, achieving consensus is important, because it increases commitment to the result. For cooperative groups, Combinatorial Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (CMAA) is a group decision framework that can achieve consensus efficiently. It is based on a novel Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy (CAE) consensus metric. As an output measure, the CAE metric is unique in its ability to identify the evaluations that have the greatest impact on consensus and to prevent premature consensus. This paper is intended to complement the original CMAA publication by providing additional insights into the CAE consensus metric. The design requirements for the CAE algorithm are presented, and it is shown how these requirements follow from the properties of cooperative decisions. The CAE-based consensus-building algorithm is contrasted both qualitatively and quantitatively with a representative example of the conventional input distance and input averaging approach to multi-criteria consensus-building. A simulation experiment illustrates the ability of the CAE-based algorithm to converge quickly to the correct decision as defined for cooperative decisions. The metric is able to meet a new, more stringent definition of hard consensus. The CAE approach highlights the need to distinguish between competitive and cooperative group decisions. Attention in the literature has been paid almost exclusively to the former type; the CAE approach demonstrates the greater efficiency and effectiveness that can be achieved with an approach that is designed specifically for the latter.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09891-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Decision and Negotiation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09891-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在群体决策中,达成共识非常重要,因为它能增强对结果的承诺。对于合作小组来说,组合多标准可接受性分析(CMAA)是一种能有效达成共识的小组决策框架。它基于一种新颖的组合可接受性熵(CAE)共识度量。作为一种输出指标,CAE 指标的独特之处在于它能够识别对共识影响最大的评价,并防止过早达成共识。本文旨在补充 CMAA 的原始出版物,提供对 CAE 共识度量的更多见解。本文介绍了 CAE 算法的设计要求,并说明了这些要求是如何从合作决策的特性中衍生出来的。基于 CAE 的建立共识算法与传统的多标准建立共识的输入距离和输入平均方法的代表实例进行了定性和定量对比。模拟实验表明,基于 CAE 的算法能够快速收敛到合作决策所定义的正确决策。该指标能够满足新的、更严格的 "硬共识 "定义。CAE 方法强调了区分竞争性和合作性群体决策的必要性。文献中对前者的关注几乎是唯一的;CAE 方法展示了专为后者设计的方法所能达到的更高的效率和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
On the Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy Consensus Metric for Multi-Criteria Group Decisions

In group decisions, achieving consensus is important, because it increases commitment to the result. For cooperative groups, Combinatorial Multicriteria Acceptability Analysis (CMAA) is a group decision framework that can achieve consensus efficiently. It is based on a novel Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy (CAE) consensus metric. As an output measure, the CAE metric is unique in its ability to identify the evaluations that have the greatest impact on consensus and to prevent premature consensus. This paper is intended to complement the original CMAA publication by providing additional insights into the CAE consensus metric. The design requirements for the CAE algorithm are presented, and it is shown how these requirements follow from the properties of cooperative decisions. The CAE-based consensus-building algorithm is contrasted both qualitatively and quantitatively with a representative example of the conventional input distance and input averaging approach to multi-criteria consensus-building. A simulation experiment illustrates the ability of the CAE-based algorithm to converge quickly to the correct decision as defined for cooperative decisions. The metric is able to meet a new, more stringent definition of hard consensus. The CAE approach highlights the need to distinguish between competitive and cooperative group decisions. Attention in the literature has been paid almost exclusively to the former type; the CAE approach demonstrates the greater efficiency and effectiveness that can be achieved with an approach that is designed specifically for the latter.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The idea underlying the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation, emerges from evolving, unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are complex and self-organizing involving multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving, dynamic problems. Approaches include (1) computer group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS), (2) artificial intelligence and management science, (3) applied game theory, experiment and social choice, and (4) cognitive/behavioral sciences in group decision and negotiation. A number of research studies combine two or more of these fields. The journal provides a publication vehicle for theoretical and empirical research, and real-world applications and case studies. In defining the domain of group decision and negotiation, the term `group'' is interpreted to comprise all multiplayer contexts. Thus, organizational decision support systems providing organization-wide support are included. Group decision and negotiation refers to the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation, not only to the final choice itself, e.g. scanning, communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation and social-emotional interaction. Descriptive, normative and design viewpoints are of interest. Thus, Group Decision and Negotiation deals broadly with relation and coordination in group processes. Areas of application include intraorganizational coordination (as in operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing and distribution, e.g. as in new products and global coordination), computer supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiations, interorganizational negotiations, (business, government and nonprofits -- e.g. joint ventures), international (intercultural) negotiations, environmental negotiations, etc. The journal also covers developments of software f or group decision and negotiation.
期刊最新文献
GAN-Based Privacy-Preserving Intelligent Medical Consultation Decision-Making UCD–CE Integration: A Hybrid Approach to Reinforcing User Involvement in Systems Requirements Elicitation and Analysis Tasks Fostering Psychological Safety in Global Virtual Teams: The Role of Team-Based Interventions and Digital Reminder Nudges Advancing Content Synthesis in Macro-Task Crowdsourcing Facilitation Leveraging Natural Language Processing On the Combinatorial Acceptability Entropy Consensus Metric for Multi-Criteria Group Decisions
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1