:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:層級分析法群體決策整合模式之研究
作者:吳昭儀
作者(外文):Chao-Yi Wu
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:工業管理科學系碩博士班
指導教授:耿伯文
學位類別:博士
出版日期:2005
主題關鍵詞:層級分析法群體決策決策整合模糊積分Analytic Hierarchy ProcessGroup decision makingDecision aggregationFuzzy integral
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(2) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:2
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:2
  多準則決策(Multiple Criteria Decision Making)與群體決策(Group Decision Making)是決策科學中兩個主要的研究領域。Saaty(1980)提出的層級分析法(Analytic Hierarchical Process, AHP)是一種多準則決策的方法,在文獻中已有很多研究將其廣泛地應用在不同領域的決策問題上,並獲致良好的成效。而在將層級分析法延伸至群體決策時,到目前為止,研究主要集中如何整合群體決策的問題上,算術加權平均法與幾何加權平均法是文獻中最普遍使用的整合模式。但就這樣子的應用而言,仍有兩方面的議題值得進一步改善:一項是進行加權平均時,各決策者的權重值如何決定,目前文獻中尚未有共同認可的方法;另一項則是僅以簡單的數學平均公式來整合決策者的意見,顯得過於單純化,而且平均法容易受到極端值影響的缺點仍然存在。因此,本研究將就層級分析法在群體決策問題的應用上,針對上述兩項議題分別提出:
(1)以模糊積分(Fuzzy Integral)為基礎的決策整合模式,提供一非線性的決策整合方法,降低極端值對整合決策值的影響。
(2)以「決策者信心程度」為基礎的決策者權重決定模式,提供加權平均法所需要的權重值。此外,並將信心程度導入層級分析法中,發展一新的模糊層級分析法模式,可同時解決不平衡尺度問題並改善決策的「不明確」情況處理能力。
 Multiple Criterion Decision Making (MCDM) and Group Decision Making (GDM) are two major disciplines of decision science. The analytic hierarchical process (AHP) method is one of the most popular MCDM methods. Since the AHP approach was proposed (Saaty, 1980), the literature has presented numerous discussions and applications, most of which have reached positive conclusions. Some studies have discussed AHP in GDM environments and focused on the issues involved in aggregating group decision. The weighted arithmetic mean method (WAMM) and the weighted geometric mean method (WGMM) are the two most popular techniques for aggregating group decisions. However, there are two disadvantages existed in WAMM and WGMM: one is how to determine the weights of decision makers (DMs) in WGMM and WAMM, and the other is that WGMM and WAMM are both simple methods for aggregating group decisions and their result is sensitive to extreme values. Therefore, this study attempts to make the following two contributions:
1.Proposes a fuzzy-integral based group decision aggregation model. This model provides a nonlinear function for aggregating group decisions and avoids the effect of extreme values.
2.Present a model for determining the weights of DMs based on their assurance levels.Furthermore, assurance level is introduced to AHP to yields a fuzzy AHP model that resolves the problem of unbalanced scale of AHP and improves ambiguity in decision-making.
1.Aczel, J., Saaty, T.L., Procedures for synthesizing ratio judgments, Journal  of Mathematical Psychology, 27(1), 93-102 1983.
2.Albayrakoglu, M.M. Justification of new manufacturing technology: A  
 strategic approach using the analytical hierarchy process, Production and
 Inventory Management Journal, 37(1), 71-76, 1996.
3.Baldwin, J.F., Guild, N.C.F., Comparison of fuzzy sets on the same decision
 space, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 2(2), 213-231, 1979.
4.Bard, J.F., Sousk, S.F., A tradeoff analysis for rough terrain cargo
 handlers using the AHP: An example of group decision making, IEEE
 Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(3), 222-228, 1990.
5.Barzilai, J., Lootsma, F.A., Power relations and group aggregation in the
 multiplicative AHP and SMART, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 6
 (1), 155-165, 1997.
6.Basak, I., Probabilistic judgments specified partially in the Analytic
 Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational Research, 108(2), 153-
 164, 1998.
7.Bhatia, P.K., On measures of information energy, Information Science, 97(3-
 4), 233-240, 1997.
8.Bogetoft, P., Pruzan, P., Planning with multiple criteria, Investigation,
 Communication, Choice, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1991.
9.Bose U., Davey A.M., Olson D.L., Multi-attribute utility methods in group
 decision making: Past applications and potential for inclusion in GDSS,
 Omega, 25(6), 691-706, 1997.
10.Bryson, N., Group decision-making and the analytic hierarchy process:
 exploring the consensus-relevant information content, Computers Operations
 Research, 23(1), 27-35, 1996.
11.Bryson, N., Joseph, A., Generating consensus priority point vectors: a
 logarithmic goal programming approach, Computers & Operations Research, 26
 (6), 637-643, 1999.
12.Bryson, N., Mobolurin, A., An approach to using the Analytic Hierarchy
 Process for solving multiple criteria decision making problems, European
 Journal of Operational Research, 76(3), 440-454, 1994.
13.Buckley, J.J., Fuzzy Hierarchical Analysis, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 17, 233-
 247, 1985.
14.Bui, T.X., Jarke, M., Cummunications design for co-oP: A group decision
 support system, ACM Transcations on Office Information Systems, 4(2), 81-
 103, 1986.
15.Chang, D.Y., Applications of the extent analysis method on fuzzy AHP,
 European Journal of Operational Research, 95(3), 649-655, 1996.
16.Chen, L.H., Chiou, T.W., A fuzzy credit-rating approach for commercial
 loans: A Taiwan case, Omega, 27(4), 407-419, 1999.
17.Chen, S.J., Hwang, C.L., Fuzzy Multiple Attribute Decision Making, Springer-
 Verlag, Berlin, 1992.
18.Cheng, C.H., Evaluating naval tactical missile systems by fuzzy AHP based
 on the grade value of membership function, European Journal of Operational
 Research, 96(2), 343-350, 1997.
19.Cheng, C.H., Yang, K.L., Hwang, C.L., Evaluating attack helicopters by AHP
 based on linguistic variable weight, European Journal of Operational
 Research, 116(2), 423-435, 1999.
20.Choi, H.A., Suh, E.H., Suh, C.K., Analytic hierarchy process: It can work
 for group decision support systems, Computers and Industrial Engineering, 27
 (1-4), 167-171, 1994.
21.de Korvin, A., Kleyle, R., Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process, Journal
 of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 7, 387-400, 1999.
22.DeSantics, G., Gallupe, R.B., A foundation for the study of group decision
 support systems, Management Science, 33, 589-609, 1987.
23.Forman, E., Peniwati, K., Aggregating individual judgments and priorities
 with the Analytic Hierarchy Process, European Journal of Operational
 Research, 108(1), 165-169, 1998.
24.Herrear, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., Verdegay, J.L., Direct approach in group
 decision making using linguistic OWA operators, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 79,
 175-190, 1996.
25.Hwang, C.L., Lin, M.J., Group decision making under multiple criteria –
 methods and applications, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1987.
26.Jarke, M., Knowledge sharing and negotiation support in multiperson
 decision support systems, Decision Support System, 2, 93-102, 1986.
27.Kakati, M., Strategic evaluation of advanced manufacturing technology,
 International Journal of Production Economics, 53(2), 141-156, 1997.
28.Klir, G.J., Floger, T.A., Fuzzy Sets, Uncertainty, and Information,
 Prentice-Hall, 1988.
29.Klir, G.J., Yuan, B., Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic – Theory and
 Applications, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey, 1995.
30.Lee, W.B., Lau, H., Liu, Z.Z., Tam, S., A fuzzy analytic hierarchy process
 approach in modular product design, Expert Systems, 18(1), 32-42, 2001.
31.Leszczynski, K., Penczek, P., Grochulski, W., Sugeno’s fuzzy measure and
 fuzzy integral, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 75(2), 147-158, 1985.
32.Liberatore, M.J., Nydick, R.L., Sanches, P.M., The evaluation of research
 papers (On how to get an academic committee to agree on something),
 Interfaces, 22(2), 92-100, 1992.
33.MacKay, D.B., Bowen, W.M., Zinnes, J.L., A thurstonian view of the analytic
 hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research, 89(2), 427-444,
 1996.
34.Madu, C.N., Kuei, C.H., Stability analyses of group decision making,
 Computers industry Engineering, 28(4), 881-892, 1995.
35.Matsatsinis, N.F., Samaras, A.P., MCDA and preference disaggregation in
 group decision support systems, European Journal of Operational research,
 130, 414-429, 2001.
36.Meredith, J.R., Suresh, N.C., Justification techniques for advanced
 manufacturing technologies, International Journal of Production Research, 24
 (5), 1043-1057, 1986.
37.Mohanty, B.K., Singh, N., Fuzzy relational equations in analytical
 hierarchy process, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 63(1), 11-19, 1994.
38.Mohanty, R.P., Deshmukh, S.G., Advanced manufacturing technology selection:
 A strategic model for learning and evaluation, International Journal of
 Production Economics, 55(3), 295-307, 1998.
39.Mon, D.L., Cheng, C.H., Lin, J.C., Evaluation weapon system using fuzzy
 analytic hierarchy process based on entropy weight, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
 62(1), 127-134, 1994.
40.Noori, H., The design of an integrated group decision support system for
 technology assessment, R&D Management, 25(3), 309-322, 1995.
41.Pagh, J.D., Cooper, M.C., Supply chain postponement and speculation
 strategies: How to choose the right strategy, Journal of Business Logistics,
 19(2), 13-33, 1998.
42.Pham, T.D., Yan, H., Information fusion by fuzzy integral, Proceeding 1996
 Australian New Zealand Conference on Intelligent Information Systems, 18-20,
 1996.
43.Punniyamoorthy, M, Ragavan, V.P., A strategic decision model for the
 justification of technology selection, International Journal of Advanced
 Manufacturing Technology, 21(1), 72-78, 2003.
44.Raafat, F, A comprehensive bibliography on justification of advanced
 manufacturing systems, International Journal of Production Economics, 79(3),
 197-208, 2002.
45.Ramanathan, R., Ganesh, L.S., Group preference aggregation methods employed
 in AHP: an evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members’  
 weightages, European Journal of Operational Research, 79(2), 249-265, 1994.
46.Rangone, A., A reference framework for the application of the fuzzy set
 theory to the assessment of investments in advanced manufacturing
 technologies, IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems for the
 21st Century, 2880-2885, 1995.
47.Saaty, T. L., The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting,
 Resource Allocation, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1980.
48.Salo, A.A., Interactive decision aiding for group decision support,
 European Journal of Operational Research, 84( ), 134-149, 1995.
49.Small, M.H., Chen, I.J., Economic and strategic justification of AMT
 inferences from industrial practices, International Journal of Production
 Economics, 49(1), 65-75, 1997.
50.Son, Y.K., A comprehensive bibliography on justification of advanced
 manufacturing technologies, The Engineering Economist, 38(1), 59-71, 1992.
51.Sugeo, M., Fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals. In Gupta, M.M., Saridis,
 G.N., and Gaines, B.R. (ed.) A Survey in Fuzzy Automata and Decision
 Processes, North-Holland, 1977.
52.Tahani, H., Keller, J.M., Information fusion in computer vision using the
 fuzzy integral, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 20(3),
 733-741, 1990.
53.Tam, M.C.Y., Rao Tummala, V.M., An application of the AHP in vendor
 selection of a telecommunications system, Omega, 29(2), 171-182, 2001.
54.Tavana, M., Kennedy, D.T., Joglekar, P., A group decision support framework
 for consensus ranking of technical mangemer candidates, Omega, 24(5), 523-
 538, 1996.
55.Udo, G.J., Ehie, I.C., Critical success factors for advanced manufacturing
 systems, Computers Industrial Engineering, 41(1-2), 91-94, 1996.
56.Van den Honert, R.C., Stochastic group preference modeling in the
 multiplicative AHP: A model of group consensus, European Journal of
 Operational Research, 110(1), 99-111, 1998.
57.Van Den Honert, R.C., Lootsma, F.A., Group preference aggregation in the
 multiplicative AHP: the model of the group decision process and Pareto
 optimality, European Journal of Operational Research, 96(2), 363-370, 1996.
58.Vargas, L.G., An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its
 applications, European Journal of Operational Research, 48(1), 2-8, 1990.
59.Weck, M., Klocke, F., Schell, H., Ruenauver, E., Evaluating alternative
 production cycles using the extended fuzzy AHP method, European Journal of
 Operational Research, 100(2), 351-366, 1997.
60.Xu, R., Zahir, X, Extensions of the analytic hierarchy process in fuzzy
 environment, Fuzzy Sets and systems, 52(3), 251-257, 1992.
61.Xu, Z., Wei, C., A consistency improving method in the analytic hierarchy
 process, European Journal of Operational Research, 116(2), 443-449, 1999.
62.Xu, Z., On consistency of the weighted geometric mean complex judgment
 matrix in AHP, European Journal of Operational Research, 126(3), 683-687,
 2000.
63.Yeh, J-M, Lin, C, Kreng, B, Gee, J-Y, A modified procedure for synthesizing
 ratio judgments in the analytic hierarchy process, Journal of the
 Operational Research Society, 50 (8), 867-873, 1999.
64.Yurdakul, M., AHP as a strategic decision-making tool to justify machine
 tool selection, Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 146(3), 365-376,
 2004.
65.Zahir, S., Geometry of decision making and the vector space of formulation
 of the analytic hierarchy process, European Journal of Operational Research,
 112(2), 373-396, 1999.
66.Zhou, S., Kocaoglu, D.F., Minimum distance method (MDM) for group judgment
 aggregations, Proceedings of International Conference on Engineering and
 Technology Management, 781-786, 1996.
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top