{"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":null,"pages":null},"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}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
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.