0
RESEARCH PAPERS

A Formal Approach to Handling Conflicts in Multiattribute Group Decision Making

[+] Author and Article Information
Tung-King See

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo—SUNY, Buffalo, NY 14260tungsee@eng.buffalo.edu

Kemper Lewis1

Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University at Buffalo—SUNY, Buffalo, NY 14260kelewis@eng.buffalo.edu

1

Corresponding author.

J. Mech. Des 128(4), 678-688 (Oct 19, 2005) (11 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2197836 History: Received July 12, 2005; Revised October 19, 2005

Supporting the decision of a group in engineering design is a challenging and complicated problem when issues like consensus and compromise must be taken into account. In this paper, we present the foundations of the group hypothetical equivalents and inequivalents method and two fundamental extensions making it applicable to new classes of group decision problems. The first extension focuses on updating the formulation to place unequal importance on the preferences of the group members. The formulation presented in this paper allows team leaders to emphasize the input from certain group members based on experience or other factors. The second extension focuses on the theoretical implications of using a general class of aggregation functions. Illustration and validation of the developments are presented using a vehicle selection problem. Data from ten engineering design groups are used to demonstrate the application of the method.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2006 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

Preference for engine displacement design over a given range

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Examples of sampling the performance space

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Typical 2D performance space

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Possible alternative comparisons: (a) useful projection, (b) non-useful projection

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Variations in weights

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Relationship between the level of conflict and level of compensation

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Nondominated alternatives

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In