Bosko Blagojevic

Group multi-criteria decision making (GMCDM) approach for selecting the most suitable table grape variety intended for organic viticulture

GMCDM approach for selection of the most suitable table grape variety is presented.The presented approach uses the AHP method, Cardinal consensus model and SAW method.Approach is used for selecting the most suitable of four varieties grown in Serbia.Approach may improve decision on the most suitable variety for organic viticulture. When establishing a new vineyard, one of the major issues that have significant effect on successful production of high-quality grapes is choice of the most suitable variety. The large number of criteria that are necessary to be taken into account and the differences in their weight on the final decision allows the process of choosing grape variety to be considered as a multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) problem. This paper presents a group multi-criteria decision making (GMCDM) approach for selecting the most suitable table grape variety intended for organic viticulture. The approach combines multi-criteria decision making methods with field test results, laboratory analysis and expertise from professionals in the subject. The following methods were used: the Simple Additive Weighting (SAW) method, Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP) and Dongs et al. Cardinal consensus model. All these methods were used throughout different hierarchy levels, which enabled a closer adaptation of the methods to the actual problem of decision-making, a more efficient use of available data, and maximum observance of expert knowledge and experience. The approach was presented through the selection of the most suitable of four table grape varieties grown at Sremski Karlovci experimental field of the Faculty of Agriculture in Novi Sad. Based on results obtained by applying the proposed approach and incorporating feedback from experts, it was found that this approach may improve the decision making process for selecting the most suitable table grape varieties for optimal production.

Heuristic aggregation of individual judgments in AHP group decision making using simulated annealing algorithm

SA algorithm is used as aggregation procedure in AHP group decision making.The group priority vector is obtained by minimization of the Euclidean distance.Objective search for maximum consensus between individuals within the group.Proposed procedure is invariant to any prioritization method.Proposed procedure performs better or at least equally to several other procedures. There are various aggregation procedures for obtaining a group priority vector within Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) supported decision making processes. This paper will introduce a heuristic aggregation procedure based on simulated annealing (SA) algorithm to be used for the purposes of obtaining a group priority vector at any node of an AHP hierarchy. The proposed procedure performs its aggregation process by minimizing the group Euclidean distance (GED) (consensus measure) across group weights and judgments, and the group vector obtained in this way is invariant to any prioritization method. In other words, there is no need to have individual priority vectors as is required by some other aggregation procedures. Along with SA minimization of the GED, the group rank reversal (minimum violation) criterion is implemented as a control mechanism, as well as the consensus measure based on the ranks of alternatives. The presented procedure is compared with several reported combinations of different prioritization methods and group aggregation procedures. Five examples from literature are used to show that the proposed procedure performs better or at least equally to several other well known combinations of prioritization and aggregation in AHP group decision making frameworks.

Virtually combining the analytical hierarchy process and voting methods in order to make group decisions

Multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) is represented by utility and outranking methods. Of the utility models, the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is probably the most popular in group-decision support. The social choice theory (SCT) with its voting systems can be efficiently combined with MCDM, and AHP in particular, in various group-decision contexts. This paper investigates two possible contexts where modeling group decision-making processes in the field of human–computer interaction (HCI) takes place. Being an important part of universal access in the information society, the first context assumes the use of AHP only, associated with two different aggregating techniques to derive the group decision, with and without a consensus. The second context is based on using only SCT systems, i.e., preferential and non-preferential voting systems. The third, novel, approach that is proposed assumes a full AHP application in the first stage to obtain the weights of alternatives and, in the second stage, an interpretation of the AHP’s cardinal information as being the ordinal one and the direct application of the SCT voting systems. Comparative analyses show good agreement for the results when the three methodologies are applied as the decision support to ranking by importance (for a group of 14 PhD students) several widely used sources of information for the internet. The method of virtually combining the AHP and SCT voting systems could be efficiently implemented in real decision-making situations in HCI and related sectors, as well as in cross-sector settings.

Combining GIS and Analytic hierarchy process for evaluating land suitability for irrigation: A case study from Serbia

Serbia is amongst the European countries with the lowest percent of irrigated land. New state strategies for agricultural development assume significant increase of the irrigated land. To begin the process, it would be very useful for the decision makers and planers to know where the most suitable land for irrigation is located and to have that information visualized. Use of GIS tools in this regard is inevitable.

Innovative Group Decision Making Framework for Sustainable Management of Regional Hydro-Systems

This paper proposes innovative group decision making framework for the sustainable management of regional hydro-systems. It is based on the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) philosophy and two conceptually different models of treating decision making problem in group framework without and with consensus. Typical hydro-system in Serbia is used as a case study to demonstrate how different aggregation schemes influence resulting group decision(s). Different from our earlier work (Srdjevic and Srdjevic, Sustainable use and development of watersheds. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 201–213, 2008), here the group of twelve individuals participated in evaluation of five water uses of the hydro-system. Weight of each decision maker in the group is defined according to his/her demonstrated consistency and used as an input to the aggregation process to derive group decision(s). Differences in ranking water uses obtained without consensus and with consensus indicated importance of selecting proper aggregation scheme. We recommend application of a consensus based aggregation method because each participating individual has a ‘vote’ which counts in the final decision, so dominance is at least reduced (if not fully excluded), and finally, the final decision is expectably acceptable for all participants at the end of process.

Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Groundwater Ponds as Suppliers to Urban Water Distribution Systems

Freshwater for urban water supplies in growing cities is often secured through groundwater ponds. In the majority of Serbian cities, an increase in population creates a need for investments into new or reconstruction of existing distribution networks. We propose the use of two methods, the analytic hierarchy process and the consensus convergence model, as a group decision making framework for determining the importance of Novi Sad city ponds and deciding the optimal strategy of investing into the technical realization of infrastructure relying on the ponds. Three experts participated in the evaluation of three ponds using the following criteria set: capacity, water quality, cost of water, natural protection, recharging capabilities, technical accessibility, and environmental impact. Experts found the final result acceptable and the proposed methodology easy to understand and implement. They also agreed that the result can be used as a reliable basis for further economic analysis and feasibility studies.

Deriving Weights of the Decision Makers Using AHP Group Consistency Measures

In AHP group decision making it is desirable that decision makers achieve the highest degree of consensus concerning the group priority vector at both levels, local and the final. Based on this philosophy, we have developed a method to derive local group priority vector respecting the three group consistency measures: geometric cardinal consensus index (GCCI), group minimum violation coefficient (GMV) and ordinal consensus measure (OCM). Consistency of individual de- cisions against the group decision serves as an input to determine the weights of decision makers participating in the group and generate the group local priority vector. Proposed method rewards cooperation between members of the group and raises chances for their consensus.