Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Developing a rough set based approach for group decision making based on determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Operational Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The goal of this paper is to propose a novel approach for determining the weights of decision makers (DMs) in group settings with a rough set group method, in which each decision maker’s decision matrix is in interval numbers. In this paper, we first build a lower rough group decision (LRGD) and an upper rough group decision (URGD) from a rough group decision. Then, we define the average matrix of LRGD as a Lower positive ideal solution (Lower PIS), and the average matrix of URGD as an Upper positive ideal solution (Upper PIS) based on the Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution method. Next, the average matrix of the Lower PIS and Upper PIS is regarded as the positive ideal solution (PIS), and the farthest distance from the PIS is regarded as the negative ideal solution (NIS). After that, each DM’s weight is derived from the distances from the DM’s decision to the PIS and NIS. Comparisons with existing methods are also made. Finally, an example of air quality evaluation is provided to clarify the availability of the proposed method.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beynon MJ (2005) A method of aggregation in DS/AHP for group decision-making with the non-equivalent importance of individuals in the group. Comput Oper Res 32:1881–1896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen X, Fan Z (2007) Study on assessment level of experts based on difference preference information. Syst Eng Theory Pract 27:27–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ciuiu D (2014) MADM in the case of simultaneous equations models and economic applications. Procedia Econ Finance 8:167–174

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng S, Xu LD (1999) Decision support for fuzzy comprehensive evaluation of urban development. Fuzzy Sets Syst 105:1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GDEMC, HKEPD (2006) A Report of Monitoring Results in 2006, Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Monitoring Network. http://www.gdepb.gov.cn/gsgg/200710/t20071026_49978.html

  • GDEMC, HKEPD (2007) A Report of Monitoring Results in 2007, Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Monitoring Network. http://www.gdepb.gov.cn/gsgg/200710/t20071026_49978.html

  • GDEMC, HKEPD (2008) A Report of Monitoring Results in 2008, Pearl River Delta Regional Air Quality Monitoring Network. <http://www.gdepb.gov.cn/gsgg/200710/t20071026_49978.html

  • GOSEPA (2006) Implementing Details for Urban Environmental Comprehensive Treatment and Quantitative Examination during the 11th Five-Year Plan (GOSEPA[2006], No. 36). http://www.sepa.gov.cn/info/gw/huanban/200603/t20060322?5278.htm

  • He YH, Wang LB, He ZZ et al (2016) A fuzzy TOPSIS and rough set based approach for mechanism analysis of product infant failure. Eng Appl Artif Intell 47:25–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herrera F, Herrera-Viedma E (2000) Linguistic decision analysis: steps for solving decision problems under linguistic information. Fuzzy Sets Syst 115:67–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hickey T, Ju Q, Van Emden MH (2001) Interval arithmetic: from principles to implementation. J ACM 48(5):1038–1068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang C-L, Lin M-J (1987) Group decision making under multiple criteria. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang CL, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jahanshahloo GR, Hosseinzadeh Lotfi F, Izadikhah M (2006) An algorithmic method to extend TOPSIS with interval data. Appl Math Comput 175:1375–1384

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan C, Anwar S, Bashir S et al (2015) Site selection for food distribution using rough set approach and TOPSIS Method. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 30:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim SH, Han CH (1999) An interactive procedure for multi-attribute group decision making with incomplete information. Comput Oper Res 26:755–772

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim SH, Choi SH, Kim JK (1999) An interactive procedure for multiple attribute group decision making with incomplete information: range-based approach. Eur J Oper Res 118:139–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kobashikawa C, Hatakeyama Y, Dong F, Hirota K (2009) Fuzzy algorithm for group decision making with participants having finite discriminating abilities. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybernet Part A Syst Hum 39:86–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Agrawal VP (2009) Attribute based specification, comparison and selection of electroplating system using MADM approach. Expert Syst Appl 36:10815–10827

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar R, Singal SK (2015) Penstock material selection in small hydropower plants using MADM methods. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 52:240–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kusi-Sarpong S, Bai C, Sarkis J et al (2015) Green supply chain practices evaluation in the mining industry using a joint rough sets and fuzzy TOPSIS methodology. Resour Policy 46:86–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lavasani SMM, Wang J, Yang Z, Finlay J (2012) Application of MADM in a fuzzy environment for selecting the best barrier for offshore wells. Expert Syst Appl 39:2466–2478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lennon E, Farr J, Besser R (2013) Evaluation of multi-attribute decision making systems applied during the concept design of new microplasma devices. Expert Syst Appl 40:6321–6329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li D-F, Wang Y-C, Liu S, Shan F (2009) Fractional programming methodology for multi-attribute group decision-making using IFS. Appl Soft Comput 9:219–225

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin Y-H, Lee P-C, Chang T-P, Ting H-I (2008) Multi-attribute group decision making model under the condition of uncertain information. Autom Constr 17:792–797

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu P (2011) A weighted aggregation operators multi-attribute group decision-making method based on interval-valued trapezoidal fuzzy numbers. Expert Syst Appl 38:1053–1060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B, Shen Y, Chen X, Chen Y, Wang X (2014) A partial binary tree DEA-DA cyclic classification model for decision makers in complex multi-attribute large-group interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy decision-making problems. Inf Fusion 18:119–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu B, Shen Y, Chen Y, Chen X, Wang Y (2015) A two-layer weight determination method for complex multi-attribute large-group decision-making experts in a linguistic environment. Inf Fusion 23:156–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miyagi Y, Miyagi H, Kinjo I (2012) Preference order of categorized group opinions considering grade of decision makers. Procedia Comput Sci 10:38–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen JA, Pedersen K (2014) IT portfolio decision-making in local governments: rationality, politics, intuition and coincidences. Gov Inf Q 31:411–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pawlak ZW, Sowinski R (1994) Rough set approach to multi-attribute decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res 72:443–459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen K-Y, Tzeng G-H (2015) A new approach and insightful financial diagnoses for the IT industry based on a hybrid MADM model. Knowl Based Syst 85:112–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Song W, Ming X, Han Y, Wu Z (2013) A rough set approach for evaluating vague customer requirement of industrial product-service system. Int J Prod Res 51:6681–6701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsabadze T (2014) A method for aggregation of trapezoidal fuzzy estimates under group decision-making. Fuzzy Sets Syst 266:114–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Honert R (2001) Decisional power in group decision making: a note on the allocation of group members’ weights in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Group Decis Negoc 10:275–286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Scheer EA, Visscher AJ (2016) Effects of an intensive data-based decision making intervention on teacher efficacy. Teach Teach Educ 60:34–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z (2001) Two methods for deriving members’ weights in group decision making. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 10:15–19

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z (2008a) Group decision making based on multiple types of linguistic preference relations. Inf Sci 178:452–467

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu ZS (2008b) Dependent uncertain ordered weighted aggregation operators. Inf Fusion 9:310–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu X, Zhang L, Chen X (2012) Group clustering method based on binary-relation of attributes with fuzzy preference relation. Syst Eng Electron 34:2312–2317 (In Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Ye F, Li YN (2009) Group multi-attribute decision model to partner selection in the formation of virtual enterprise under incomplete information. Expert Syst Appl 36:9350–9357

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue Z (2011a) A method for group decision-making based on determining weights of decision makers using TOPSIS. Appl Math Model 35:1926–1936

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue Z (2011b) An extended TOPSIS for determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers. Knowl Based Syst 24:146–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue Z (2012) Extension of TOPSIS to determine weight of decision maker for group decision making problems with uncertain information. Expert Syst Appl 39:6343–6350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yue Z (2013) Group decision making with multi-attribute interval data. Inf Fusion 14:551–561

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai L-Y, Khoo L-P, Zhong Z-W (2009) A rough set based QFD approach to the management of imprecise design information in product development. Adv Eng Inform 23:222–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhai LY, Khoo LP, Zhong ZW (2010) Towards a QFD-based expert system: a novel extension to fuzzy QFD methodology using rough set theory. Expert Syst Appl 37:8888–8896

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang X, Xu Z (2014) Deriving experts’ weights based on consistency maximization in intuitionistic fuzzy group decision making. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 27:221–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang S, Zhu Q (2014) Heterogeneous wireless network selection algorithm based on group decision. J China Univ Posts Telecommun 21:1–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang F, Ignatius J, Lim CP, Zhang Y (2014) A hybrid weighted aggregation method based on consistency and consensus in group decision making. In: 2014 IEEE international conference on fuzzy systems (FUZZ-IEEE), pp 11–17

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the academic editor and reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Robotics Research Center, Xihua University, Chengdu, China

    Qiang Yang

  2. School of Mechatronics Engineering, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China

    Ping-an Du

  3. Southwest China Institute of Electronic Technology, Chengdu, China

    Yong Wang & Bin Liang

Authors
  1. Qiang Yang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ping-an Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yong Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Bin Liang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ping-an Du.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Yang, Q., Du, Pa., Wang, Y. et al. Developing a rough set based approach for group decision making based on determining weights of decision makers with interval numbers. Oper Res Int J 18, 757–779 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-017-0344-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12351-017-0344-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation