Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Industrial Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/caie

Consensus-based decision support for multicriteria group decision

making q
Santoso Wibowo a,⇑, Hepu Deng b
a
Faculty of Business Informatics, CQUniversity, Melbourne, Australia
b
School of Business IT & Logistics, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Consensus decision making is complex and challenging in multicriteria group decision making due to the
Received 11 September 2012 involvement of several decision makers, the presence of multiple, and often conflicting criteria, and the
Received in revised form 11 July 2013 existence of subjectiveness and imprecision in the decision making process. To ensure effective decisions
Accepted 17 September 2013
being made, the interest of all the decision makers usually represented by the degree of consensus in the
Available online 26 September 2013
decision making process has to be adequately considered. This paper presents a consensus-based
approach for effectively solving the multicriteria group decision making problem. The subjectiveness
Keywords:
and imprecision of the decision making process is adequately handled by using intuitionistic fuzzy num-
Group decision making
Consensus building
bers. An interactive algorithm is developed for consensus building in the group decision making process.
Multicriteria analysis A decision support system framework is presented for improving the effectiveness of the consensus
Uncertainty modeling building process. An example is presented for demonstrating the applicability of the proposed approach
for solving the multicriteria group decision making problem in real world situations.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction complex and challenging Herrera-Viedma et al., 2005; Muralidharan

et al., 2002). This is because (a) individual decision makers may not
Decision making in real world often takes place in a group set- share the same opinion about the alternatives, (b) they may express
ting, in which multiple, and usually conflicting criteria are required their opinions or assessments in a subjective and imprecise manner,
to be considered simultaneously (Liu & Hai, 2005; Muralidharan, and (c) the decision making process is cognitively demanding on the
Anantharaman, & Deshmukh, 2002; Sreekumar & Mahapatra, decision makers (Ben-Arieh & Chen, 2006; Sreekumar & Mahapatra,
2009). To effectively solve this problem, multicriteria group deci- 2009).
sion making approaches are often used. In this context, multicrite- Much research has been done on the development of various
ria group decision making involves in evaluating and selecting approaches for solving the multicriteria group decision making
alternatives with respect to multiple, often conflicting criteria with problem (Liu & Hai, 2005; Muralidharan et al., 2002; Sreekumar
the participation of multiple decision makers (Muralidharan et al., & Mahapatra, 2009). These approaches can be classified into (a)
2002; Wibowo & Deng, 2009). To ensure effective decisions being majority-based approaches, (b) ranking-based approaches, and
made in this situation, a certain level of consensus among all the (c) consensus-based approaches. The majority-based approach fo-
decision makers has to be reached (Sreekumar & Mahapatra, cuses on a voting process in which the decision is based on the
2009; Wibowo & Deng, 2009). opinion of the majority of the decision makers. This approach is
Consensus decision making in a multicriteria group decision popular due to its simplicity in concept and its easiness to obtain
making setting is a process of seeking a reasonable agreement from the responses from the decision makers (Herrera-Viedma et al.,
all the decision makers in a given situation regarding all the alterna- 2005). It is, however, often criticized due to the time consuming
tives for facilitating the selection of the best alternative across all voting process and the inadequacy in modeling the subjectiveness
the criteria (Herrera-Viedma, Martínez, Mata, & Chiclana, 2005). and imprecision of the decision making process.
The process of reaching a certain level of agreement among all the The ranking-based approach requires individual decision mak-
decision makers usually referred to as consensus building is ers to allocate numerical scores in assessing the performance of
the alternatives and the importance of the criteria in the decision
q making process. Those scores are then aggregated in a specific
The manuscript was handled by the area editor Imed Kacem.
⇑ Corresponding author. Address: 108 Lonsdale Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000, manner for producing an overall performance index for each
Australia. Tel.: +61 (0)3 8662 0571; fax: +61 (0)3 9639 4800. alternative across all criteria, on which the decision is made
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (S. Wibowo), [email protected] (Chen & Hwang, 1992). This approach is effective for solving the
(H. Deng).

0360-8352/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2013.09.015
626 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633

multicriteria group decision making problem under specific cir- & Lu, 2009). Herrera-Viedma et al. (2005), for example, present a
cumstances. It is simple in concept and easy to use. It is, however, consensus-based approach for solving the multicriteria group deci-
cognitively demanding on the decision makers. sion making problem. This approach is based on a multi-granular
The consensus-based approach recognizes the importance of linguistic methodology and a consensus degree and a proximity
reaching a certain level of agreement among the decision makers measure. The multi-granular linguistic methodology is introduced
in multicriteria group decision making for facilitating the accep- to allow the unification of the different linguistic terms used in the
tance of the decision made. It usually involves in an interactive decision making process for facilitating the determination of the
process for building the consensus among the multiple decision consensus degree among decision makers. The proximity measure
makers in the decision making process. This approach has proven is used to find out how far individual opinions are from the group
to be practical in multicriteria group decision making. However, opinion. The approach is applicable in the group decision making
it usually requires tedious mathematical computation in the deci- situation in which multi-granular linguistic preference relations
sion making process. are present. The consensus building process, however, may become
This paper presents a consensus-based approach for effectively cumbersome when the number of alternatives and criteria is large.
solving the multicriteria group decision making problem. The sub- Xu (2005) proposes a consensus-based approach for multicrite-
jectiveness and imprecision of the human decision making process ria group decision making. With the use of this approach, each
is modeled by using intuitionistic fuzzy numbers. An interactive decision maker is required to provide his/her assessments over
algorithm is developed for consensus building in the group deci- the alternatives with respect to each criterion, leading to the con-
sion making process. A decision support system (DSS) framework struction of an individual decision matrix. The developed approach
is presented for improving the effectiveness of the consensus then aggregates these individual decision matrices into a group
building process. An example is presented for demonstrating the decision matrix (Herrera, Herrera-Viedma, & Verdegay, 1996). An
applicability of the proposed approach for effectively solving the iterative algorithm is employed for consensus building through
multicriteria group decision making problem in real world the adoption of the agreement matrix in solving the group decision
situations. making problem. The approach is practical for consensus building
In what follows, we first present a review of existing approaches in solving the multicriteria group decision making problem. It,
for consensus-based multicriteria group decision making. We then however, requires tedious mathematical computation in solving
present an interactive algorithm for facilitating consensus building the multicriteria group decision making process.
in the multicriteria group decision making process. This is followed Kahraman et al. (2009) develop a consensus-based approach for
by the development of a DSS framework for improving the effec- selecting and ranking information systems providers. A similarity
tiveness of the decision making process. Finally, we present an measure is developed for measuring the consensus level among
example for demonstrating the applicability of the proposed ap- the decision makers. The technique for order preference by similar-
proach for solving the real multicriteria group decision making ity to ideal solution (TOPSIS) (Chen & Hwang, 1992; Deng, Yeh, &
problem. Willis, 2000) is adopted for determining the weights of the evalu-
ation criteria, leading to the finalization of the overall ranking of all
the alternatives of information systems providers. The approach is
2. Consensus-based multicriteria group decision making capable of providing objective information in the group decision
making process. It is, however, cognitively demanding on the deci-
Consensus-based decision making is a group decision making sion makers in the decision making process.
process that seeks a certain level of agreement from all the deci- Zhang et al. (2009) develop a novel approach for reaching con-
sion makers regarding all the possible alternatives in a given situ- sensus in solving multicriteria group decision making. Linguistic
ation (Ben-Arieh & Chen, 2006). It is an iterative process in which variables are used to assess the weights of all selection criteria
individual decision makers are able to express their views in order and the performance of each alternative with respect to each crite-
to achieve a certain level of agreement for making the decision. rion. A fuzzy synthetic evaluation method (Deng, 1999; Lu, Lo, &
Consensus-based decision making is popular in multicriteria group Hu, 1999) is employed to attain the consensus in the group via
decision making due to its ability to (a) reduce the conflict among the agreement matrix for solving the group decision making prob-
the decision makers, (b) increase the participation of the decision lem. The approach is efficient for solving the multicriteria group
makers, and (c) improve the acceptance of the decision outcome decision making problem in a fuzzy environment. It, however, re-
(Kahraman, Engin, Kabak, & Kaya, 2009; Xu, 2009). quires complicated mathematical computation, and is very
Consensus building is an essential part of the consensus-based demanding cognitively on the decision makers in the decision
decision making process. It can generally be classified into (a) hard making process.
consensus and (b) soft consensus (Herrera-Viedma et al., 2005). Parreiras et al. (2010) propose a consensus approach for solving
The hard consensus can be represented by an interval [0, 1] where the multicriteria group decision making problem using linguistic
0 indicates there is no agreement and 1 indicates a full agreement assessments in a fuzzy environment. Their approach allows the
among the decision makers. The soft consensus allows the decision generation of a consistent group opinion based on the opinions
makers to reach a consensus when most of the decision makers in- of individual decision makers represented by multi-granular fuzzy
volved in the group decision making process agree on a specific is- numbers. The approach is intuitive and flexible as it allows the
sue. This allows the decision makers to assess their opinions in a decision makers to change their own opinions in the decision mak-
more flexible manner (Ross & Jayaraman, 2008). Obtaining a hard ing process. It is, however, computationally demanding on the
consensus is almost impossible in real decision making situations decision makers.
(Herrera-Viedma et al., 2005; Xu, 2005). This is due to the inherent The discussion above shows that there are numerous consen-
subjectiveness and imprecision in the decision making process. As sus-based approaches for solving the multicriteria group decision
a result, soft consensus building is desirable for solving the multi- making problem. These approaches are useful in dealing with the
criteria group decision making problem in real situations. multicriteria group decision making problem under various cir-
Much research has been done on the development of numerous cumstances. Most of these approaches, however, are cognitively
approaches for consensus-based multicriteria group decision mak- demanding on the decision makers in the decision making process.
ing (Herrera-Viedma et al., 2005; Kahraman et al., 2009; Parreiras, Furthermore, some of these approaches require tedious mathemat-
Ekel, Martini, & Palhares, 2010; Xu, 2009, 2005; Zhang, Zhang, Lai, ical computation in the decision making process. To effectively
 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633 627

address these issues in multicriteria group decision making, it is Much research has been devoted for the development of various
desirable to have a structured approach for consensus building in similarity measures (Chen, 1996; Chen & Chen, 2003; Lee, 2002) in
solving the multicriteria group decision making problem. solving specific decision making problems. Chen (1996) develops a
similarity measure for determining the degree of similarity be-
tween two fuzzy numbers. Lee (2002) develops a similarity mea-
3. An interactive consensus building algorithm sure between two fuzzy numbers using an optimal aggregation
method for dealing with the fuzzy opinions of multiple decision
Multicriteria group decision making usually involves in (a) dis- makers. Chen and Chen (2003) propose a new similarity measure
covering all the alternatives, (b) identifying the criteria, (c) assess- based on the center of gravity method for calculating the degree
ing the alternatives’ performance ratings and the criteria weights of similarity between two fuzzy numbers. Despite the merits of
through consensus building, (d) aggregating the alternative ratings existing similarity measures, there are various limitations includ-
and criteria weights for producing an overall performance value for ing the requirement of complicated mathematical computations
each alternative across all the criteria, and (e) selecting the best and the inability to calculate the degree of similarity between
alternative (Wibowo & Deng, 2009; Yeh, Deng, Wibowo, & Xu, two intuitionistic fuzzy numbers in an intuitively correct manner.
2010). To overcome the limitations of existing similarity measures, a
Subjectiveness and imprecision are always present in the deci- similarity measure is introduced in this study based on the dis-
sion making process due to incomplete information, (b) abundant tance between two intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (Chen & Yang,
information, (c) conflicting evidence, (d) ambiguous information, 2011). This measure is used to find out the similarity between indi-
and (e) subjective information (Chen & Hwang, 1992; Deng, vidual decision makers’ fuzzy assessments and the group fuzzy
2010; Deng & Yeh, 2006; Zimmermann, 2000). To adequately mod- assessments for the alternative ratings and the criteria weights.
el the subjectiveness and imprecision of the human decision mak- The degree of similarity between individual decision makers’
ing process, intuitionistic fuzzy numbers (Atanassov, 1986) are assessments rkij and the group assessments mij for alternative per-
used for representing the subjective assessments of individual formance ratings on each criterion is then obtained as
decision makers due to (a) the effectiveness in tackling the subjec-  
tiveness and imprecision, (b) the simplicity for the decision makers   d r kij ; mij
to assign their subjective assessments in the form of a membership S r kij ; mij ¼ 1  s   ð3Þ
X
degree and a non-membership degree, and (c) the efficiency in d r kij ; mij
aggregating the decision makers’ assessments in the decision mak- k¼1
ing process (Li, 2005; Pei & Zheng, 2012).    
where d r kij ; mij is the distance between rkij and mij , r kij ¼ lkij ; v kij ;
The multicriteria group decision making process starts with the Ps k Ps k
lij v ij
determination of the performance of each alternative Ai (i = 1, 2, . . . mij ¼ ðlij ; v ij Þ; lij ¼ k¼1
s
, and v ij ¼ k¼1
s
ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; j
, n) with respect to each criterion Cj (j = 1, 2, . . ., m) by individual ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; sÞ.
decision makers Dk (k = 1, 2, . . . , s). The decision maker Dk provides Similarly, the degree of similarity between individual decision
his/her intuitionistic assessments for each alternative in a form  of makers’ assessments wkj and the group assessments mj for the
an intuitionistic preference relation Rk where r kij ¼ lkij ; v kij , and criteria weights can be obtained as
0 6 lkij þ v kij 6 1; lkij ¼ v kij ; v kij ¼ lkij ¼ 0:5. lkij indicates the degree  
that the alternative Ai satisfies the criterion Cj whereas v kij indicates   d wkj ; mj
the degree that the alternative Ai does not satisfy the criterion Cj. T wkj ; mj ¼ 1  Xs   ð4Þ
k
As a result, a decision matrix for the multicriteria group decision k¼1
d w j ; mj

making problem for each decision maker can be expressed as    

where d wkj ; mj is the distance between wkj and mj, wkj ¼ lkj ; v kj ,
2 3 Ps k Ps k
lk11 ; v k11 lk12 ; v k12 ::: lk1m ; v k1m mj ¼ ðlj ; v j Þ; lj ¼ k¼1
lj
, and v j ¼ k¼1
vj
ði ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; j ¼ 1; 2;
s s
6 lk ; v k lk22 ; v k22 ::: lk2m ; v k2m 7
6 7 . . . ; m; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; sÞ.
rkij ¼ 6 21 21 7; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; s ð1Þ
4 ::: ::: ::: ::: 5 To ensure the consistency among the decision makers’ assess-
lkn1 ; v kn1 lkn2 ; v kn2 ::: lknm ; v knm ments, a consistency index (CI) is established. The CI value is used
to identify whether the assessments of individual decision makers
In a similar manner, the relative importance of the criteria Cj for are of the acceptable consistency to the pre-determined consensus
each decision maker Dk (k = 1, 2, . . . , s) can be represented as threshold. This is a commonly used measure in group decision
making for ensuring the consistency of the decision makers in eval-
 
wk ¼ wk1 ; wk2 ; . . . ; wkm ; k ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; s ð2Þ uating the performance of alternatives and the importance of crite-
  ria in multicriteria group decision making in real world situations.
where wkj ¼ lkj ; v kj is the intuitionistic fuzzy number obtained Much research has been devoted to the applications (Al Khalil,
from the decision makers for assessing the relative importance of 2002; Braglia, Carmignani, Frosolini, & Grassi, 2006; Wong & Li,
the selection criterion. lkj indicates the degree where the decision 2008) of the traditional analytical hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty,
maker considers the selection criterion Cj to be important whereas 1990) for dealing with consistency measures. There are, however,
v kj indicates the degree where the decision maker considers the cri- several shortcomings with the traditional AHP for measuring CI
terion Cj to be unimportant. including (a) the inappropriateness of the crisp ratio representa-
Once the ratings of all the available alternatives with respect to tion, (b) the cognitive demand on the decision makers, and (c) te-
each criterion and the weights of all the criteria are obtained, it is dious comparison processes when many criteria are involved
critical to assess the level of consensus among the decision makers (Deng, 1999; Deng & Yeh, 2006).
with the introduction of a similarity measure represented by the To address this issue, the degree of consistency measure among
degree of similarity between individual decision makers’ opinions the decision makers’ assessments is introduced in (5). This is due to
and the group opinion (Herrera-Viedma, Alonso, Chiclana, & Herre- its simplicity in concept and its efficiency in computation. The
ra, 2007). The use of this similarity measure is to guide individual degree of consistency among the decision makers’ assessments is
decision makers in the consensus building process in a given situ- measured by comparing the agreed threshold value with the
ation (Wibowo & Deng, 2009). calculated CI value. If the CI value of an individual decision maker
628 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633

is lower than the specified consensus threshold, the decision maker develops the intuitionistic fuzzy ordered weighted averaging (IFO-
concerned has to adjust his/her assessments. This consensus build- WA) operator and the intuitionistic fuzzy hybrid averaging (IFHA)
ing process requires individual decision makers to modify their operator. Zhao et al. (2010) develop the generalized intuitionistic
assessments until all the CI values of individual decision makers fuzzy weighted averaging (GIFWA) operator and the generalized
are higher than the specified consensus threshold. The CI for the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy weighted averaging operator.
group in regards to the performance ratings and the criteria These operators, however, are not suitable in this situation (Xu &
weights for all the alternatives across the criteria can be defined as Wang, 2012). To address the limitation of these aggregation oper-
     ators, the intuitionistic fuzzy weighted average (IFWA) operator is
CI ¼ Max S rkij ; mij ; T wkj ; mj ð5Þ introduced for aggregating the intuitionistic fuzzy decision matri-
ces into the overall intuitionistic fuzzy performance values ri of
The larger the value of CI, the more consistent the individual deci- the alternative. Based on (7), the overall intuitionistic fuzzy perfor-
sion makers are in the decision making process. If the CI value of mance values ri of the alternatives can be determined using the
a specific decision maker is lower than the specified consensus IFWA operator (Xu, 2007) as
threshold assigned by the decision makers, the decision maker con-
cerned needs to modify his/her assessments in order to improve the  
ri ¼ lri ; v ri ¼ IFWAw ðri1 ; ri2 ; :::; rin Þ
group consensus level. This concept is used as a feedback mecha- !
n 
Y wi Y
n  wi
nism to guide the DSS system in the direction of the adjustments
¼ 1 1  lrij ; v rij ð7Þ
on the decision makers’ opinions in order to increase the group con- i¼1 i¼1
sensus level in the decision making process (Wibowo & Deng, 2009;
Xu, 2005). The score function S of an intuitionistic fuzzy value (Chen & Tan,
The interactive algorithm discussed above can be summarized 1994) is used to determine the scores of the overall intuitionistic
as follows: fuzzy numbers. This is due to (a) its simplicity and comprehensibil-
ity in concept and (b) its computation efficiency. The scores of the
 Step 1. Obtain the decision matrix for each decision maker as overall intuitionistic fuzzy performance values can be represented
expressed in (1). as
 Step 2. Determine the weightings for each decision maker as
expressed in (2). Sðr i Þ ¼ lri  v ri ð8Þ
 Step 3. Calculate the degree of similarity between individual
decision makers’ assessments and the group assessments for where Sðr i Þ 2 ½1; 1. The alternative Ai with the largest S(ri) is the
the performance ratings with respect to each criterion using (3). preferred alternative in a specific decision making situation.
 Step 4. Calculate the degree of similarity between individual To effectively assist the decision makers in solving the multicri-
decision makers’ assessments and the group assessments for teria group decision making problem, a DSS framework is pro-
the criteria weights by (4). posed. The DSS framework is composed of four main components
 Step 5. Obtain the CI value for individual decision makers by (5). including (a) the database management module, (b) the knowledge
If the value is less than the pre-defined threshold, the decision base management module, (c) the model base management mod-
maker concerned needs to go back to Step 1. Otherwise, the ule, and (d) the user interface management module. The database
consensus building process is finalized. management module contains a relational database for data retrie-
val, updating and editing. The knowledge base management mod-
To determine the weighted intuitionistic fuzzy performance ule contains problem-specific rules and facts. The knowledge base
matrix for each decision maker with respect to all the available stores the knowledge acquired from experts and the knowledge
alternatives, the induced generalized intuitionistic ordered gathered from the previous cases in the form of ‘‘IF–THEN’’ rules
weighted averaging (I-GIFOWA) operator is adopted (Su, Xia, Chen, (Deng & Wibowo, 2008; Khanlari, Mohammadi, & Sohrabi, 2008;
& Wang, 2012). I-GIFOWA is an extension of the intuitionistic or- Yeh et al., 2010). The model base management module provides
dered weighted averaging (GIFOWA) operator, with the difference the environment for storing, retrieving, and manipulating specific
that the reordering step of the I-GIFOWA operator is not defined by models. It links individual decision makers to the appropriate mod-
the values of the arguments ai, but rather by order inducing vari- els including the algorithm developed in the previous section to
ables ui, where the ordered position of the arguments ai depends perform various types of analysis (Yeh et al., 2010). The model base
upon the values of the ui (Xu, 2009). As a result, a more general for- management module obtains the relevant input data for model
mulation of the reordering process that is capable of dealing with executions from the database management module. The results
complex decision making situations where the information avail- generated from the model executions are sent back to the database
able is based on intuitionistic fuzzy numbers is obtained. management module for storage (Wibowo & Deng, 2012a). The
r ij ¼ ðlrij ; v rij Þ user interface management module provides the means for users
D E D E D E to interface with the DSS, and to (a) access the database, model
¼ I  GIFOWAw l1 ; r 1ij ; ; l2 ; r2ij ; ; . . . ; lm ; r sij base, and knowledge base; (b) input information; (c) display and
0 ! !1 evaluate alternative decisions; and (d) view outputs (Deng & Wi-
m 
Y  1=k Ym  
@ bowo, 2008; Wang, Reinelt, Gao, & Tan, 2011).
¼ 1 1  larðjÞ
k
;1 1 1  v arðjÞ A
k
ð6Þ
j¼1 j¼1
The proposed DSS comprises of five stages, namely (a) problem
definition, (b) criteria definition, (c) assessment determination, (d)
where k is a parameter and k > 0, and arðjÞ is the jth largest number consensus measurement, and (e) selection as shown in Fig. 1. The
of intuitionistic fuzzy numbers aj ðj ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; mÞ. problem definition stage is used to identify the requirements of
To make an effective decision in multicriteria group decision different decision makers and all available alternatives. The criteria
making, the overall performance of each alternative from all the definition stage is used to define all relevant criteria for the selec-
decision makers have to be determined by aggregating individual tion process. The choice and the number of criteria to be included
decision makers’ assessments. Several aggregation operators for in the selection process are carefully determined by the decision
aggregating intuitionistic fuzzy numbers have been proposed makers involved for representing the organization’s competitive
(Xu, 2005; Zhao, Xu, Ni, & Liu, 2010). For example, Xu (2005) strategies. The assessment determination stage is used to
 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633 629

Identify decision makers’

the weights for the criteria and observe the respective effects on
requirements and alternatives the outcome.
This is followed by the determination of the performance rat-
ings of available alternatives with respect to each criterion by the
decision makers. The next stage is to obtain the agreed consensus
Determine the criteria
threshold value, and measure the degree of existing consensus
among decision makers’ opinions. Once a consensus agreement is
achieved, the next stage in the proposed DSS is to perform the eval-
uation of the input values given by the decision makers. The overall
Determine the basic criteria
weights
performance of each alternative across all the criteria is deter-
mined by effectively and efficiently aggregating the criteria
weights and alternative performance ratings using the interactive
algorithm. The most suitable alternative that fulfills the require-
Determine the performance ments of the decision makers in a specific decision making situa-
ratings of alternatives
tion is then recommended to the decision makers.

4. An example
Consensus measures

To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed approach for

effectively solving the multicriteria group decision making prob-
Consensus lem, this section presents an example of evaluating and selecting
process
a suitable international distribution center (IDC) location in an
Consensus No organization. The organization involved sells various products
degree < from over 700 stores throughout the UK and Europe (Baker,
Consensus
2008). In recent years, the company has been experiencing a down-
threshold
turn due to the intense global competition and the changing mar-
ket requirements. To remain being competitive, the company has
Yes
to rapidly respond to the changing market requirements by provid-
ing rapid responses to customers’ demands whilst keeping the
Evaluation costs at a low level. The decision is therefore taken to set up an
IDC for coordinating the movement of goods from many sources
to various locations in the supply chain throughout the world
(Ou & Chou, 2009).
Final outcome A special committee is set up for evaluating and selecting the
best IDC location. It consists of three managers including the gen-
eral marketing manager (D1), the production manager (D2), and the
Fig. 1. The DSS framework.
business manager (D3). The committee organizes a series of meet-
ings for determining the criteria for evaluating and selecting the
most suitable IDC location. A consensus is reached based on a thor-
ough investigation about the criteria for evaluating and selecting
determine the criteria weights, the performance ratings of all avail-
the IDC locations. Six selection criteria are identified including Ser-
able alternatives, and the consensus threshold value.
vice Orientation (C1), Convenience of Distribution (C2), Market Po-
The consensus measurement stage measures the degree of
tential (C3), Cultural Perspective (C4), Government Policy (C5), and
existing consensus among decision makers’ opinions. If the con-
sensus degree is lower than a specified threshold value, the DSS in-
structs the decision makers to discuss their opinions further in an
effort to bring them closer. Otherwise, the DSS will finalize the con- Level 1 International Distribution Center Evaluation and Selection
sensus building process. In the selection stage, the interactive algo-
rithm is applied for evaluating and selecting the most suitable
alternative. The scores of the overall intuitionistic fuzzy perfor-
mance value of each alternative are obtained by aggregating the Level 2
criteria weights and its performance ratings using the algorithm. Criteria C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
Based on the scores of the overall intuitionistic fuzzy performance
value and ranking of all available alternatives, the most suitable
alternative can be recommended in a simple and rational manner
Level 3
(Guha & Chakraborty, 2011; Wibowo & Deng, 2012b).
Alternatives A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6
It can be seen from Fig. 1 that the first stage starts with the
identification of the decision makers’ requirements and available
alternatives in the multicriteria group decision making problem. Legend:
Some of these requirements include (a) the availability of the deci- C1: Service Orientation C2: Convenience of Distribution
sion makers and (b) the decision makers’ desire to interact with the C3 : Market Potential C4: Cultural Perspective
system. The second stage continues with the determination of the
C5 : Government Policy C6: Infrastructure Capacity
relevant criteria for the evaluation and selection process. The basic
criteria weights with respect to each criterion are to be determined
Ai (i = 1, 2, …, n): International Distribution Center Locations.
next. To establish the basic criteria weights, the user interface al-
lows the decision makers to experiment with different values of Fig. 2. The hierarchical structure for IDC location evaluation and selection.
630 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633

Table 1
Performance assessments of IDC alternatives.

Alternatives Decision makers C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6

A1 D1 (0.5, 0.4) (0.4, 0.6) (0.6, 0.2) (0.5, 0.5) (0.4, 0.3) (0.2, 0.7)
D2 (0.7, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.2, 0.7) (0.1, 0.9) (0.6, 0.3) (0.4, 0.6)
D3 (0.5, 0.4) (0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.4) (0.5, 0.5) (0.7, 0.2)
A2 D1 (0.4, 0.3) (0.8, 0.1) (0.4, 0.6) (0.6, 0.1) (0.1, 0.5) (0.7, 0.3)
D2 (0.1, 0.9) (0.3, 0.4) (0.1, 0.7) (0.9, 0.1) (0.2, 0.7) (0.2, 0.8)
D3 (0.2, 0.8) (0.1, 0.5) (0.3, 0.2) (0.1, 0.5) (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.6)
A3 D1 (0.6, 0.3) (0.2, 0.8) (0.2, 0.7) (0.4, 0.5) (0.1, 0.5) (0.9, 0.1)
D2 (0.1, 0.7) (0.9, 0.1) (0.8, 0.2) (0.5, 0.5) (0.3, 0.7) (0.6, 0.3)
D3 (0.6, 0.1) (0.4, 0.5) (0.4, 0.6) (0.2, 0.7) (0.1, 0.5) (0.1, 0.9)
A4 D1 (0.7, 0.3) (0.5, 0.5) (0.6, 0.2) (0.1, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6) (0.8, 0.2)
D2 (0.3, 0.4) (0.4, 0.5) (0.3, 0.2) (0.9, 0.1) (0.3, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2)
D3 (0.6, 0.3) (0.8, 0.2) (0.1, 0.9) (0.4, 0.6) (0.7, 0.3) (0.4, 0.5)
A5 D1 (0.6, 0.2) (0.2, 0.7) (0.5, 0.5) (0.3, 0.7) (0.1, 0.7) (0.6, 0.1)
D2 (0.1, 0.7) (0.1, 0.5) (0.3, 0.4) (0.4, 0.5) (0.5, 0.4) (0.2, 0.7)
D3 (0.8, 0.1) (0.4, 0.6) (0.7, 0.3) (0.8, 0.2) (0.1, 0.5) (0.5, 0.5)
A6 D1 (0.5, 0.4) (0.8, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0.6, 0.2) (0.2, 0.7) (0.3, 0.4)
D2 (0.6, 0.2) (0.1, 0.7) (0.3, 0.2) (0.2, 0.8) (0.9, 0.1) (0.5, 0.5)
D3 (0.4, 0.3) (0.6, 0.1) (0.1, 0.9) (0.5, 0.4) (0.8, 0.1) (0.4, 0.6)

Table 2 of value-added services available including packaging, labeling,

Assessments of the criteria weights. cargo processing and bar coding, storage services, customs clear-
Criteria Decision makers ance, exhibition, insurance service and barcode recognition (Cheng
& Tsai, 2009). There are various factors to be considered in deter-
D1 D2 D3
mining the specific services which are to be offered in a specific
C1 (0.8, 0.1) (0.4, 0.6) (0.6, 0.1)
IDC location including the strategic objectives of the organization,
C2 (0.6, 0.3) (0.1, 0.9) (0.5, 0.4)
C3 (0.6, 0.2) (0.2, 0.7) (0.5, 0.5) the specific nature of the business environment that the IDC loca-
C4 (0.9, 0.1) (0.3, 0.4) (0.6, 0.2) tion is in, and the presence of the existing competition.
C5 (0.8, 0.2) (0.1, 0.5) (0.5, 0.5) The Convenience of Distribution (C2) of an IDC location focuses
C6 (0.2, 0.8) (0.2, 0.7) (0.4, 0.5)
on the availability of the distribution’s facility to the goods and ser-
vices and the easiness to access these distribution facilities from
the perspective of both the customers and the organization. It is
Infrastructure Capacity (C6) (Ou & Chou, 2009). Fig. 2 shows the measured by the availability and convenience of the import distri-
hierarchical structure of the IDC location evaluation and selection bution facility, the export distribution facility, the multinational
problem. distribution facility, the electronic transmission mechanism, and
Service Orientation (C1) of an IDC location refers to the types of the inland transportation facility (Wei, Liang, & Wang, 2007). An
services that an IDC location can offer for improving the organiza- organization would like to have an IDC close to the distribution
tional competitiveness in the market place. There are various kinds facility with an easy access (Ou & Chou, 2009; Wei et al., 2007).

Table 3
The degree of similarity of decision makers.

Decision makers Criteria

C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
A1 D1 0.67 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.55 0.76
D2 1 1 1 0.64 0.64 0.71
D3 0.67 0.70 0.87 0.73 0.67 0.64
A2 D1 0.94 0.81 0.85 0.82 0.63 0.89
D2 0.94 0.76 0.79 0.94 0.55 0.73
D3 0.94 0.71 0.82 0.71 0.55 0.81
A3 D1 0.67 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.55 0.76
D2 1 1 1 0.64 0.64 0.71
D3 0.64 0.81 0.73 0.89 0.78 0.57
A4 D1 0.64 0.81 0.73 0.89 0.78 1
D2 0.67 0.70 0.87 0.73 0.67 0.64
D3 0.82 0.82 0.68 0.81 0.80 0.67
A5 D1 0.94 0.76 0.79 0.94 0.55 0.94
D2 0.94 0.71 0.89 0.66 0.55 0.94
D3 0.67 0.57 0.47 0.77 0.79 0.67
A6 D1 0.67 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.55 0.76
D2 0.76 0.79 0.94 0.76 0.78 0.76
D3 0.67 0.53 0.47 0.70 0.66 0.71
Criteria weights D1 0.94 1 0.72 0.94 0.76 0.94
D2 0.82 1 0.71 0.55 0.77 0.94
D3 0.72 1 0.72 0.77 0.76 0.67
 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633 631

Table 4 Table 6
The consistency index of individual decision makers. The overall performance value and ranking of IDC alternatives.

Alternatives Decision makers Consistency index Alternative The performance value Ranking
A1 D1 0.94 A1 0.314 5
D2 0.82 A2 0.279 6
D3 0.72 A3 0.345 4
A2 D1 0.76 A4 0.483 2
D2 0.84 A5 0.441 3
D3 0.81 A6 0.532 1
A3 D1 0.73
D2 0.84
D3 0.79
A4 D1 0.87 To solve the IDC locations evaluation and selection problem, the
D2 0.81 ratings of all available IDC alternatives in regard to decision makers
D3 0.75
D1, D2, and D3 are determined using the intuitionistic fuzzy num-
A5 D1 0.73
D2 0.81 bers. Table 1 shows all the assessments.
D3 0.78 Similarly, the criteria weights for selecting IDC locations can be
A6 D1 0.82 obtained directly from the decision makers D1, D2, and D3 as shown
D2 0.72 in Table 2.
D3 0.75
In this situation, the decision makers have agreed to assign the
consensus threshold value to be at 0.70. This consensus threshold
value is obtained based on the negotiation among the decision
makers on the threshold value that can be accepted for achieving
The Market Potential (C3) of an IDC location focuses on whether consensus agreement.
an IDC is located in an area where consumers have the economic If the consensus threshold value >0.7, it implies a higher degree
means to purchase the products, and whether the needs of the of consistency among the decision makers’ opinions. The smaller
market can be adequately fulfilled. The main areas of interest in the value of consensus threshold value, the lower the degree of
the evaluation and selection process include the product consump- consistency among the decision makers’ opinions.
tion trend in the export market, the presence of internal and exter- Based on all the information provided by the decision makers in
nal competition in the export market, and the current market regards to the performance and criteria weights of all available IDC
position as measured by the broad economic performance stan- location alternatives, the DSS calculates the degree of similarity be-
dards (Robertson & Wood, 2001). tween individual decision makers’ fuzzy assessments and the
The Cultural Perspective (C4) is concerned with the business group fuzzy assessments for the performance ratings and the crite-
attitudes and practices of the local population. This is important ria weights with respect to each criterion using (3) and (4) respec-
because cultural differences increase the uncertainty and the level tively. The results are shown in Table 3.
of risk on the success of the organization’s operations (Robertson & Based on (5), the CI of individual decision makers can be ob-
Wood, 2001). This is measured by customs and social relationships, tained. Table 4 shows the results. The value of CI shown in Table
the degree of cultural unity, national integration and extent of eth- 4 is of one value because it represents the maximum value of S
nic and cultural differences in the foreign market, and cultural dif- and T. This CI value is used to identify whether the assessments
ferences between the export market and the home market (Cheng of individual decision makers are of the acceptable consistency to
& Tsai, 2009). the pre-determined consensus threshold. The larger the value of
Government Policy (C5) is related to the rules and regulations CI, the more consistent the individual decision makers are. A value
set by the local government toward the private sector in an econ- close to 1 indicates a high degree of consensus among the decision
omy. It is about the business friendliness of the organizational makers. A value closer to 0 shows that there is considerable dis-
operations environment in which the IDC is to be located. This agreement among the decision makers.
includes the policy of the foreign government toward private Once consensus has been reached among the decision makers,
organizations, and government regulations or restrictions that the overall intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix that represents
can affect organization’s daily operations (Wei et al., 2007). the overall performance of each IDC location can be determined
The Infrastructure Capacity (C6) of an IDC is concerned about by (6) and (7). Table 5 shows the results.
the infrastructure development and support provided by the local By applying (8) to the data in Table 5, the scores of the overall
government for the efficient operations of the IDC. This is intuitionistic fuzzy performance value for each IDC location alter-
measured by the physical distribution infrastructure, the commu- native across all the criteria can be calculated. The scores of the
nications infrastructure, the information technology infrastructure, overall intuitionistic fuzzy performance value of the IDC location
and the availability and convenience to access the water and elec- alternatives and their corresponding rankings are shown in Table
tricity supply infrastructure (Farahani, Asgari, Heidari, Hosseininia, 6. Alternative A6 is the most suitable IDC location with the overall
& Goh, 2012). intuitionistic fuzzy performance index value of 0.532.

Table 5
The overall intuitionistic fuzzy decision matrix.

Alternatives C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
A1 (0.5556, 0.3612) (0.5856, 0.2454) (0.5576, 0.2606) (0.5787, 0.2895) (0.4122, 0.4517) (0.7412, 0.1527)
A2 (0.5276, 0.2201) (0.6000, 0.2201) (0.6280, 0.3120) (0.7105, 0.1848) (0.4786, 0.3210) (0.4276, 0.2347)
A3 (0.6280, 0.2816) (0.6280, 0.2895) (0.2795, 0.3612) (0.4528, 0.4213) (0.5276, 0.4472) (0.6825, 0.3421)
A4 (0.6660, 0.2262) (0.7799, 0.1848) (0.4528, 0.4213) (0.5847, 0.2985) (0.4674, 0.3128) (0.6802, 0.3725)
A5 (0.5856, 0.2454) (0.5276, 0.3368) (0.6360, 0.2642) (0.6239, 0.3279) (0.7997, 0.1489) (0.4276, 0.2347)
A6 (0.7799, 0.1848) (0.4276, 0.3210) (0.6103, 0.2103) (0.5207, 0.3174) (0.7684, 0.3892) (0.6790, 0.2201)
632 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633

The proposed approach is shown to be capable of effectively Deng, H., & Wibowo, S. (2008). Intelligent decision support for evaluating and
selecting information systems projects. Engineering Letters, 16, 412–418.
dealing with the involvement of multiple decision makers and
Deng, H., & Yeh, C. H. (2006). Simulation-based evaluation of defuzzification-based
the presence of subjectiveness and imprecision in the multicriteria approaches to fuzzy multiattribute decision making. IEEE Transactions on
group decision making problem. The application of the DSS on the Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 36, 968–977.
proposed approach helps to improve the effectiveness of the con- Deng, H., Yeh, C. H., & Willis, R. J. (2000). Inter-company comparison using modified
TOPSIS with objective weights. Computers & Operations Research, 27, 963–973.
sensus building process in solving the multicriteria group decision Farahani, R. Z., Asgari, N., Heidari, N., Hosseininia, M., & Goh, M. (2012). Covering
making problem. With its simplicity in concept and efficiency in problems in facility location: A review. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 62,
computation, the proposed approach is applicable for effectively 368–407.
Guha, D., & Chakraborty, D. (2011). Fuzzy multi attribute group decision making
solving the general multicriteria group decision making problem method to achieve consensus under the consideration of degrees of confidence
in real world situations. of experts’ opinions. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 60, 493–504.
Herrera, F., Herrera-Viedma, E., & Verdegay, J. L. (1996). Direct approach processes
in group decision making using linguistic OWA operators. Fuzzy Sets and
5. Conclusion Systems, 79, 175–190.
Herrera-Viedma, E., Alonso, S., Chiclana, F., & Herrera, F. (2007). A consensus model
for group decision making with incomplete fuzzy preference relations. IEEE
Developing consensus in multicriteria group decision making is Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 15, 863–877.
complex and challenging as it involves in several decision makers, Herrera-Viedma, E., Martínez, L., Mata, F., & Chiclana, F. (2005). A consensus support
systems model for group decision making problems with multigranular
multiple selection criteria, and the presence of subjective and linguistic preference relations. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 13, 644–658.
imprecise assessments in the group decision making process. To Kahraman, C., Engin, O., Kabak, O., & Kaya, I. (2009). Information systems
ensure effective decision outcomes, it is important to adequately outsourcing decisions using a group decision-making approach. Engineering
Applications of Artificial intelligence, 22, 832–841.
consider the interest of different stakeholders in the group decision
Khanlari, A., Mohammadi, K., & Sohrabi, B. (2008). Prioritizing equipments for
making process. preventive maintenance (PM) activities using fuzzy rules. Computers &
This paper has presented a consensus-based approach for effec- Industrial Engineering, 54, 169–184.
tively solving the multicriteria group decision making problem in a Lee, H. S. (2002). Optimal consensus of fuzzy opinions under group decision making
environment. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 132, 303–315.
fuzzy environment. The inherent subjectiveness and imprecision of Li, D. F. (2005). Multiattribute decision making models and methods using
the selection process is modeled by using intuitionistic fuzzy num- intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Journal of Computer and System Sciences, 70, 73–85.
bers characterized by a membership function and a non-member- Liu, F. H., & Hai, H. L. (2005). The voting analytic hierarchy process method for
selecting supplier. International Journal of Production Economics, 97, 308–317.
ship function. An interactive algorithm is developed for solving the Lu, R. S., Lo, S. L., & Hu, J. Y. (1999). Analysis of reservoir water quality using fuzzy
multicriteria group decision making problem. A DSS framework is synthetic evaluation. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 13,
developed for incorporating the proposed interactive algorithm for 327–336.
Muralidharan, C., Anantharaman, N., & Deshmukh, S. G. (2002). A multi-criteria
evaluating and selecting alternatives in a given situation. group decisionmaking model for supplier rating. Journal of Supply Chain
The presented approach is applied for solving a real multicrite- Management, 38, 22–31.
ria group decision making problem. The result shows that the Ou, C. W., & Chou, S. Y. (2009). International distribution center selection from a
foreign market perspective using a weighted fuzzy factor rating system. Expert
developed approach is capable of solving the general IDC selection Systems with Applications, 36, 1773–1782.
problem effectively due to its simplicity in concept and its effi- Parreiras, R. O., Ekel, P. Y., Martini, J. S. C., & Palhares, R. M. (2010). A flexible
ciency in computation. It is therefore evident that the approach consensus scheme for multicriteria group decision making under linguistic
assessments. Information Sciences, 180, 1075–1089.
is applicable for solving the general multicriteria group decision
Pei, Z., & Zheng, L. (2012). A novel approach to multi-attribute decision making
making problem in real world situations. In particular, the ap- based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Expert Systems with Applications, 39,
proach provides organizations with a proactive mechanism to en- 2560–2566.
sure that the most suitable alternative can be selected in the best Robertson, K. R., & Wood, V. R. (2001). The relative importance of types of
information in the foreign market selection process. International Business
possible way in a specific decision making situation. Review, 10, 363–379.
Ross, A., & Jayaraman, V. (2008). An evaluation of new heuristics for the location of
cross-docks distribution centers in supply chain network design. Computers &
References Industrial Engineering, 55, 64–79.
Saaty, T. L. (1990). The analytical hierarchy process, planning, priority, resource
Al Khalil, M. I. (2002). Selecting the appropriate project delivery method using AHP. allocation. USA: RWS Publications.
International Journal of Project Management, 20, 469–474. Sreekumar, S., & Mahapatra, S. S. (2009). A fuzzy multi-criteria decision making
Atanassov, K. (1986). Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and Systems, 20, 87–96. approach for supplier selection in supply chain management. African Journal of
Baker, P. (2008). The design and operation of distribution centers within agile Business Management, 3, 168–177.
supply chains. International Journal of Production Economics, 111, 27–41. Su, Z. X., Xia, G. P., Chen, M. Y., & Wang, L. (2012). Induced generalized intuitionistic
Ben-Arieh, D., & Chen, Z. F. (2006). Linguistic-labels aggregation and consensus fuzzy OWA operator for multi-attribute group decision making. Expert Systems
measure for autocratic decision making using group recommendations.. IEEE with Applications, 39, 1902–1910.
Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 36, 558–568. Wang, P., Reinelt, G., Gao, P., & Tan, Y. (2011). A model, a heuristic and a decision
Braglia, M., Carmignani, G., Frosolini, M., & Grassi, A. (2006). AHP-based evaluation support system to solve the scheduling problem of an earth observing satellite
of CMMS software. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 17, constellation. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 61, 322–335.
585–602. Wei, C. C., Liang, G. S., & Wang, M. J. (2007). A comprehensive supply chain
Chen, S. M. (1996). New methods for subjective mental workload assessment and management project selection framework under fuzzy environment.
fuzzy risk analysis. International Journal of Cybernetics & Systems, 27, 449–472. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 627–636.
Chen, S. J., & Chen, S. M. (2003). Fuzzy risk analysis based on similarity measures of Wibowo, S., & Deng, H. (2009). A consensus support system for supplier selection in
generalized fuzzy numbers. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems, 11, 45–56. group decision making. Journal of Management Science Statistic Decision, 6,
Chen, S. J., & Hwang, C. L. (1992). Fuzzy multiple attribute decision making: Methods 52–59.
and applications. New York: Springer-Verlag. Wibowo, S., & Deng, H. (2012a). Intelligent decision support for effectively
Chen, S. M., & Tan, J. M. (1994). Handling multicriteria fuzzy decision making evaluating and selecting ships under uncertainty in marine transportation.
problems based on vague set theory. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 67, 163–172. Expert Systems with Applications, 39, 6911–6920.
Chen, Z., & Yang, W. (2011). A new multiple attribute group decision making Wibowo, S., & Deng, H. (2012b). A fuzzy rule-based approach for screening
method in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 35, international distribution centers. Computers & Mathematics with Applications,
4424–4437. 64, 1084–1092.
Cheng, Y. H., & Tsai, Y. L. (2009). Factors influencing shippers to use multiple Wong, K. W., & Li, H. (2008). Application of the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in
country consolidation services in international distribution centers. multi-criteria analysis of the selection of intelligent building systems. Building
International Journal of Production Economics, 122, 78–88. and Environment, 43, 108–125.
Deng, H. (1999). Multicriteria decision making with fuzzy pairwise comparison. Xu, Z. S. (2005). Deviation measures of linguistic preference relations in group
International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 21, 215–231. decision making. Omega, 33, 249–254.
Deng, H. (2010). Developments in fuzzy multicriteria analysis. Fuzzy Information and Xu, Z. S. (2007). Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering, 1, 109–115. Fuzzy Systems, 15, 1179–1187.
 S. Wibowo, H. Deng / Computers & Industrial Engineering 66 (2013) 625–633 633

Xu, Z. S. (2009). An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute Zhang, D., Zhang, J., Lai, K. K., & Lu, Y. (2009). An novel approach to supplier
group decision making. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 56, 1369–1374. selection based on vague sets group decision. Expert Systems with Applications,
Xu, Y., & Wang, H. (2012). The induced generalized aggregation operators for 36, 9557–9563.
intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application in group decision making. Applied Zhao, H., Xu, Z. S., Ni, M. F., & Liu, S. S. (2010). Generalized aggregation operators
Soft Computing, 12, 1168–1179. for intuionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 25,
Yeh, C. H., Deng, H., Wibowo, S., & Xu, Y. (2010). Multicriteria group decision for 1–30.
information systems project selection under uncertainty. International Journal of Zimmermann, H. J. (2000). An application-oriented view of modeling uncertainty.
Fuzzy Systems, 12, 170–179. European Journal of Operational Research, 122, 190–198.