Stability analyses of group decision making

The importance of multicriteria models in a group decision making is increasingly being emphasized by researchers. One of the most significant of these models is the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Through the AHP, decision makers are able to conduct a series of pairwise comparisons on pairs of criteria and priority indices can thereby be derived. However, the judgmental process can often be subjective as researchers have not put adequate emphasis on the stability and reliability of group weights observed through the process. This paper develops a method of replication coupled with the use of the quality confidence intervals in order to generate invigorating debates on a particular issue before weight assignments are made. The replicated assignments are used to determine the groupʹs priority indices. The aim is to enhance the ability of decision makers to make the same decisions when provided with similar environmental conditions. Ultimately, this will provide greater reliability to the derived outcomes. Obviously, the use of multicriteria modelling in subjective assessments would be meaningless if the decisions made were not consistent under the same conditions. In other words, these models would provide no guidance or benefit to decision makers. In the paper, two case studies relating to the ranking of factors for selection of advanced technologies and issues for achieving competitiveness are analyzed utilizing an experimental group. Paired t-tests show that there are no differences between the rankings observed for the three replications for each respective case for almost all the criteria. Thus, the procedure provided here offers utility in group decision making.