Decision makers formulated their judgments by comparing criteria and alternatives. The next step is the aggregation of these judgments. There are two main methods of aggregation: aggregation of individual judgments (AIJ) and aggregation of individual priorities (AIP). Aggregation of individual judgments Given a hierarchy, decision makers enter their judgments at each level. In this type of aggregation, judgments are aggregated at each hierarchical level. Forman and Peniwati (1998) assert that “individual identities are lost at each stage of aggregation and that a synthesis of hierarchy produces group priorities.” N decision makers will generate at least N judgment matrices. A judgment matrix is ​​the matrix that contains pairwise comparisons of criteria and alternatives. In this type of aggregation, the pairwise comparison matrices are aggregated using the geometric mean. Aggregation of individual priorities Each decision maker enters their own judgment into the judgment matrix for each level of the decision tree. In the end, the final priorities of the alternatives are calculated. These final priority matrices are aggregated and give the final ranking of the group of alternatives. Escobar and Moreno-Jimenez (2007) suggested another method called Aggregation of Individual Preference Structures (AIPS). In this type of aggregation, the decision problem is solved N times. This means that the priorities of each decision maker are calculated. These priorities are aggregated using the geometric mean. The figure below shows the difference between the two aggregation methods.DM1DM2DMnDM1DM2DMnFigure 2-4. Aggregation using AIJ and AIP2.8.2 Aggregation of judgments in ...... middle of paper ...... possible alternatives must be clearly stated 3. Group members must be aware of the positive results of implementing each alternative. Decision-makers must know exactly the positive effects of each alternative. 4. The negative effects of each alternative must be clearly declared. Decision makers need to understand what exactly the negative outcomes of each alternative are. Hirokawa (1985) conducted research on the functional perspective in discussion formats to verify where decision quality is increased. The discussion formats are as follows:1. Reflection – reflection format2. Ideal – Solution Format3. Unique – Question format4. Free discussion format Hirokawa (1985) showed that the effectiveness of group decision making is totally influenced by the functional perspective regardless of the discussion format..