IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v13y2004i4d10.1023_bgrup.0000042894.00775.75.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Distance-Based Collective Preorder Integrating the Relative Importance of the Group's Members

Author

Listed:
  • Khaled Jabeur

    (Université Laval)

  • Jean-Marc Martel

    (Université Laval)

  • Slim Ben Khélifa

    (École Supérieure de Commerce de Tunis)

Abstract

In this paper, we propose an aggregation procedure, which includes two steps. In the first one, the group's members elaborate individually a preorder (total or partial) on the alternatives set. These preorders can be obtained, for example, by applying a multicriterion aggregation procedure such as ELECTRE III, PROMETHEE I or II. In the second step, these individual preorders (total or partial) are aggregated into a collective preorder (total or partial). For this purpose, we first built a distance measure between pairs of binary relations in order to quantify the divergence between two preorders. Then we determine, for each pair of alternatives, the relative importance coefficients of the group's members by using a method based on subjective and objective components. These coefficients and the distance measure are finally exploited by an iterative algorithm in order to elaborate a collective preorder synthesizing the individual preorders.

Suggested Citation

  • Khaled Jabeur & Jean-Marc Martel & Slim Ben Khélifa, 2004. "A Distance-Based Collective Preorder Integrating the Relative Importance of the Group's Members," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 327-349, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:13:y:2004:i:4:d:10.1023_b:grup.0000042894.00775.75
    DOI: 10.1023/B:GRUP.0000042894.00775.75
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000042894.00775.75
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000042894.00775.75?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Xu, Xiaozhan & Martel, Jean-Marc & Lamond, Bernard F., 2001. "A multiple criteria ranking procedure based on distance between partial preorders," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 133(1), pages 69-80, August.
    2. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    3. H. Theil, 1963. "On the Symmetry Approach to the Committee Decision Problem," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 380-393, April.
    4. Samuel E. Bodily, 1979. "Note--A Delegation Process for Combining Individual Utility Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(10), pages 1035-1041, October.
    5. Pradeep Dubey & Lloyd S. Shapley, 1979. "Mathematical Properties of the Banzhaf Power Index," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 4(2), pages 99-131, May.
    6. Wade Cook & Moshe Kress & Lawrence Seiford, 1986. "Information and preference in partial orders: A bimatrix representation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 51(2), pages 197-207, June.
    7. Ralph L. Keeney, 1976. "A Group Preference Axiomatization with Cardinal Utility," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 23(2), pages 140-145, October.
    8. Turnovec, Frantisek, 1997. "Monotonicity of Power Indices," East European Series 41, Institute for Advanced Studies.
    9. Slim Ben Khelifa & Jean-Marc Martel, 2001. "A Distance-Based Collective Weak Ordering," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(4), pages 317-329, July.
    10. Ralph L. Keeney & Craig W. Kirkwood, 1975. "Group Decision Making Using Cardinal Social Welfare Functions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 22(4), pages 430-437, December.
    11. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
    12. Ramanathan, R. & Ganesh, L. S., 1994. "Group preference aggregation methods employed in AHP: An evaluation and an intrinsic process for deriving members' weightages," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 249-265, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Pongou, Roland & Tchantcho, Bertrand & Tedjeugang, Narcisse, 2014. "Power theories for multi-choice organizations and political rules: Rank-order equivalence," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 42-49.
    2. Alessandro Luè & Alberto Colorni, 2015. "Conflict Analysis for Environmental Impact Assessment: A Case Study of a Transportation System in a Tourist Area," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 613-632, July.
    3. Ben Amor, Sarah & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2014. "A new distance measure including the weak preference relation: Application to the multiple criteria aggregation procedure for mixed evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 1165-1169.
    4. Khaled Jabeur & Jean-Marc Martel, 2010. "An Agreement Index with Respect to a Consensus Preorder," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 571-590, November.
    5. Fu-Ling Cai & Xiuwu Liao & Kan-Liang Wang, 2012. "An interactive sorting approach based on the assignment examples of multiple decision makers with different priorities," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 197(1), pages 87-108, August.
    6. Freixas, Josep & Kurz, Sascha, 2013. "The golden number and Fibonacci sequences in the design of voting structures," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 226(2), pages 246-257.
    7. Amor, Sarah Ben & Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "Multiple criteria aggregation procedure for mixed evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1506-1515, September.
    8. Freixas, Josep & Marciniak, Dorota & Pons, Montserrat, 2012. "On the ordinal equivalence of the Johnston, Banzhaf and Shapley power indices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 367-375.
    9. Chun-xiang Guo & Ying Peng, 2015. "Lattice Order Group Decision Making with Interval Probability Based on Prospect Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(5), pages 753-775, September.
    10. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    11. Suzana de Suzana Dantas Daher & Adiel Teixeira Almeida, 2012. "The Use of Ranking Veto Concept to Mitigate the Compensatory Effects of Additive Aggregation in Group Decisions on a Water Utility Automation Investment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(2), pages 185-204, March.
    12. Siskos, Eleftherios & Tsotsolas, Nikos, 2015. "Elicitation of criteria importance weights through the Simos method: A robustness concern," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 246(2), pages 543-553.
    13. Yoo, Yeawon & Escobedo, Adolfo R. & Skolfield, J. Kyle, 2020. "A new correlation coefficient for comparing and aggregating non-strict and incomplete rankings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1025-1041.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J González-Pachón & C Romero, 2006. "An analytical framework for aggregating multiattribute utility functions," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(10), pages 1241-1247, October.
    2. Salo, Ahti A., 1995. "Interactive decision aiding for group decision support," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 134-149, July.
    3. Yucheng Dong & Yao Li & Ying He & Xia Chen, 2021. "Preference–Approval Structures in Group Decision Making: Axiomatic Distance and Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 273-295, December.
    4. Cook, Wade D., 2006. "Distance-based and ad hoc consensus models in ordinal preference ranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 172(2), pages 369-385, July.
    5. Ben Amor, Sarah & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2014. "A new distance measure including the weak preference relation: Application to the multiple criteria aggregation procedure for mixed evaluations," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 1165-1169.
    6. Khaled Jabeur & Jean-Marc Martel, 2010. "An Agreement Index with Respect to a Consensus Preorder," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(6), pages 571-590, November.
    7. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "A collective choice method based on individual preferences relational systems (p.r.s.)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 177(3), pages 1549-1565, March.
    8. Jabeur, Khaled & Martel, Jean-Marc, 2007. "An ordinal sorting method for group decision-making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 180(3), pages 1272-1289, August.
    9. Qiang Yang & Ping-an Du & Yong Wang & Bin Liang, 2017. "A rough set approach for determining weights of decision makers in group decision making," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(2), pages 1-16, February.
    10. Yoo, Yeawon & Escobedo, Adolfo R. & Skolfield, J. Kyle, 2020. "A new correlation coefficient for comparing and aggregating non-strict and incomplete rankings," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 285(3), pages 1025-1041.
    11. Wolfgang Ossadnik & Stefanie Schinke & Ralf H. Kaspar, 2016. "Group Aggregation Techniques for Analytic Hierarchy Process and Analytic Network Process: A Comparative Analysis," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 421-457, March.
    12. F B Abdelaziz & J M Martel & A Mselmi, 2004. "IMGD: an interactive method for multiobjective group decision aid," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 55(5), pages 464-474, May.
    13. Abdollah Hadi-Vencheh & Yong Tan & Peter Wanke & Seyed Mohammadreza Loghmanian, 2021. "Air Pollution Assessment in China: A Novel Group Multiple Criteria Decision Making Model under Uncertain Information," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-13, February.
    14. Mateos, A. & Jimenez, A. & Rios-Insua, S., 2006. "Monte Carlo simulation techniques for group decision making with incomplete information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 174(3), pages 1842-1864, November.
    15. Yeawon Yoo & Adolfo R. Escobedo, 2021. "A New Binary Programming Formulation and Social Choice Property for Kemeny Rank Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 296-320, December.
    16. Martínez, Ricardo & Sánchez-Soriano, Joaquín & Llorca, Natividad, 2022. "Assessments in public procurement procedures," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    17. Zeshui Xu & Xiaoqiang Cai, 2013. "On Consensus of Group Decision Making with Interval Utility Values and Interval Preference Orderings," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(6), pages 997-1019, November.
    18. Hsu-Shih Shih, 2016. "A Mixed-Data Evaluation in Group TOPSIS with Differentiated Decision Power," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 537-565, May.
    19. R.C. Van den Honert, 2001. "Decisional Power in Group Decision Making: A Note on the Allocation of Group Members' Weights in the Multiplicative AHP and SMART," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 10(3), pages 275-286, May.
    20. Benítez-Fernández, Amalia & Ruiz, Francisco, 2020. "A Meta-Goal Programming approach to cardinal preferences aggregation in multicriteria problems," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:13:y:2004:i:4:d:10.1023_b:grup.0000042894.00775.75. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.