IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v19y2010i1d10.1007_s10726-007-9102-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Progressive Search for a Group Ranking with Robust Conclusions on Prudent Orders

Author

Listed:
  • Claude Lamboray

    (Université Libre de Bruxelles (U.L.B.))

Abstract

We consider the problem where rankings, provided for instance by a group of evaluators, have to be combined into a common group ranking. In such a context, Arrow and Raynaud suggested that the compromise ranking should be a prudent order. In general, a prudent order is not unique. That is why, we propose to manage this possible multiplicity of compromise solutions by computing robust conclusions. This allows for a progressive refinement of the decision model and supports the group to eventually select one group ranking. The approach is illustrated on a problem where a group of junior researchers has to agree on a ranking of research domains.

Suggested Citation

  • Claude Lamboray, 2010. "A Progressive Search for a Group Ranking with Robust Conclusions on Prudent Orders," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 39-56, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:19:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-007-9102-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-007-9102-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-007-9102-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-007-9102-x?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. DE KEYSER, Wim & SPRINGAEL, Johan, 2002. "Another way of looking at group decision making opens new perspectives," Working Papers 2002015, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    2. Luis Dias & João Clímaco, 2000. "ELECTRE TRI for Groups with Imprecise Information on Parameter Values," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(5), pages 355-377, September.
    3. Dias, Luis C. & Climaco, Joao N., 2005. "Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 160(2), pages 291-307, January.
    4. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    5. Kenneth J. Arrow & Herve Raynaud, 1986. "Social Choice and Multicriterion Decision-Making," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262511754, April.
    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. Tavares, L. Valadares, 2012. "An acyclic outranking model to support group decision making within organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 782-790.
    2. Juan Carlos Leyva-López, 2024. "A consistency and consensus model for group decision support based on the outranking approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1-29, June.

    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. Perez, J. & Barba-Romero, S., 1995. "Three practical criteria of comparison among ordinal preference aggregating rules," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 85(3), pages 473-487, September.
    2. 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.
    3. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    4. Francineide Morais Bezerra & Paulo Melo & João Paulo Costa, 2017. "Reaching Consensus with VICA-ELECTRE TRI: A Case Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 26(6), pages 1145-1171, November.
    5. Juan Carlos Leyva-López, 2024. "A consistency and consensus model for group decision support based on the outranking approach," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 1-29, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Contreras, I. & Marmol, A.M., 2007. "A lexicographical compromise method for multiple criteria group decision problems with imprecise information," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 181(3), pages 1530-1539, September.
    8. Tommaso Agasisti & Giuseppe Munda & Ralph Hippe, 2019. "Measuring the efficiency of European education systems by combining Data Envelopment Analysis and Multiple-Criteria Evaluation," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 51(2), pages 105-124, June.
    9. Munda, Giuseppe, 2009. "A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 194(1), pages 307-322, April.
    10. Noelia Rico & Camino R. Vela & Raúl Pérez-Fernández & Irene Díaz, 2021. "Reducing the Computational Time for the Kemeny Method by Exploiting Condorcet Properties," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-12, June.
    11. Subochev, Andrey & Zakhlebin, Igor, 2014. "Alternative versions of the global competitive industrial performance ranking constructed by methods from social choice theory," MPRA Paper 67462, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Susumu Cato, 2014. "Menu Dependence and Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 561-577, May.
    13. Yeşilçimen, Ali & Yıldırım, E. Alper, 2019. "An alternative polynomial-sized formulation and an optimization based heuristic for the reviewer assignment problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(2), pages 436-450.
    14. Chakhar, Salem & Ishizaka, Alessio & Thorpe, Andy & Cox, Joe & Nguyen, Thang & Ford, Liz, 2020. "Calculating the relative importance of condition attributes based on the characteristics of decision rules and attribute reducts: Application to crowdfunding," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 286(2), pages 689-712.
    15. Way C.W. Chang & Po-Young Chu & Cherng G. Ding & Soushan Wu, 2000. "Analyzing Ordinal Data for Group Representation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 9(1), pages 47-61, January.
    16. Richter, Michael & Rubinstein, Ariel, 2019. ""Convex preferences": a new definition," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 14(4), November.
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
    19. William Gehrlein, 2002. "Condorcet's paradox and the likelihood of its occurrence: different perspectives on balanced preferences ," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 171-199, March.
    20. Tommaso Agasisti & Giuseppe Munda, 2017. "Efficiency of investment in compulsory education: An Overview of Methodological Approaches," JRC Research Reports JRC106681, Joint Research Centre.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Compromise ranking; Prudent orders;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:19:y:2010:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-007-9102-x. 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.