IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v29y2020i2d10.1007_s10726-020-09655-5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of the Final Ranking Decisions Made by Experts After a Consensus has Been Reached in Group Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Evangelos Triantaphyllou

    (Louisiana State University)

  • Fujun Hou

    (Beijing Institute of Technology)

  • Juri Yanase

    (Complete Decisions, LLC)

Abstract

Traditional approaches to group decision making (GDM) problems for ranking a finite set of alternatives terminate when the experts involved in the GDM process reach a consensus. This paper proposes ways for analyzing the final results after a consensus has been reached in GDM. Results derived from this last step can be used to further enhance the understanding of possible hidden dynamics of the problem under consideration. The proposed approach for post-consensus analysis is in part based on a novel idea, known as preference maps (PMs) introduced recently in the literature on how rankings should be described when ties in the rankings are allowed. An original contribution of this paper is how to define the difference between two PMs. This is achieved by using a metric known as the Marczewski–Steinhaus distance. Approaches for analyzing the final results of a GDM process after consensus has been reached may reveal hidden but crucial insights in the way the experts reached the consensus and also new insights related to the alternatives. These approaches rely on the concept of differences in the rankings, defined by traditional means or as the difference between two PMs as defined in this paper. This is the second group of original contributions made in this paper. The various issues are illustrated with numerical examples and an application inspired from a real-world problem described in the literature. The new contributions described in this study offer an exciting potential to enrich the group decision making process considerably.

Suggested Citation

  • Evangelos Triantaphyllou & Fujun Hou & Juri Yanase, 2020. "Analysis of the Final Ranking Decisions Made by Experts After a Consensus has Been Reached in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(2), pages 271-291, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:29:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09655-5
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-020-09655-5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-020-09655-5
    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/s10726-020-09655-5?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. Hou, Fujun & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2019. "An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 570-579.
    2. Thom Bezembinder & Hans Maassen, 2002. "Generating random weak orders and the probability of a Condorcet winner," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 19(3), pages 517-532.
    3. Fujun Hou, 2016. "The Prametric-Based GDM Procedure Under Fuzzy Environment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 25(5), pages 1071-1084, September.
    4. Triantaphyllou, Evangelos & Yanase, Juri & Hou, Fujun, 2020. "Post-consensus analysis of group decision making processes by means of a graph theoretic and an association rules mining approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    5. Ray, Thomas G. & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 1998. "Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 106(1), pages 129-136, 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. Vitalii Antoshchuk & Volodymyr Filippov & Varvara Kuvaieva, 2021. "Development of methodological support for improving the quality of expert assessment of business processes," Technology audit and production reserves, Socionet;Technology audit and production reserves, vol. 1(4(57)), pages 22-27.
    2. Triantaphyllou, Evangelos & Yanase, Juri & Hou, Fujun, 2020. "Post-consensus analysis of group decision making processes by means of a graph theoretic and an association rules mining approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).

    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. Triantaphyllou, Evangelos & Yanase, Juri & Hou, Fujun, 2020. "Post-consensus analysis of group decision making processes by means of a graph theoretic and an association rules mining approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    2. Fujun Hou, 2018. "Mutual Conversion Between Preference Maps And Cook-Seiford Vectors," Papers 1812.03566, arXiv.org.
    3. Hou, Fujun & Triantaphyllou, Evangelos, 2019. "An iterative approach for achieving consensus when ranking a finite set of alternatives by a group of experts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(2), pages 570-579.
    4. Gong, Zaiwu & Guo, Weiwei & Słowiński, Roman, 2021. "Transaction and interaction behavior-based consensus model and its application to optimal carbon emission reduction," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    5. Moulin, Herve & Sprumont, Yves, 2006. "Responsibility and cross-subsidization in cost sharing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 152-188, April.
    6. Fujun Hou, 2022. "Reformulating the Value Restriction and the Not-Strict Value Restriction in Terms of Possibility Preference Map," Papers 2205.07400, arXiv.org.
    7. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    8. 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.
    9. Malcolm J. Beynon, 2006. "The Role of the DS/AHP in Identifying Inter-Group Alliances and Majority Rule Within Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 15(1), pages 21-42, January.
    10. Fujun Hou, 2022. "Conditions for none to be whipped by `Rank and Yank' under the majority rule," Papers 2208.05093, arXiv.org.
    11. Su, Weihua & Chen, Sibo & Zhang, Chonghui & Li, Kevin W., 2023. "A subgroup dominance-based benefit of the doubt method for addressing rank reversals: A case study of the human development index in Europe," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(3), pages 1299-1317.
    12. 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.
    13. Tiantian Gai & Mingshuo Cao & Francisco Chiclana & Zhen Zhang & Yucheng Dong & Enrique Herrera-Viedma & Jian Wu, 2023. "Consensus-trust Driven Bidirectional Feedback Mechanism for Improving Consensus in Social Network Large-group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(1), pages 45-74, February.
    14. Mingwei Wang & Decui Liang & Zeshui Xu & Wen Cao, 2022. "Consensus reaching with the externality effect of social network for three-way group decisions," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 315(2), pages 707-745, August.
    15. Salvatore Barbaro & Nils D. Steiner, 2022. "Majority principle and indeterminacy in German elections," Working Papers 2202, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    16. Majumdar, Abhijit & Tiwari, Manoj Kumar & Agarwal, Aastha & Prajapat, Kanika, 2021. "A new case of rank reversal in analytic hierarchy process due to aggregation of cost and benefit criteria," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 8(C).
    17. Salvatore Barbaro, 2021. "A social-choice perspective on authoritarianism and political polarization," Working Papers 2108, Gutenberg School of Management and Economics, Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz.
    18. Pedro García-del-Valle-y-Durán & Eduardo Gamaliel Hernandez-Martinez & Guillermo Fernández-Anaya, 2022. "The Greatest Common Decision Maker: A Novel Conflict and Consensus Analysis Compared with Other Voting Procedures," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(20), pages 1-39, October.
    19. Wenfeng Zhu & Hengjie Zhang & Jing Xiao, 2023. "Coming to Consensus on Classification in Flexible Linguistic Preference Relations: The Role of Personalized Individual Semantics," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 32(5), pages 1237-1271, October.
    20. Fujun Hou, 2022. "Describing Sen's Transitivity Condition in Inequalities and Equations," Papers 2204.05105, arXiv.org.

    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:29:y:2020:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-020-09655-5. 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.