IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v31y2022i2d10.1007_s10726-021-09771-w.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Novel Conflict Resolution Model with The Composition of Probabilistic Preferences Methodology–CRMCPP

Author

Listed:
  • Annibal P. Sant’anna

    (Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal Fluminense–UFF)

  • Ana Paula C. S. Costa

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco–UFPE)

  • Maisa M. Silva

    (Universidade Federal de Pernambuco–UFPE)

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to propose a four-stage conflict resolution model. In the first stage, a multicriteria model is developed for each of the conflicting parties, taken as decision makers (DMs) facing evaluations of a set of alternatives according to proper criteria. In the second stage, the composition of probabilistic preferences (CPP) methodology is applied to identify the best alternative for each of the conflicting parties. In the third stage, negotiation is carried out to remove alternatives and to focus on the subset of best alternatives for the group of DMs. The fourth stage consists of applying CPP again to choose one among the remaining alternatives. The model is illustrated by means of applying it to two different conflicts. The main features of the model are that it allows the DMs (i) to understand differences and proximities between the positions of each of them, (ii) to strategically reduce the initial set of alternatives, (iii) to advance in their positions towards a common goal, and (iv) to construct a unique final solution quickly.

Suggested Citation

  • Annibal P. Sant’anna & Ana Paula C. S. Costa & Maisa M. Silva, 2022. "A Novel Conflict Resolution Model with The Composition of Probabilistic Preferences Methodology–CRMCPP," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(2), pages 363-385, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:31:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09771-w
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-021-09771-w
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-021-09771-w
    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/s10726-021-09771-w?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. Bernard Roy, 2005. "Paradigms and Challenges," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys, chapter 0, pages 3-24, Springer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kadziński, MiŁosz & Greco, Salvatore & SŁowiński, Roman, 2012. "Extreme ranking analysis in robust ordinal regression," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 488-501.
    2. Muhammad Riaz & Wojciech Sałabun & Hafiz Muhammad Athar Farid & Nawazish Ali & Jarosław Wątróbski, 2020. "A Robust q-Rung Orthopair Fuzzy Information Aggregation Using Einstein Operations with Application to Sustainable Energy Planning Decision Management," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-39, May.
    3. Roszkowska, Ewa & Wachowicz, Tomasz, 2015. "Application of fuzzy TOPSIS to scoring the negotiation offers in ill-structured negotiation problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 242(3), pages 920-932.
    4. Miller, Michael & Mattes, Katharina, 2014. "Demonstration of a multi-criteria based decision support framework for selecting PSS to increase resource efficiency," Working Papers "Sustainability and Innovation" S11/2014, Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI).
    5. Roy, Bernard & Slowinski, Roman, 2008. "Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 188(1), pages 185-190, July.
    6. Chen, Faan & Li, Yaxin & Feng, Qianqian & Dong, Zehao & Qian, Yiming & Yan, Yi & Ho, Mun S. & Ma, Qianchen & Zhang, Dashan & Jin, Yuanzhe, 2023. "Road safety performance rating through PSI-PRIDIT: A planning tool for designing policies and identifying best practices for EAS countries," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    7. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    8. Miguel Á. García-Fuentes & Rubén García-Pajares & Cecilia Sanz & Alberto Meiss, 2018. "Novel Design Support Methodology Based on a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis Approach for Energy Efficient District Retrofitting Projects," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Pelenc, Jérôme & Etxano, Iker, 2021. "Capabilities, Ecosystem Services, and Strong Sustainability through SMCE: The Case of Haren (Belgium)," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    10. Calders, Toon & Van Assche, Dimitri, 2018. "PROMETHEE is not quadratic: An O(qnlog(n)) algorithm," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 63-69.
    11. Tim Schröder & Lars-Peter Lauven & Beatriz Beyer & Nils Lerche & Jutta Geldermann, 2019. "Using PROMETHEE to assess bioenergy pathways," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 27(2), pages 287-309, June.
    12. Carlos A. Bana e Costa & João Carlos Lourenço & Mónica Duarte Oliveira & João C. Bana e Costa, 2014. "A Socio-technical Approach for Group Decision Support in Public Strategic Planning: The Pernambuco PPA Case," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 5-29, January.
    13. Iker Etxano & Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Oihana Garcia, 2018. "Conflicting Values in Rural Planning: A Multifunctionality Approach through Social Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-29, May.
    14. Goossens, Adriaan J.M. & Basten, Rob J.I., 2015. "Exploring maintenance policy selection using the Analytic Hierarchy Process; An application for naval ships," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 31-41.
    15. Hatami-Marbini, Adel & Tavana, Madjid, 2011. "An extension of the Electre I method for group decision-making under a fuzzy environment," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 373-386, August.
    16. Itziar Barinaga-Rementeria & Artitzar Erauskin-Tolosa & Pedro José Lozano & Itxaro Latasa, 2019. "Individual and Social Preferences in Participatory Multi-Criteria Evaluation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(20), pages 1-18, October.
    17. Wątróbski, Jarosław & Jankowski, Jarosław & Ziemba, Paweł & Karczmarczyk, Artur & Zioło, Magdalena, 2019. "Generalised framework for multi-criteria method selection," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 107-124.
    18. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for prioritizing pair-wise elicitation questions with additive multi-attribute value models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 27-45.
    19. Ciomek, Krzysztof & Kadziński, Miłosz & Tervonen, Tommi, 2017. "Heuristics for selecting pair-wise elicitation questions in multiple criteria choice problems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 262(2), pages 693-707.
    20. Kiracı, Kasım & Akan, Ercan, 2020. "Aircraft selection by applying AHP and TOPSIS in interval type-2 fuzzy sets," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(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:31:y:2022:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-021-09771-w. 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.