IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v22y2013i2d10.1007_s10726-011-9260-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Aggregating Incomplete Individual Ratings in Group Resource Allocation Decisions

Author

Listed:
  • Donald N. Stengel

    (California State University)

Abstract

This paper addresses a decision to be made by a group of evaluators as to how to allocate a pool of monetary resources to a set of candidates. The group decision is an aggregation of the individual allocation recommendations by the evaluators. Evaluators may also be candidates to receive allocations and not allowed to vote a recommendation for themselves. Further, evaluators can elect to exclude some candidates from their evaluations because they do not believe they are qualified to judge some candidates. Two models are presented for aggregation of individual evaluations using the mean and median, respectively, as the basis for the group consensus. In circumstances where some evaluators do not recommend allocations for all candidates, the calculation of the mean recommendations requires the solution of a system of linear equations and the calculation of the median recommendations requires an iterative search algorithm. Conditions for existence of a group consensus allocation for each model are described and the strengths and weaknesses of each model are explored. The models can be applied to a variety of different group decisions, including rating of candidates for a job or allocating a budget.

Suggested Citation

  • Donald N. Stengel, 2013. "Aggregating Incomplete Individual Ratings in Group Resource Allocation Decisions," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 235-258, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:22:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9260-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-011-9260-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-011-9260-8
    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/s10726-011-9260-8?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 Clippel, Geoffroy & Moulin, Herve & Tideman, Nicolaus, 2008. "Impartial division of a dollar," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 176-191, March.
    2. Mueller,Dennis C., 2003. "Public Choice III," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521894753.
    3. T. Tideman & Florenz Plassmann, 2008. "Paying the partners," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 19-37, July.
    4. Herve Moulin, 2004. "Fair Division and Collective Welfare," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262633116, December.
    5. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    6. Blair, George S., 1958. "Cumulative Voting: Patterns of Party Allegiance and Rational Choice in Illinois State Legislative Contests," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 123-130, March.
    7. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé, 2008. "The Budget-Voting Paradox," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 64(4), pages 447-478, June.
    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. Elena Rokou & Konstantinos Kirytopoulos, 2014. "A Calibrated Group Decision Process," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(6), pages 1369-1384, November.

    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. Arthur Carvalho & Kate Larson, 2012. "Sharing Rewards Among Strangers Based on Peer Evaluations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 9(3), pages 253-273, September.
    2. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2019. "The role of communication in fair division with subjective claims," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 72-89.
    3. Knoblauch, Vicki, 2009. "Three-agent peer evaluation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(3), pages 312-314, December.
    4. Shiran Rachmilevitch, 2022. "Reasonable Nash demand games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 319-330, September.
    5. Gantner, Anita & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fairness and efficiency in a subjective claims problem," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PA), pages 21-36.
    6. Ruben Juarez & Kohei Nitta, 2017. "Profit-Sharing and Implementation of Efficient Outcomes," Working Papers 201702, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    7. Ruben Juarez & Kohei Nitta & Miguel Vargas, 2020. "Profit-sharing and efficient time allocation," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 70(3), pages 817-846, October.
    8. Didier Sornette & Spencer Wheatley & Peter Cauwels, 2019. "The Fair Reward Problem: The Illusion Of Success And How To Solve It," Advances in Complex Systems (ACS), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 22(03), pages 1-52, May.
    9. Boudreau, James W. & Knoblauch, Vicki, 2011. "Dividing profits three ways: Exactness vs. consensuality," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 62(2), pages 79-86, September.
    10. Didier Sornette & Spencer Wheatley & Peter Cauwels, 2019. "The fair reward problem: the illusion of success and how to solve it," Papers 1902.04940, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2019.
    11. Johan Eyckmans & Michael Finus, 2006. "New roads to international environmental agreements: the case of global warming," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 7(4), pages 391-414, December.
    12. Peter J. Coughlin, 2015. "Probabilistic voting in models of electoral competition," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 13, pages 218-234, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Banai, Reza, 2010. "Evaluation of land use-transportation systems with the Analytic Network Process," The Journal of Transport and Land Use, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota, vol. 3(1), pages 85-112.
    14. Fatih Yiğit & Şakir Esnaf, 2021. "A new Fuzzy C-Means and AHP-based three-phased approach for multiple criteria ABC inventory classification," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 32(6), pages 1517-1528, August.
    15. Hahn Robert, 2010. "Designing Smarter Regulation with Improved Benefit-Cost Analysis," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 1(1), pages 1-19, July.
    16. Silvia Dominguez-Martinez & Otto Swank, 2006. "Polarization, Information Collection and Electoral Control," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 26(3), pages 527-545, June.
    17. Rachele Corticelli & Margherita Pazzini & Cecilia Mazzoli & Claudio Lantieri & Annarita Ferrante & Valeria Vignali, 2022. "Urban Regeneration and Soft Mobility: The Case Study of the Rimini Canal Port in Italy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(21), pages 1-27, November.
    18. Lin, Sheng-Hau & Zhao, Xiaofeng & Wu, Jiuxing & Liang, Fachao & Li, Jia-Hsuan & Lai, Ren-Ji & Hsieh, Jing-Chzi & Tzeng, Gwo-Hshiung, 2021. "An evaluation framework for developing green infrastructure by using a new hybrid multiple attribute decision-making model for promoting environmental sustainability," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 75(C).
    19. Marselli, Riccardo & McCannon, Bryan C. & Vannini, Marco, 2015. "Bargaining in the shadow of arbitration," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 356-368.
    20. Russell Pittman, 2007. "Consumer Surplus as the Appropriate Standard for Antitrust Enforcement," EAG Discussions Papers 200709, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.

    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:22:y:2013:i:2:d:10.1007_s10726-011-9260-8. 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.