IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v29y1983i12p1384-1392.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ranking in Tournaments and Group Decisionmaking

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen T. Goddard

    (General Electric Information Services Pty. Ltd., Melbourne, Australia)

Abstract

This paper fully discusses methods for ranking a set of alternatives in the fairest possible way according to a minimum violations criterion. New methods, based on finding paths and circuits in graphs, are presented for ranking participants in round-robin and generalized tournaments, and for consensus and group decisionmaking problems. The objective of the paper is to review existing methods for tackling these problems, and compare them with the new methods, according to a "fairness" criterion, and the amount of computing required to reach a solution. It is shown that the new methods often exceed the existing methods in both fairness and reduced computing requirements. In particular, the new methods are generally more versatile than existing methods. This allows organizations to obtain the fairest ranking of a number of alternatives, according to their managers' or employees' wishes. Particular attention is given to incomplete rankings where insufficient exposure of an individual to some alternatives restricts that individual to ranking only the remaining alternatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen T. Goddard, 1983. "Ranking in Tournaments and Group Decisionmaking," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 29(12), pages 1384-1392, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:29:y:1983:i:12:p:1384-1392
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.29.12.1384
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Mass A. & Bezembinder, T. & Wakker, P., 1996. "On solving intansitivities in repeated pairwise choices," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 53-53, February.
    2. 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.
    3. Siraj, Sajid & Mikhailov, Ludmil & Keane, John, 2012. "A heuristic method to rectify intransitive judgments in pairwise comparison matrices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 420-428.
    4. Ngwenyama, Ojelanki K. & Bryson, Noel, 1999. "Eliciting and mapping qualitative preferences to numeric rankings in group decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 487-497, August.
    5. Bryson, Noel & Mobolurin, Ayodele & Ngwenyama, Ojelanki, 1995. "Modelling pairwise comparisons on ratio scales," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 83(3), pages 639-654, June.
    6. Brozos-Vázquez, Miguel & Campo-Cabana, Marco Antonio & Díaz-Ramos, José Carlos & González-Díaz, Julio, 2008. "Ranking participants in tournaments by means of rating functions," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(11), pages 1246-1256, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    tournament rankings; decision making;

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:29:y:1983:i:12:p:1384-1392. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.