IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v33y2024i3d10.1007_s10726-024-09880-2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Outranking-Based Approach Modeling Satisfaction–Dissatisfaction Intensity, Preference Dependence, and Discordance Strength in Group Decision

Author

Listed:
  • Eduardo Fernández

    (Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila)

  • José Rui Figueira

    (Universidade de Lisboa)

  • Jorge Navarro

    (Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa)

  • Efrain Solares

    (Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila)

Abstract

There are numerous proposals for Group Decision-Making (GDM) inspired by the ELECTRE multiple criteria decision approach. These proposals capitalize on ELECTRE's resemblance to certain voting systems and its ability to navigate veto situations. However, while ELECTRE-based methods have commendable features for establishing the credibility degree of the predicate “x is collectively considered at least as good as y”, they do not address three relevant issues: (1) the reinforced preference in favor of x exhibited by certain members of the group; (2) the strength of the coalition of Decision-Makers (DMs) who favor y over x; and (3) the effects of preference dependence (complementarity, redundancy, antagonism) among different DMs. This paper addresses group ranking problems within scenarios where a group is under the control of a special powerful actor, called a “Supra-Decision Maker”, or when a group adheres to a predetermined system of rules agreed upon by its members. Unlike other ELECTRE-based methods for GDM, this proposal comprehensively addresses the issues (1), (2) and (3) to determine the credibility degree of the collective outranking predicate. This determination can be utilized to derive a collective ranking or another form of recommendation in GDM. This proposal is expected to excel in a collaborative organizational environment where group members express genuine judgments, devoid of malicious intentions to manipulate collective decisions. Moreover, it has relevance in socially oriented decision-making contexts, especially when government agencies seek to reconcile opinions of diverse stakeholder groups with highly contradictory points of view. In such scenarios, where phenomena such as preference dependence, reinforced preference, and intense disagreement manifest, this proposal could offer valuable insights.

Suggested Citation

  • Eduardo Fernández & José Rui Figueira & Jorge Navarro & Efrain Solares, 2024. "An Outranking-Based Approach Modeling Satisfaction–Dissatisfaction Intensity, Preference Dependence, and Discordance Strength in Group Decision," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 33(3), pages 647-672, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:33:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09880-2
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-024-09880-2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-024-09880-2
    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/s10726-024-09880-2?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. Roy, B. & Figueira, J.R. & Almeida-Dias, J., 2014. "Discriminating thresholds as a tool to cope with imperfect knowledge in multiple criteria decision aiding: Theoretical results and practical issues," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 9-20.
    2. Luis G. Vargas, 2016. "Voting with Intensity of Preferences," International Journal of Information Technology & Decision Making (IJITDM), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(04), pages 839-859, July.
    3. Eduardo Fernandez & Sergio Bernal & Jorge Navarro & Rafael Olmedo, 2010. "An outranking-based fuzzy logic model for collaborative group preferences," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 18(2), pages 444-464, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Roy, Bernard, 2009. "ELECTRE methods with interaction between criteria: An extension of the concordance index," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(2), pages 478-495, December.
    6. Fernandez, Eduardo & Leyva, Juan Carlos, 2004. "A method based on multiobjective optimization for deriving a ranking from a fuzzy preference relation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 154(1), pages 110-124, April.
    7. Nicolas Brusselaers & Koen Mommens & Cathy Macharis, 2021. "Building Bridges: A Participatory Stakeholder Framework for Sustainable Urban Construction Logistics," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-33, March.
    8. Čaklović, Lavoslav & Kurdija, Adrian Satja, 2017. "A universal voting system based on the Potential Method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(2), pages 677-688.
    9. Tavares, L. Valadares, 2012. "An acyclic outranking model to support group decision making within organizations," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 782-790.
    10. Meimei Xia & Zeshui Xu & Na Chen, 2013. "Some Hesitant Fuzzy Aggregation Operators with Their Application in Group Decision Making," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 259-279, March.
    11. Leyva-Lopez, Juan Carlos & Fernandez-Gonzalez, Eduardo, 2003. "A new method for group decision support based on ELECTRE III methodology," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 148(1), pages 14-27, July.
    12. Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1978. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 24(16), pages 1721-1732, December.
    13. Ronald D. Armstrong & Wade D. Cook & Lawrence M. Seiford, 1982. "Priority Ranking and Consensus Formation: The Case of Ties," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 28(6), pages 638-645, June.
    14. Figueira, Jose & Roy, Bernard, 2002. "Determining the weights of criteria in the ELECTRE type methods with a revised Simos' procedure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(2), pages 317-326, June.
    15. 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.
    16. Wade D. Cook & Moshe Kress, 1985. "Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 26-32, January.
    17. 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.
    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. Govindan, Kannan & Jepsen, Martin Brandt, 2016. "ELECTRE: A comprehensive literature review on methodologies and applications," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 1-29.
    2. Govindan, Kannan & Kadziński, Miłosz & Ehling, Ronja & Miebs, Grzegorz, 2019. "Selection of a sustainable third-party reverse logistics provider based on the robustness analysis of an outranking graph kernel conducted with ELECTRE I and SMAA," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 1-15.
    3. Fernández, Eduardo & Figueira, José Rui & Navarro, Jorge & Solares, Efrain, 2022. "Handling imperfect information in multiple criteria decision-making through a comprehensive interval outranking approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 82(PB).
    4. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2015. "Dealing with a multiple criteria environmental problem with interaction effects between criteria through an extension of the Electre III method," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 245(3), pages 837-850.
    5. Bottero, M. & Ferretti, V. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Roy, B., 2018. "On the Choquet multiple criteria preference aggregation model: Theoretical and practical insights from a real-world application," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 120-140.
    6. Francesca Abastante & Salvatore Corrente & Salvatore Greco & Isabella M. Lami & Beatrice Mecca, 2022. "The introduction of the SRF-II method to compare hypothesis of adaptive reuse for an iconic historical building," Operational Research, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 2397-2436, July.
    7. Roy, B. & Figueira, J.R. & Almeida-Dias, J., 2014. "Discriminating thresholds as a tool to cope with imperfect knowledge in multiple criteria decision aiding: Theoretical results and practical issues," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 9-20.
    8. 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.
    9. Barbati, M. & Figueira, J.R. & Greco, S. & Ishizaka, A. & Panaro, S., 2023. "A multiple criteria methodology for priority based portfolio selection," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    10. Arandarenko, Mihail & Corrente, Salvatore & Jandrić, Maja & Stamenković, Mladen, 2020. "Multiple criteria decision aiding as a prediction tool for migration potential of regions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(3), pages 1154-1166.
    11. 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.
    12. Fujun Hou, 2018. "Mutual Conversion Between Preference Maps And Cook-Seiford Vectors," Papers 1812.03566, arXiv.org.
    13. Gregório, Beatriz Cagigal & Pereira, Miguel Alves & Costa, Ana Sara, 2024. "Multi-criteria decision-aiding for public hospitals: The role of interactions among pairs of access and quality criteria," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    14. Costa, Ana Sara & Figueira, José Rui & Borbinha, José, 2018. "A multiple criteria nominal classification method based on the concepts of similarity and dissimilarity," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 271(1), pages 193-209.
    15. Gilbert Laffond & Jean Lainé & M. Remzi Sanver, 2020. "Metrizable preferences over preferences," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 55(1), pages 177-191, June.
    16. Martins, H. & Henriques, C.O. & Figueira, J.R. & Silva, C.S. & Costa, A.S., 2023. "Assessing policy interventions to stimulate the transition of electric vehicle technology in the European Union," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PB).
    17. Ana Sara Costa & José Rui Figueira & José Borbinha, 2022. "A multiple criteria socio-technical approach for the Portuguese Army Special Forces recruitment," 4OR, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 289-331, June.
    18. Corrente, Salvatore & Figueira, José Rui & Greco, Salvatore & Słowiński, Roman, 2017. "A robust ranking method extending ELECTRE III to hierarchy of interacting criteria, imprecise weights and stochastic analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 1-17.
    19. Yucheng Dong & Yao Li & Ying He & Xia Chen, 2021. "Preference–Approval Structures in Group Decision Making: Axiomatic Distance and Aggregation," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 273-295, December.
    20. 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.

    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:33:y:2024:i:3:d:10.1007_s10726-024-09880-2. 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.