基于排序的方法,为群体决策中的满意-不满意强度、偏好依赖性和不和谐强度建模

IF 3.6 4区 管理学 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Eduardo Fernández, José Rui Figueira, Jorge Navarro, Efrain Solares
{"title":"基于排序的方法,为群体决策中的满意-不满意强度、偏好依赖性和不和谐强度建模","authors":"Eduardo Fernández, José Rui Figueira, Jorge Navarro, Efrain Solares","doi":"10.1007/s10726-024-09880-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 “<i>x</i> is collectively considered at least as good as <i>y</i>”, they do not address three relevant issues: (1) the reinforced preference in favor of <i>x</i> exhibited by certain members of the group; (2) the strength of the coalition of Decision-Makers (DMs) who favor <i>y</i> over <i>x</i>; 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":47553,"journal":{"name":"Group Decision and Negotiation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"An Outranking-Based Approach Modeling Satisfaction–Dissatisfaction Intensity, Preference Dependence, and Discordance Strength in Group Decision\",\"authors\":\"Eduardo Fernández, José Rui Figueira, Jorge Navarro, Efrain Solares\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10726-024-09880-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>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 “<i>x</i> is collectively considered at least as good as <i>y</i>”, they do not address three relevant issues: (1) the reinforced preference in favor of <i>x</i> exhibited by certain members of the group; (2) the strength of the coalition of Decision-Makers (DMs) who favor <i>y</i> over <i>x</i>; 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47553,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Group Decision and Negotiation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09880-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Decision and Negotiation","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-024-09880-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 ELECTRE 多标准决策方法的启发下,有许多关于群体决策(GDM)的建议。这些建议利用了 ELECTRE 与某些投票系统的相似性及其在否决情况下的驾驭能力。然而,虽然基于 ELECTRE 的方法在确定 "x 被集体认为至少与 y 一样好 "这一谓词的可信度方面具有值得称道的特点,但它们并没有解决三个相关问题:(1) 小组中某些成员表现出的偏好 x 的强化偏好;(2) 偏好 y 而非 x 的决策者(DMs)联盟的强度;(3) 不同 DMs 之间偏好依赖性(互补性、冗余性、对抗性)的影响。本文所讨论的群体排序问题,是在群体受一个被称为 "超级决策者 "的特殊强势行为者控制的情况下,或在群体遵守其成员商定的预定规则体系的情况下产生的。与其他基于 ELECTRE 的 GDM 方法不同,本提案全面解决了问题(1)、(2)和(3),从而确定了集体排名靠前谓词的可信度。这种确定可用于在 GDM 中得出集体排名或其他形式的推荐。在协作式组织环境中,小组成员表达的是真实的判断,没有操纵集体决策的恶意,因此该建议有望大显身手。此外,它还适用于社会导向型决策环境,尤其是当政府机构寻求协调观点高度矛盾的不同利益相关群体的意见时。在这种情况下,会出现偏好依赖、强化偏好和激烈分歧等现象,这项建议可以提供有价值的见解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

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

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

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: The idea underlying the journal, Group Decision and Negotiation, emerges from evolving, unifying approaches to group decision and negotiation processes. These processes are complex and self-organizing involving multiplayer, multicriteria, ill-structured, evolving, dynamic problems. Approaches include (1) computer group decision and negotiation support systems (GDNSS), (2) artificial intelligence and management science, (3) applied game theory, experiment and social choice, and (4) cognitive/behavioral sciences in group decision and negotiation. A number of research studies combine two or more of these fields. The journal provides a publication vehicle for theoretical and empirical research, and real-world applications and case studies. In defining the domain of group decision and negotiation, the term `group'' is interpreted to comprise all multiplayer contexts. Thus, organizational decision support systems providing organization-wide support are included. Group decision and negotiation refers to the whole process or flow of activities relevant to group decision and negotiation, not only to the final choice itself, e.g. scanning, communication and information sharing, problem definition (representation) and evolution, alternative generation and social-emotional interaction. Descriptive, normative and design viewpoints are of interest. Thus, Group Decision and Negotiation deals broadly with relation and coordination in group processes. Areas of application include intraorganizational coordination (as in operations management and integrated design, production, finance, marketing and distribution, e.g. as in new products and global coordination), computer supported collaborative work, labor-management negotiations, interorganizational negotiations, (business, government and nonprofits -- e.g. joint ventures), international (intercultural) negotiations, environmental negotiations, etc. The journal also covers developments of software f or group decision and negotiation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信