Loading…

A collective choice method based on individual preferences relational systems (p.r.s.)

In group decision-making literature, several procedures are proposed in order to establish a collective preference from the different individual ones. The majority of these procedures, however, reveal that the individual preferences are always expressed in total pre-orders (or ranking). Indeed, unti...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of operational research 2007-03, Vol.177 (3), p.1549-1565
Main Authors: Jabeur, Khaled, Martel, Jean-Marc
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In group decision-making literature, several procedures are proposed in order to establish a collective preference from the different individual ones. The majority of these procedures, however, reveal that the individual preferences are always expressed in total pre-orders (or ranking). Indeed, until now very few have considered individual preferences which are expressed in partial pre-orders or, more generally, in preferences relational systems (p.r.s.). Moreover, many of these procedures generate collective preferences which are expressed in total pre-orders (ranking decision-making problematic). The efforts reported in the literature to develop procedures which treat other decision-making problematics—such as choice problematic—remain insufficient. In this paper, we propose a method which would determine from individual p.r.s. at least one collective subset containing the “best” alternatives. Each of these collective subsets results from the exploitation—according to the choice problematic—of a collective p.r.s. obtained from the aggregation of the individual p.r.s. Furthermore, each collective p.r.s. has two main characteristics: (i) it is at a minimum distance from all individual p.r.s. and (ii) it takes into account the members’ relative importance.
ISSN:0377-2217
1872-6860
DOI:10.1016/j.ejor.2005.10.028