Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Choosing a Voting Procedure for the GDSS GRUS

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Technical Perspective (GDN 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 293))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

In group decision-making, the use of Group Decision Support Systems is increasing and in some groups, a facilitator is required to improve communication among participants. The facilitator has several roles in this situation, which include helping decision makers (DMs) to decide which type of aggregation they would prefer in each decision context. Whenever DMs have different objectives regarding the same problem, they might decide a consensual decision is no longer possible. Therefore, other types of aggregation are required. Voting rules are strongly applied in this type of situation. However, the question that arises is: who should decide the voting method? In this article, a framework for choice of a voting procedure in a business decision context is used. It takes the facilitator’s preferences into account while it seeks to choose which voting procedure best suits the environment of the Group Decision Support System GRoUp Support (GRUS).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Dufner, D., Hiltz, S.R., Johnson, K., Czech, R.: Distributed group support: the effects of voting tools on group perceptions of media richness. Group Decis. Negot. 4, 235–250 (1995). doi:10.1007/BF01384690

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Colson, G.: The OR’s prize winner and the software ARGOS: how a multijudge and multicriteria ranking GDSS helps a jury to attribute a scientific award. Comput. Oper. Res. 27, 741–755 (2000). doi:10.1016/S0305-0548(99)00116-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Roy, B., Bouyssou, D.: Aide multicritère à la decision: méthodes et cas. Economica, Paris (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Brans, J.P., Vincke, P., Mareschal, B.: How to select and how to rank projects: the promethee method. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 24, 228–238 (1986). doi:10.1016/0377-2217(86)90044-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Damart, S., Dias, L.C., Mousseau, V.: Supporting groups in sorting decisions: methodology and use of a multi-criteria aggregation/disaggregation DSS. Decis. Supp. Syst. 43, 1464–1475 (2007). doi:10.1016/j.dss.2006.06.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lolli, F., Ishizaka, A., Gamberini, R., Rimini, B., Messori, M.: FlowSort-GDSS – a novel group multi-criteria decision support system for sorting problems with application to FMEA. Expert Syst. Appl. 42, 6342–6349 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim, Y., Hiltz, S.R., Turoff, M.: Coordination structures and system restrictiveness in distributed group support systems. Group Decis. Negot. 11, 379–404 (2002). doi:10.1023/A:1020492305910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ackermann, F.: Participants’ perceptions on the role of facilitators using group decision support systems. Group Decis. Negot. 5, 93–112 (1996). doi:10.1007/BF02404178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ebadi, T., Purvis, M., Purvis, M.: A distributed and concurrent framework for facilitating cooperation in dynamic environments. In: Proceedings - 2010 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology, pp. 287–294, IAT (2010). doi:10.1109/WI-IAT.2010.260

  10. Adla, A., Zarate, P., Soubie, J.L.: A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators. Group Decis. Negot. 20, 57–77 (2011). doi:10.1007/s10726-010-9204-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Rigopoulos, G., Karadimas, N.V., Orsoni, A.: Facilitating group decisions through multicriteria analysis and agent based modeling. In: First Asia International Conference on Modelling & Simulation (AMS 2007), pp. 533–538 (2007). doi:10.1109/AMS.2007.40

  12. Jahng, J., Zahedi, F.: Intelligent electronic facilitator: increasing GDSS effectiveness and making web-based GDSS possible. In: AMCIS 1998, Paper 161 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  13. de Almeida, A.T., Cavalcante, C.A.V., Alencar, M.H., Ferreira, R.J.P., de Almeida-Filho, A.T., Garcez, T.V.: Multicriteria and Multiobjective Models for Risk, Reliability and Maintenance Decision Analysis, vol. 231. Springer (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17969-8

  14. Nurmi, H.: Voting Paradoxes and How to Deal with Them. Springer, New York (1999). doi:10.1007/978-3-662-03782-9

  15. de Almeida, A.T., Nurmi, H.: A framework for aiding the choice of a voting procedure in a business decision context. In: Kamiński, B., Kersten, G.E., Szapiro, T. (eds.) GDN 2015. LNBIP, vol. 218, pp. 211–225. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_17

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  16. Gilliams, S., Raymaekers, D., Muys, B., Orshoven, J.V.: Comparing multiple criteria decision methods to extend a geographical information system on afforestation. Comput. Electron. Agric. 49, 142–158 (2005). doi:10.1016/j.compag.2005.02.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Górecka, D.: On the choice of method in multicriteria decision aiding process. Multiple Criteria Decis. Making 6, 81–108 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Roy, B., Słowiński, R.: Questions guiding the choice of a multicriteria decision aiding method. EURO J. Decis. Process. 1, 69–97 (2013). doi:10.1007/s40070-013-0004-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Rauschmayer, F., Kavathatzopoulos, I., Kunsch, P.L., Le Menestrel, M.: Why good practice of OR is not enough-ethical challenges for the OR practitioner. Omega 37, 1089–1099 (2009). doi:10.1016/j.omega.2008.12.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Zaraté, P., Kilgour, D.M., Hipel, K.: Private or common criteria in a multi-criteria group decision support system: an experiment. In: Yuizono, T., Ogata, H., Hoppe, U., Vassileva, J. (eds.) CRIWG 2016. LNCS, vol. 9848, pp. 1–12. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44799-5_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H.: Decision with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Wiley, New York (1976)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Nurmi, H.: Comparing Voting Systems. D. Reidel Publishing Company (1987). doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3985-1

  23. Nurmi, H.: The choice of voting rules based on preferences over criteria. In: Kamiński, B., Kersten, G.E., Szapiro, T. (eds.) GDN 2015. LNBIP, vol. 218, pp. 241–252. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19515-5_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  24. Nurmi, H.: Voting procedures: a summary analysis. Br. J. Polit. Sci. 13, 181–208 (1983). doi:10.1017/S0007123400003215

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Fishburn, P.C., Gehrlein, W.W.: Majority efficiencies for simple voting procedures: summary and interpretation. Theory Decis. 14, 141–153 (1982). doi:10.1007/BF00133974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lepelley, D., Valognes, F.: On the Kim and roush voting procedure. Group Decis. Negot. 8, 109–123 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nurmi, H.: A comparison of some distance-based choice rules in ranking environments. Theory Decis. 57, 5–24 (2004). doi:10.1007/s11238-004-3671-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kim, K.H., Roush, F.W.: Statistical manipulability of social choice functions. Group Decis. Negot. 5, 263–282 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Saari, D.G., Merlin, V.R.: A geometric examination of Kemeny’s rule. Soc. Choice Welfare 17, 403–438 (2000). doi:10.1007/s003550050171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Borda, J.C.: Mémoire sur les élections au scrutin. Histoire de l’Académie Royale Des Sciences (1781)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Brams, S.J., Fishburn, P.C.: Approval voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 72, 831–847 (1978)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Nanson, E.J.: Methods of election. Trans. Proc. R. Soc. Victoria Art XIX, 197–240 (1883)

    Google Scholar 

  33. Morais, D.C., de Almeida, A.T.: Group decision making on water resources based on analysis of individual rankings. Omega 40, 42–52 (2012). doi:10.1016/j.omega.2011.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. de Almeida-Filho, A.T., Monte, M.B.S., Morais, D.C.: A voting approach applied to preventive maintenance management of a water supply system. Group Decis. Negot. 26(3), 523–546 (2017). doi:10.1007/s10726-016-9512-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Cullinan, J., Hsiao, S.K., Polett, D.: A borda count for partially ordered ballots. Soc. Choice Welfare 42, 913–926 (2014). doi:10.1007/s00355-013-0751-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ackerman, M., Choi, S.Y., Coughlin, P., Gottlieb, E., Wood, J.: Elections with partially ordered preferences. Publ. Choice 157, 145–168 (2013). doi:10.1007/s11127-012-9930-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Arrow, K.J.: Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York (1963)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Figueira, J., Mousseau, V., Roy, B.: Electre methods. In: Figueira, J., Greco, S., Ehrogott, M. (eds.) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: State of the Art Surveys. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 78. Springer, New York (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Skiena, S.: Implementing Discrete Mathematics: Combinatorics and Graph Theory with Mathematica. Addison-Wesley, Redwood City (1990)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgment

The authors are grateful to the Brazilian Research Council (CNPq) for their financial support of the research contained in this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. CDSID - Center for Decision Systems and Information Development, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, Caixa Postal 7462, Recife, Pernambuco, 50630-970, Brazil

    Rachel Perez Palha & Adiel Teixeira de Almeida

  2. IRIT, Toulouse University, Toulouse, France

    Pascale Zarate

  3. University of Turku, Turku, Finland

    Hannu Nurmi

Authors
  1. Rachel Perez Palha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pascale Zarate
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hannu Nurmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rachel Perez Palha .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Hohenheim, Stuttgart, Germany

    Mareike Schoop

  2. Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

    D. Marc Kilgour

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Palha, R.P., Zarate, P., de Almeida, A.T., Nurmi, H. (2017). Choosing a Voting Procedure for the GDSS GRUS. In: Schoop, M., Kilgour, D. (eds) Group Decision and Negotiation. A Socio-Technical Perspective. GDN 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 293. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63546-0_12

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation