Combining expert judgment: On the performance of trimmed mean vote aggregation procedures in the presence of strategic voting

Analytic group decision techniques for selecting a subset of alternatives range between multicriteria decision analysis techniques such as multiattribute utility theory and the analytic hierarchy process to voting techniques where each member of the decision group submits a ranking of the alternativ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEuropean journal of operational research Vol. 140; no. 1; pp. 142 - 147
Main Authors Hurley, W.J, Lior, D.U
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 01.07.2002
Elsevier
Elsevier Sequoia S.A
SeriesEuropean Journal of Operational Research
Subjects
Decision analysis
Expert judgment
Experts
Monte Carlo simulation
Studies
Voting
Voting theory
Voting theory
Expert judgment
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Analytic group decision techniques for selecting a subset of alternatives range between multicriteria decision analysis techniques such as multiattribute utility theory and the analytic hierarchy process to voting techniques where each member of the decision group submits a ranking of the alternatives, and these individual rankings are then aggregated into an overall ranking. The obvious advantage of voting is that it bypasses the rather intensive data generation requirements of multicriteria techniques. In this paper we compare the performance of trimmed mean rank-order aggregation procedures in the case where a subset of the individuals in the group charged with the decision vote strategically. We employ a Monte Carlo simulation experiment on a specific decision instance and find that trimmed mean aggregation compares favorably with other procedures.
ISSN:0377-2217
1872-6860
DOI:10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00226-0