Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp 1211–1235 | Cite as

Using Bids, Arguments and Preferences in Sensitive Multi-unit Assignments: A p-Equitable Process and a Course Allocation Case Study

  • Mireille DucasséEmail author
  • Peggy Cellier


Bonus distribution in enterprises or course allocation at universities are examples of sensitive multi-unit assignment problems, where a set of resources is to be allocated among a set of agents having multi-unit demands. Automatic processes exist, based on quantitative information, for example bids or preference ranking, or even on lotteries. In sensitive cases, however, decisions are taken by persons also using qualitative information. At present, no multi-unit assignment system supports both quantitative and qualitative information. In this paper, we propose MUAP-LIS, an interactive process for multi-assignment problems where, in addition to bids and preferences, agents can give arguments to motivate their choices. Bids are used to automatically make pre-assignments, qualitative arguments and preferences help decision makers break ties in a founded way. A group decision support system, based on Logical Information Systems, allows decision makers to handle bids, arguments and preferences in a unified interface. We say that a process is p-equitable for a property p if all agents satisfying p are treated equally. We formally demonstrate that MUAP-LIS is p-equitable for a number of properties on bids, arguments and preferences. It is also Pareto-efficient and Gale–Shapley-stable with respect to bids. A successful course allocation case study is reported. It spans over two university years. The decision makers were confident about the process and the resulting assignment. Furthermore, the students, even the ones who did not get all their wishes, found the process to be equitable.


Group decision support ThinkLet Formal concept analysis Logical information systems 



The authors are grateful to Yann Ricquebourg for his enthusiastic and fruitful collaboration, as well as to the students of INSA who willingly contributed to the questionnaires. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and questions.


  1. Abdulkadiroglu A, Pathak PA, Roth AE (2005) The New York city high school match. Am Econ Rev 95(2):364–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abrial JR (1996) The B book: assigning programs to meanings. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adla A, Zaraté P, Soubie JL (2011) A proposal of toolkit for GDSS facilitators. Group Decis Negot 20:57–77. doi: 10.1007/s10726-010-9204-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs R, de Vreede GJ (2009) ThinkLets: building blocks for concerted collaboration. Center for Collaboration Science, University of Nebraska at Omaha, OmahaGoogle Scholar
  5. Budish E, Cantillon E (2012) The multi-unit assignment problem: theory and evidence from course allocation at Harvard. Am Econ Rev 102(5):2237–2271. doi: 10.1257/aer.102.5.2237 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ducassé M, Cellier P (2013) Fair and fast convergence on islands of agreement in multicriteria group decision making by logical navigation. Group Decis Negot 23(4):673–694. doi: 10.1007/s10726-013-9372-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ducassé M, Cellier P (2014) Using biddings and motivations in multi-unit assignments. In: Zaraté P, Kersten GE, Hernndez JE (eds) Group decision and negotiation. A process-oriented view. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 180. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 53–61. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07179-4-6
  8. Ehlers L, Klaus B (2003) Coalitional strategy-proof and resource-monotonic solutions for multiple assignment problems. Soc Choice Welf 21(2):265–280. doi: 10.1007/s00355-003-0259-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ferré S, Ridoux O (2000) A logical generalization of formal concept analysis. In: Mineau G, Ganter B (eds) International conference on conceptual structures. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 1867. Springer, Berlin, pp 371–384Google Scholar
  10. Ferré S, Ridoux O (2004) An introduction to logical information systems. Inf Process Manag 40(3):383–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gale D, Shapley LS (1962) College admissions and the stability of marriage. Am Math Mon 69(1):9–15.
  12. Ganter B, Wille R (1999) Formal concept analysis: mathematical foundations. Springer, HeidelbergCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holmvall CM, Bobocel DR (2008) What fair procedures say about me: self-construals and reactions to procedural fairness. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 105(2):147–168. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kolfschoten GL, de Vreede GJ, Briggs RO (2010) Collaboration engineering. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation, advances in group decision and negotiation (chap 20), vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 339–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lewis LF (2010) Group support systems: overview and guided tour. In: Kilgour DM, Eden C (eds) Handbook of group decision and negotiation, advances in group decision and negotiation (chap 14), vol 4. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 249–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mittleman DD, Briggs RO, Murphy JD, Davis AJ (2008) Toward a taxonomy of groupware technologies. In: Briggs RO, Antunes P, de Vreede GJ, Read A (eds) CRIWG. Lecture notes in computer science, vol 5411. Springer, Berlin, pp 305–317Google Scholar
  17. Roszkowska E, Wachowicz T (2014) Defining preferences and reference points—a multiple criteria decision making experiment. In: Zaraté P, Kersten GE, Hernández JE (eds) Group decision and negotiation. A process-oriented view. Lecture notes in business information processing, vol 180. Springer International Publishing, Berlin, pp 136–143. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-07179-4-15
  18. Sashkin M, Williams RL (1990) Does fairness make a difference? Organ Dyn 19(2):56–71. doi: 10.1016/0090-2616(90)90071-V CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sönmez T, Ünver MU (2010) Course bidding at business schools. Int Econ Rev 51(1):99–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Zeleznikow J (2012) Developing notions of fairness in negotiation support systems. In: de Almeida AT, Morais DC, de França Dantas Daher S (eds) Proceedings of the group decision and negotiation conference, pp 119–128, ISBN 978-85-415-0036-4Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.INSA Rennes-IRISARennesFrance

Personalised recommendations