Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 21, Issue 2, pp 185–204 | Cite as

The Use of Ranking Veto Concept to Mitigate the Compensatory Effects of Additive Aggregation in Group Decisions on a Water Utility Automation Investment

  • Suzana de Suzana Dantas Daher
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida


The use of additive models for aggregating group decisions implies they have a compensatory effect in the process of aggregating all decision makers’ (DMs’) preferences. In this kind of model, the final result may produce some extremely undesirable alternatives for one or more DMs. Such alternatives may emerge with a higher ranking than desirable ones, thus generating conflicts and regrets. To overcome this problem the concept of ranking veto is introduced based on a reduction factor combined with the utility of the alternative in order to penalize conflicting alternatives and reduce disagreements in an additive model. A water utility problem was considered as a numerical application to illustrate the model. A decision group method based on MAUT, utility thresholds and a reduction factor is proposed to support group decision in selecting regions that will receive investments in automation over the next 4 years.


Group decision MAUT Ranking veto concept Utility threshold Investment in water utilities 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arrow K (1950) A difficulty in the concept of social welfare. J Polit Econ 58(4): 328–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow KJ, Raynaud H (1986) Social choice and multicriterion decision making. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben-Arieh D, Easton T, Evans B (2008) Minimum cost consensus with quadratic cost functions. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 39(1): 210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Arieh D, Easton T (2007) Multi-criteria group consensus under linear cost opinion elasticity. Decis Support Syst 43:713–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bose U, Paradice DB (1999) The effects of integrating cognitive feedback and multi-attribute utility-based multicriteria decision-making methods in GDSS. Group Decis Negot 8(2): 157–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Butler D et al (2003) SWARD: decision support processes for the UK water industry. J Manag Environ Quality 14(4): 444–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cheng C-B (2004) Group opinion aggregation based on a grading process: a method for constructing triangular fuzzy numbers. Comput Math Appl 48: 1619–1632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dias LC, Clímaco JN (2005) Dealing with imprecise information in group multicriteria decisions: a methodology and a GDSS architecture. Eur J Oper Res 160(2): 291–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. García-Lapresta JL (2008) Favoring consensus and penalizing disagreement in group decision making. J Adv Comput Intell Intell Inform 12(5): 416–421Google Scholar
  10. Hamouda L, Kilgour M, Hipel K (2004) Strength of preference in the graph model for conflict resolution. Group Decis Negot 13: 449–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Herrera-Viedma E, Herrera F, Chiclana F (2002) A consensus model for multiperson decision making with different preference structures. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern Part A Syst Hum 32(3): 394–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jabeur K, Martel J-M, Khélifa S (2004) A distance-based collective preorder integrating the relative importance of the group’s members. Group Decis Negot 13: 327–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Keeney RL, Raiffa H (1976) Decision with multiple objectives: preferences and value trade-offs. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Keeney RL, Kirkwood CW (1975) Group decision making using cardinal social welfare functions. Manag Sci 22: 430–437CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Keeney RL (1976) A group preference axiomatization with cardinal utility. Manag Sci 23: 140–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Morais D, de Almeida AT (2007) Group decision-making for leakage management strategy of water network. Resour Conserv Recycl 52: 441–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Morais DC, de Almeida AT (2010) Water network rehabilitation: a group decision-making approach. Water SA 36(4): 487–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moulin H (1981) The proportional veto principle. Rev Econ Stud 48: 407–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Munda G (2008) Social multi-criteria evaluation for a sustainable economy. Springer-Verlag, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Munda G (2009) A conflict analysis approach for illuminating distributional issues in sustainability policy. Eur J Oper Res 194: 307–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peniwati K (2007) Criteria for evaluating group decision-making methods. Math Comput Model 46: 935–947CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pyne JC (2007) A balanced approach to automating small systems. Water Environ Technol 19(4): 18–20Google Scholar
  23. Ray T, Triantaphyllou E (1998) Evaluation of rankings with regard to the possible number of agreements and conflicts. Eur J Oper Res 106: 129–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reuck J, Klass D, Schmidenberg O (2004) Arbitrage possibilities in conflict situations. Group Decis Negot 13(5): 437–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reynolds L (2004) Developments in control in the water industry. Comput Control Eng J 15(1): 38–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Roy B, Slowinski R (2008) Handling effects of reinforced preference and counter-veto in credibility of outranking. Eur J Oper Res 188(1): 185–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silva VBS, Morais DC, Almeida AT (2010) A multicriteria group decision model to support watershed committees in Brazil. Water Resour Manag 24: 4075–4091CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tavana M, LoPinto F, Smither JW (2007) A hybrid distance-based ideal-seeking consensus ranking model. J Appl Math Decis Sci 11: 1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Thomas J-S, Durham B (2003) Integrated water resource management: looking at the whole picture. Desalination 156: 21–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Vincke P (1992) Multicriteria decision-aid. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  31. Xu Z (2009) An automatic approach to reaching consensus in multiple attribute group decision making. Comput Ind Eng 56: 1369–1374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Xu Z, Chen J (2008) Ordered weighted distance measure. J Syst Sci Syst Eng 17(4): 432–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Suzana de Suzana Dantas Daher
    • 1
  • Adiel Teixeira de Almeida
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal University of PernambucoRecifeBrazil

Personalised recommendations