Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference

Wade D. Cook and Moshe Kress
Management Science
Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 26-32
Published by: INFORMS
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2631671
Page Count: 7
  • Download ($30.00)
  • Cite this Item
Ordinal Ranking with Intensity of Preference
Preview not available

Abstract

In conventional ordinal ranking models the voter/ranker supplies an ordered set of preference on a collection of objects without specifying any form of intensity of preference. For example, an executive committee of ten members is required to assign five candidates to five positions. The nature of the positions is such that position one requires the highest qualified candidate (relative to a given attribute), position two the second qualified person and so on. Each one of the members in the committee is required, therefore, to supply a ranking of the five candidates to the jobs. In many situations, however, it is desirable to permit the individual to express some measure of intensity of preference. For example, suppose that six committee members agreed that candidate number one is slightly better than candidate number two, but four of them evaluated candidate number two as being much better than candidate number one. The question now is whether this situation is identical to the case where the six members evaluate candidate one as much better than candidate two and four members evaluate candidate two as slightly better than candidate one. The ordinal ranking model will not distinguish between the above two cases while it is clear that when taking account of the intensity of preference, the committee should end up with two difference consensus rankings. This paper develops a model for aggregating ordinal rankings in which the vote is allowed to express such intensity of preferences, and a method to derive the consensus ranking is a proposed.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
26
    26
  • Thumbnail: Page 
27
    27
  • Thumbnail: Page 
28
    28
  • Thumbnail: Page 
29
    29
  • Thumbnail: Page 
30
    30
  • Thumbnail: Page 
31
    31
  • Thumbnail: Page 
32
    32