Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 9
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Ouenniche, Jamal Xu, Bing and Pérez-Gladish, Blanca 2018. Financial Decision Aid Using Multiple Criteria. p. 19.

    Locher, Mark and Costa, Paulo C. G. 2017. The multi-entity decision graph decision ontology: A decision ontology for fusion support. p. 1.

    Pietro, Giovanna Di Ligterink, Frank Porck, Henk and de Bruin, Gerrit 2016. Chemical air filtration in archives and libraries reconsidered. Studies in Conservation, Vol. 61, Issue. 5, p. 245.

    Bock, Alexander 2016. Enterprise, Business-Process and Information Systems Modeling. Vol. 248, Issue. , p. 383.

    Carriger, John F Jordan, Stephen J Kurtz, Janis C and Benson, William H 2015. Identifying evaluation considerations for the recovery and restoration from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill: An initial appraisal of stakeholder concerns and values. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, Vol. 11, Issue. 3, p. 502.

    Sarkar, Sahotra 2013. Multiple Criteria and Trade-Offs in Environmental Ethics. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, Vol. 10, Issue. 4, p. 533.

    2012. Structured Decision Making. p. 47.

    Franco, Luis A. and Montibeller, Gilberto 2011. Wiley Encyclopedia of Operations Research and Management Science.

    de Lima, Alexsandro Souza and de Sousa Damiani, Jose Henrique 2009. A proposed method for modeling research and development (R&D) project prioritization criteria. p. 599.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 2007
  • Online publication date: June 2012

6 - Defining a Decision Analytic Structure

Summary

ABSTRACT. This chapter is a revision and update of the chapter “Structuring for Decision Analysis” of our book Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research (von Winterfeldt and Edwards 1986). More than 20 years have passed since we wrote this chapter and during this time we gained substantial experience with applying decision analysis to many different government, business, and personal problems. The one lesson that has not changed is that structuring decision problems is the most important and, at the same time, least well understood task of a decision analyst. The three-step structuring process (identifying the problem; selecting an appropriate analytical approach; refining the analysis structure) also has survived the test of time. However, more than 20 years of applying decision analysis have taught us many new lessons, some new tools, and a variety of refinements when it comes to structuring decision problems. We liberally use the text of the 1986 chapter and weave in new materials and ideas as we go along.

This chapter focuses on progressing from an ill-defined problem, articulated often vaguely by decision makers and stakeholders, to a clear definition of the problem and the associated analysis framework. Other chapters in this volume discuss specific structuring techniques using objectives hierarchies (Chapter 7), and belief networks and influence diagrams (Chapter 10). We therefore will touch only briefly on the specifics of structuring problems with these tools and will focus on the general ideas and principles guiding the decision analyst's structuring task.

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Advances in Decision Analysis
  • Online ISBN: 9780511611308
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611308
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×
REFERENCES
Benthien, M., and Winterfeldt, D. (2001). Using decision analysis to improve seismic rehabilitation decisions. Working Paper No. WP-01–01. Institute for Civic Enterprise, School of Policy, Planning and Development, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Edwards, W. (1979). Multiattribute utility measuremenmt: Evaluating desegregation plans in a highly political context. In Perloff, R. (ed.), Evaluator interventions: Pros and cons. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 13–54.
Keeney, R. (1980). Siting energy facilities. New York: Academic Press.
Keeney, R. (1992). Value-focused thinking. Cambridge, CA: Harvard Unversity Press.
Keeney, R. L. and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives. New York: John Wiley.
Keeney, R., See, K. E., and Winterfeldt, D. (2006). Inventory and appraisal of U.S. graduate decision programs. Operations Research, 25, 1–16.
Keeney, R., and Winterfeldt, D. (2005). Evaluation of Capilano–Seymour tunnel project alternatives. Report to the Greater Vancouver Regional District, Vancouver, CA.
Winterfeldt, D. (2005). A risk analysis of grounding practices to improve utility worker safety. Report submitted to Southern California Edison Co., Rosemead, CA.
Winterfeldt, D., and Edwards, W. (1986). Decision analysis and behavioral research. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Winterfeldt, D., and Schweitzer, E. (1998). An assessment of tritium supply alternatives in support of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. Interfaces, 28, 92–112.
Winterfeldt, D., Eppel, T., Adams, J., Neutra, R., and Delpizzo, V. (2004). Managing potential health risks from electric power lines: A decision analysis caught in controversy. Risk Analysis, 24, 1487–1502.