Advertisement

Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 141–158 | Cite as

Risk Attitudes Appraisal and Cognitive Coordination in Decentralized Decision Systems

  • Bertrand Munier
Article

Abstract

In decentralized decisions systems, coordination and efficiency encounter major difficulties. To solve the problem, it is argued, the analyst needs to raise a cognitive representation question, in particular the question of the criteria according to which the problem at hand is being assessed in view of the whole organization. This, in turn, raises the issue of how these criteria are evaluated by the different individuals. An example based on a subset of the risk management system, namely the maintenance system in nuclear power plants, is used throughout the text. The paper argues that generalizing MAUT to rank dependent risk treatment is of utmost importance in order to deal with such problems. One additional theorem is proved in that perspective and an appropriate software reported upon and illustrated on an example. Beyond the technical problems examined in the paper, the way to use the decision analysis framework is discussed.

cognition decision analysis industrial maintenance rank dependent model risk management rank multicriteria decision making 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abdellaoui, M., and B. Munier. (1994a). “The ‘Closing In’ Method: An Experimental Tool toInvestigate Individual Choice Patterns Under Risk, ” in B. Munier and M.J. Machina (eds.), Models and Experiments in Risk and Uncertainty. Dordrecht/Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 141–155.Google Scholar
  2. Abdellaoui, M., and B. Munier. (1994b). “On the Fundamental Risk-Structure Dependence of IndividualPreferences under Risk: an experimental investigation, ” Note de Recherche GRID no 94–07.Google Scholar
  3. Abdellaoui, M.,B. Munier, and G. Leblanc. (1996). “La Transformation Subjective de Faibles Probabilités Face au Risque: le Cas de L'exposition aux Rayonnements Ionisants, ” Note de Recherche GRID no 96-04.Google Scholar
  4. Abdellaoui, M., andB. Munier. (1998). “The risk-Structure Dependence Effect: Experimenting with an Eye to Decision-Aiding, ” Annals of Operations Research 80, 237–252.Google Scholar
  5. Beaudouin, F., B. Munier, and Y. Serquin. (1999). “Multi-Attribute Decision making and Generalized Expected Utility in Nuclear Power Plant Maintenance, ” in M. J. Machina, and B. Munier (eds.), Beliefs, Interactions and Preferences in Decision Making. Boston/Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 341–357.Google Scholar
  6. Bouyssou, D., and J. C. Vansnick. (1990). “Utilité cardinale dans le certain et choix dans le risque, ” Revue Economique 41, 979–1000.Google Scholar
  7. Brinded,Malcolm A. Perception versus Analysis: How to Handle Risk, The 2000 Lloyd's Register Lecture, London, The Royal Academy of Engineering, Spring 2000. Malcolm Brinded is President of Shell U.K. and Operations Manager of Shell U.K. – Exploration and Production.Google Scholar
  8. Camerer, C. F. (1989). “An Experimental test of SeveralGeneralized Utility Theories, ” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 2(1), 61–104.Google Scholar
  9. Denneberg, R. (1994). NonAdditive Measures and Integrals. Dordrecht/Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Fishburn, P. C. (1984a). “Dominance in SSB Utility Theory, ” Journal of Economic Theory 34, 130–148.Google Scholar
  11. Fishburn, P. C. (1984b). “Multiattribute Nonlinear Utility Theory, ” Management Science 30, 1301–1310.Google Scholar
  12. Harless, W. (1992). “Predictions About Indifference Curves Inside The Unit Triangle, A Test of Variants of Expected Utility Theory, ” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization 18, 319–334.Google Scholar
  13. Harless, W., and C. Camerer. (1994). “The Predictive Utility of Generalized Expected Utility Theories, ” Econometrica 62, 1251–1289.Google Scholar
  14. Hey, J.D., and C. Orme. (1994). “Investigating Generalizations of expected Utility Theory Using experimental Data, ” Econometrica 62, 1291–1326.Google Scholar
  15. Howard, R. A. (1990). “From Influence to Relevance to Knowledge, ” inR. M. Oliver and J. Q. Smith (eds.), Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets and Decision Analysis. New York, Wiley, 3–23.Google Scholar
  16. Keeney, R. L. (1996). Value-Focused Thinking:A Path to Creative Decision Making. Boston, HarvardUniversity Press.Google Scholar
  17. Keeney, R. L., and H. Raiffa. (1976). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences andValue Tradeoffs. New York, Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. McCord, M., and R. De Neufville. (1986). “Lottery Equivalents:Reduction of the Certainty Effect Problem in Utility Assessment, ” Management Science 32, 56–60.Google Scholar
  19. Miyamoto, J. M., and P. Wakker. (1996). “Multiattribute Utility Theory Without Expected Utility Foundations, ”Operations Research 44, 313–326.Google Scholar
  20. Moubray, J. (1991). Reliability-centred Maintenance.Oxford, Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  21. Munier, B. (1995). “Entre rationalités instrumentale et cognitive: contributionsde la dernière décennie à la modélisation du risque, ” Revue d'Économie Politique 105, 5–70.Google Scholar
  22. Quiggin, J.(1993). Generalized Expected utility Theory, The Rank-Dependent Model. Boston/Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  23. Serquin, Y. (1998). Gestion scientifique de la maintenance des grands systèmes: l'apport de l'aide à ladécision par utilité multiattribut généralisée, doctoral dissertation. GRID, Ecole Normale Supérieure de Cachan (unpublished).Google Scholar
  24. Shakun, M. F. (1975). “Policy Making Under Discontinuous Change: The Situational NormativismApproach, ” Management Science 22(2), October.Google Scholar
  25. Shakun, M. F. (1988). Evolutionay Systems Design,PolicyMaking Under Complexity and Group Decisions Support Systems. Oakland, Holden-Day.Google Scholar
  26. Teulier, R. (1997). “Lesreprésentations: médiations de l'action stratégique, ” Note de Recherche GRID no 97– 01.Google Scholar
  27. Weick, K. E. (1987). “Organizational Culture as a Source of High Reliability, ” California Management Review 29(2), 112–127.Google Scholar
  28. Winterfeld, D. von, and W. Edwards. (1986). Decision Analysis and Behavioral Research. NewYork, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bertrand Munier
    • 1
  1. 1.GRID, CNRS Unit 8534Ecole Normale Supérieure de CachanFrance

Personalised recommendations