Advertisement

Assessment, Refinement, and Narrowing of Options

  • Miley W. Merkhofer
  • Lynn C. Maxwell

Abstract

Suppose you are a manager who must decide which of your employees to promote to an important, decision-making position. You chose your two top performers as candidates and evaluate their decision-making styles. One, you discover, makes decisions with logic. She collects the relevant information, analyzes the options, and assesses the uncertainties. Her choices nearly always produce good results. Occasionally, however, things have turned out less than perfect because of circumstances impossible to foresee. The other candidate, you find, has had a string of remarkable successes, but bases all of his choices on the flip of a “special” 1964 quarter that was left in his office by a previous employee. What should you do?

Keywords

Decision Maker Risk Assessment Influence Diagram Borda Count Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abelson, P. 1979. Cost-Benefit Analysis and Environmental Problems Westmead, England: Saxon House.Google Scholar
  2. Akland, G.G. et al. 1985. Measuring human exposures to carbon monoxide in Washington, D.C. and Denver, CO., during the winter of 1982–83. Environmental Science Technology 27:369.Google Scholar
  3. Armstrong, J.S. and MacGregor, D. 1994. Judgmental decomposition: When does it work? International Journal of Forecasting 10:495–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beanlands, G.E. and Duinker, P.N. 1983. An Ecological Framework for Environmental Impact Assessment in Canada. Halifax, Nova Scotia: Institute for Resources and Environmental Studies, Dalhousie University.Google Scholar
  5. Bitz, D.A., Berry, D.L., and Jardine, L.J. 1993. Decision and Systems Analysis for Underground Storage Tank Waste Remediation System, SAND94–0065. Albuquerque, NM: Sandia National Laboratories.Google Scholar
  6. Cairns, J., Jr., Dickson, K.L., and Maki, A.W. (Eds.). 1978. Estimating the Hazard of Chemical Substances to Aquatic Life STP 657. Philadelphia: American Society for Testing and Materials.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Center for Chemical of Process Safety (CCPS). 1995. Tools for Making Acute Risk Decisions. New York: American Institute of Chemical Engineers.Google Scholar
  8. Cheshire, R.A. 1991. Introduction to Environmental decision making. In: R.A. Cheshire and S. Carlisle (Eds.), Environmental Decision Making: A Multidisciplinary Perspective. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Pp. 1–13.Google Scholar
  9. Churchman, C. 1961. Prediction and Optimal Decision: Philosophical Issues of a Science of Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  10. Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management (CRAM). 1996. Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making. (Draft.)Google Scholar
  11. Washington, D.C.: Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Covello, V.T. and Merkhofer, M.W. 1993. Risk Assessment Methods: Approaches for Assessing Health and Environmental Risks. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  12. Curtis, T. and Michaels, T. 1996. Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis: The states’ perspective. Inside EPA’s Risk Policy Report 3(8):29–30 (August 23).Google Scholar
  13. Demski, J. 1972. Information Analysis. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  14. Dowlatabadi, H. and Morgan, M.G. 1993. Integrated assessment of climate change. Science 259:1813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dummet, M. 1984. Voting Procedures. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  16. Dyer, J.S. 1990. Remarks on the analytic hierarchy process, Management Science 36(3):249–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Edwards, W. and Barron, F.H. 1994. SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved simple methods for multi-attribute utility measurement. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 60:306–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finkel, A.M. 1994. Stepping out of your own shadow: A didactic example of how facing uncertainty can improve decision-making. Risk Analysis 14(5):751–761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fischhoff, B. 1979. Informed consent in societal risk-benefit decision. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 13:347–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., and Lichtenstein, S. 1980. Knowing what you want: Measuring labile values. In: T.S. Wallsten (Ed.). Cognitive Processes in Choice and Decision Behavior. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pp. 117–142.Google Scholar
  21. Gots, R. 1992. Toxic Risks: Science, Regulation, and Perception. Boca Raton, FL: Lewis Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Gramlich, E.M. 1990. A Guide to Benefit-Cost Analysis 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  23. Howard, R.A. 1968. The foundations of decision analysis. IEEE Transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics SSC-4(3):211–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of water resource management. Ecological Applications 1:66–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keeney, R.L. 1992. Value Focused Thinking. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  27. Kelly, J.S. 1987. Social Choice Theory. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  28. Kepner, C.H. and Tregoe, B.B. 1981. The New Rational Manager. London: John Martin Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Krawiec, F. 1984. Evaluating and selecting research projects by scoring. Research Management 27(2):21–25.Google Scholar
  30. Kusnic, M.W. and Owen, D. 1992. The unifying process: Value beyond traditional decision analysis and multiple decision-maker environments. Interfaces 22(6):150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McCormick, N.J. 1981. Reliability and Risk Analysis. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  32. Merkhofer, M.W., Conway, R., and Anderson, R.G. 1997. Multi-attribute utility analysis as a framework for public participation in siting a hazardous waste management facility. Environmental Management 21(6):831–839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Merkhofer, M.W. 1987. Quantifying judgmental uncertainty: Methodology, experiences, and insights. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics SMC17(5):741–752.Google Scholar
  34. Merkhofer, M.W. and Keeney, R.L. 1987. A multiattribute utility analysis of alternative sites for the disposal of nuclear waste. Risk Analysis 7(2):173–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Merkhofer, M.W. and Korsan, R.J. 1978. Florida Utility Pollution Control Options and Economic Analysis-Volume 2: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Alternative Florida Sulfur Oxide Emissions Control Policies. SRI final report, project 5,080. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.Google Scholar
  36. Morgan, M.G. 1981. Probing the question of technology-induced risk. IEEE Spectrum 18(11):58–64.Google Scholar
  37. Morgan, N.G. et al. 1992. Communicating risk to the public. Environmental Science and Technology 26:2048–2056.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mumpower, J.L. et al. 1987. Expert Judgment and Expert Systems. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Research Council (NRC). 1978. Saccharin: Technical Assessment of Risks and Benefits. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  40. National Research Council (NRC). 1989. Improving Risk Communication. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  41. Oliver, R.M. and Smith, J.Q. 1988. Influence Diagrams, Belief Nets, and Decision Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  42. Poucet, A. 1990. STARS: Knowledge based tools for safety and reliability analysis. In: G.E. Apostolakis and P. Kafka (Eds.). The Role and Use of Personal Computers in Probabilistic Safety Assessment and Decision Making. New York: Elsevier. Pp. 379–397.Google Scholar
  43. Riggs, J.L. and West, T.M. 1986. Essentials of Engineering Economics. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  44. Saaty, T.L. 1980. The Analytic Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  45. Silvers, A. and Hakkarinen, C. 1987. Materials damage from air pollutants. EPRI Journal 12(6):58–59.Google Scholar
  46. Simon, H.A. 1976. Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Process in Administrative Organization. 3rd ed. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  47. Smith, J.E. and Nau, R. 1995. Valuing Risky Projects: Option Pricing Theory and Decision Analysis. Management Science 41(5):795–815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stewart, D., Treshow, M., and Harner, F.M. 1973. Pathological anatomy of coniferous needle necrosis. Canadian Journal of Botany 51(5):983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Suter, G.W. (Ed.). 1993. Ecological Risk Assessment. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers. U.S. Environmental ProtectionGoogle Scholar
  50. Agency (EPA). 1990. Hazard ranking system, Final rule. Federal Register 55:51532–51667.Google Scholar
  51. Vesely, W.E., Goldberg, E.F., Roberts, N.H., and Haasl, D.F. 1981. Fault Tree Handbook NUREG/CR-0492. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.Google Scholar
  52. von Neumann, J. and Morgenstern, O. 1947. Theories of Games and Economic Behavior. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Walker, W.E. 1986. Use of screening in policy analysis. Management Science 32(4):389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Westman, W.E. 1985. Ecology, Impact Assessment, and Environmental Planning. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  55. White, D.J. 1975. Decision Methodology. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miley W. Merkhofer
  • Lynn C. Maxwell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations