Suchergebnisse

This paper derives a general prescriptive model for group decision analysis based on a set of logical and operational assumptions analogous to those for individual decision analysis. The approach accounts for each group member's potentially different frames of their common decision, including different events and different consequences of concern. Assuming that each group member accepts the decision analysis assumptions to evaluate his or her analysis of what the group should do and that the group accepts an analogous set of decision analysis assumptions for the group's decision, it is proven that the group expected utility for an alternative should be a weighted sum of the individual member's expected utilities for the alternatives. After each group member does his or her decision analysis of the group's alternatives, the essence of the group decision analysis is to specify the weights based on the interpersonal comparison of utilities and on the relative importance or power of each individual in the group.

Brainstorming can be a useful technique to create alternatives for complex decisions. To enhance the quality and innovativeness of the created alternatives, value-focused brainstorming incorporates two features of value-focused thinking into the traditional brainstorming procedures. First, it explicitly identifies the valued aspects of potential alternatives, specified as distinct objectives, to guide brainstormers to create alternatives of greater value. Second, all participants in a brainstorm individually create alternatives prior to any anchoring on group discussions, which will enhance getting the full range of each individual's thoughts articulated. Concepts and procedures of the approach are discussed. A public policy application, done to address recommendations following the World Trade Center disaster, illustrates the approach by creating alternatives to improve emergency evacuation of individuals from large buildings.

Decisions are made to achieve objectives. A qualitative list of the objectives for a decision is the foundation for a value model that unambiguously represents objectives in a quantitative manner. The objectives guide thinking and the value model provides a basis for analyzing alternatives to best meet the desired objectives. This article illustrates the usefulness of clearly identifying objectives and developing value models to support anti‐terrorism analysis. It outlines procedures to develop value models for the Department of Homeland Security and for terrorist organizations. The later is useful to both design anti‐terrorism alternatives and suggest possible terrorist priorities and actions. An example that develops a terrorist value model for the theft and misuse of plutonium is presented. Several uses of value models for anti‐terrorist activities are discussed and suggestions for developing such value models are outlined.

Decision analysis has been used to help solve numerous complex decisions over the last few decades. However, its power as a basis for structuring one's thinking to resolve decisions has barely been tapped. To realize this potential, we in the decision analysis community must train people to think about their decisions using the concepts and principles of decision analysis. In this process, more emphasis must be placed on structuring decisions worth thinking about, and less emphasis must be placed on analyzing structured decisions. This paper outlines what we should do to train people to be better decision makers and why this is important. It includes a description of what we must learn to do this effectively.

Clear communication is important for making good decisions and for teaching people how to make better decisions. Decision analysts have special concepts with terms unfamiliar to most decision makers. Hence, in communicating about decisions, it is necessary to clarify and agree on usage of terms and often use terms familiar to decision makers to describe our concepts.

Values, meaning what we care to achieve, are essential to risk management. Understanding the relevant values is critical to making good decisions about risks. Thus values should be made explicit. Conceptual ideas and a few practical suggestions for building value models are discussed. Brief descriptions of several cases in which such models have facilitated decision making about important risk management decisions conclude the article.

Modern science and medicine, and increasing prosperity, have brought many benefits to our society, but not without costs. One cost is that some of the technological innovations and new activities bring with them different and perhaps greater risks that threaten our lives. Any problem involving life‐threatening risks is complex, so it is difficult to think through all the implications of the alternatives proposed to address it. This paper presents a number of "facts" to guide constructive thinking about decisions concerning life‐threatening risks. The intent is to help us appraise alternatives, design public policy and laws, and communicate about specific risk problems.