Use of Problem Structuring Techniques for Option Generation: A Computer Choice Case Study

Abstract Structuring techniques developed so far for use in decision analyses have concentrated on structuring uncertainty or the decompostion of worth of alternatives while the specification of the options to be considered within the analysis has usually been considered as something which happens a priori to the decision analysis, which does not comprise activities specifically addressed to this problem. This case study of a decision analysis dealing with the choice of a set of computers to meet the overall requirements of a university psychology department demonstrates structuring techniques useful in providing a representation of a decision problem at the stage prior to the development of specific options. It shows how this representation can be used to generate alternative options, each of which could provide adequate solutions to the problem. The evaluation of individual elements within each option is discussed, together with subsequent evaluation of complete sets of options, where properties of the configuration of elements within each option may be taken into consideration. In each case a computer-based interactive decision aid, MAUD4, was used in forming preferences on the basis of these evaluations. The advantages and limitations of the option generating methodology are discussed, together with a discussion of how one can use these techniques to assess the flexibility of a potential option set in terms of the provision of a method for judging its responsiveness both (i) to future changes in requirements under the assumption that there is in the present total uncertainty about what such changes might be so they cannot be structured and (ii) to future changes in states of the world about which there is currently too much uncertainty to permit explicit act—event modelling.

[1]  Henry Montgomery,et al.  Decision Rules and the Search for a Dominance Structure: Towards a Process Model of Decision Making* , 1983 .

[2]  G. Pitz,et al.  Procedures for eliciting choices in the analysis of individual decisions , 1980 .

[3]  Lawrence D. Phillips,et al.  Requisite Decision Modelling: A Case Study , 1982 .

[4]  Masanao Toda,et al.  THE DECISION PROCESS: A PERSPECTIVE† , 1976 .

[5]  Dennis M Buede,et al.  An Application of Cost-Benefit Analysis to the USMC Program Objectives Memorandum (POM). , 1977 .

[6]  K. Duncker,et al.  On problem-solving , 1945 .

[7]  Antonio Leal,et al.  GODDESS: A Goal-Directed Decision Structuring System , 1982, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[8]  R. L. Keeney,et al.  Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs , 1977, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[9]  P. Humphreys,et al.  Experiences with MAUD: Aiding decision structuring versus bootstrapping the decision maker☆ , 1980 .

[10]  K. Holyoak,et al.  Alternative conceptions of semantic theory , 1975, Cognition.

[11]  J. Kruskal Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[12]  Richard S. John,et al.  The Quality and User Acceptance of Multiat-Tribute Utility Analysis Performed by Computer and Analyst , 1983 .

[13]  E H Shuford,et al.  Utility, induced utilities, and small worlds. , 1965, Behavioral science.

[14]  L. D. Phillips,et al.  Structuring Decisions. The Role of Structuring Heuristics , 1981 .

[15]  Gordon F. Pitz,et al.  Human Engineering of Decision Aids , 1983 .

[16]  Lennart Sjöberg,et al.  Volitional problems in carrying through a difficult decision , 1980 .

[17]  Rex V. Brown,et al.  HERESY IN DECISION ANALYSIS: MODELING SUBSEQUENT ACTS WITHOUT ROLLBACK * , 1978 .