CREATE Research Archive
Published Articles & Papers
Structuring Decision Problems for Decision
Detlof von Winterfeldt
University of Southern California, firstname.lastname@example.org
Follow this and additional works at: http://research.create.usc.edu/published_papers Recommended Citation
von Winterfeldt, Detlof, "Structuring Decision Problems for Decision Analysis" (1980). Published Articles & Papers. Paper 35. http://research.create.usc.edu/published_papers/35
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CREATE Research Archive. It has been accepted for inclusion in Published Articles & Papers by an authorized administrator of CREATE Research Archive. For more information, please contact email@example.com.
Acta Psychologica 45 (1980) 71-93
0 North-Holland Publishing Company
STRUCTURING DECISION PROBLEMS FOR
DECISION ANALYSIS *
Detlof von WINTERFELDT **
University of Southern
California, Los Angeles, CA 90007,
Structuring decision problems into a formally acceptable and manageable format is probably the most important step of decision analysis. Since presently no sound methodology for structuring exists, this step is still an art left to the intuition and craftsmanship of the individual analyst. After introducing a general concept of structuring, this paper reviews some recent advances in structuring research. These include taxonomies for problem identification and new tools such as influence diagrams and interpretative structural modeling. Two conclusions emerge from this review: structuring research is still limited to a few hierarchical concepts and it tends to ignore substantive problem aspects that delineate a problem it its real world context. Consequently structuring research has little to say about distinctions between typical problem classes such as regulation, siting, or budget allocation.
As an alternative the concept of “prototypical decision analytic structures” is introduced. Such structures are developed to meet the substantive characteristics of a specific problem (e.g., siting a specific Liquid Natural Gas plant) but they are at the same time general enough to apply to similar problems (industrial facility siting). As an illustration, the development of a prototypical analytic structure for environmental standard setting is described. Finally, some typical problem classes are examined and some requirements for prototypical structures are discussed.
An introduction to problem structuring
Decision analysis can be divided into four steps: structuring the problem; formulating inference and preference models; eliciting probabilities and utilities; and exploring the numerical model results. Prac* This research was supported by a grant from the Department of Defense and was monitored by the Engineering Psychology Programs of the Office of Naval Research, under contract # NOOO14-79C-0529. While writing this paper, the author discussed the problem of structuring extensively with Helmut Jungermann. The present version owes much to his thought. Please don’t take footnote 3 too seriously. It is part of a footnote war between Ralph Keeney and me. ** Presently with the Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, CA 90007, (213) 741-6955.
D. von Winterfeldt /Structuring
titioners of decision analysis generally agree that structuring is the most important and difficult step of the analysis. Yet, until recently, decision analytic research has all but ignored structuring, concentrating instead
on questions of modeling and elicitation. As a result, structuring was, and to some extent still is, considered the ‘art’ part of decision analysis. This paper examines some attempts to turn this art into a science. Trees are the most common decision analytic structures. Decision trees, for example, represent
aspects of a decision
problem (see Raiffa 1968; Brown...
References: Brown, R.V. and J.W. Ulvila, 1977. Selecting analytic approaches for decision situations.
Brown, R.V., A.S. Kahr and C. Peterson, 1974. Decision analysis for the manager. New York:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Edwards, W., M. Guttentag and K. Snapper, 1976. A decision-theoretic approach to evaluation
Fischer, D.W. and D. von Winterfeldt, 1978. Setting standards for chronic oil discharges in the
Hogarth, R.M., C. Michaud and J.-L. Mery, 1980. Decision behavior in urban development: a
methodological approach and substantive considerations
Hiipfmger, E. and R. Avenhaus, 1978. A game theoretic framework for .dynamic standard
Howell, W.C. and S.A. Burnett, 1978. Uncertainty measurement: a cognitrve taxonomy. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 22,45-68.
Humphreys, P.C., 1980. Decision aids: aiding decisions. In: L. Sjoberg, T. Tyszka and J.A. Wise
(eds), Decision analyses and decision processes, 1
Humphreys, P.C. and A.R. Humphreys, 1975. An investigation of subjective preference
orderings for multiattributed alternatives
Humphreys, P.C. and A. Wisudha, 1979. MAUD - an interactive computer program for the
structuring, decomposition and recomposition of preferences between multiattributed alternatives
Johnson, E.M. and G.P. Huber, 1977. The technology of utility assessment. IEEE Transactions
on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol
Keeney, R.L. and H. Raiffa, 1976. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value
Kelly, III, C.W., 1978. Decision aids: engineering science and clinical art. Technical Report,
Decisions and Designs, Inc., McLean, VA.
Kelly, C. and S. Barclay, 1973. A general Bayesian model for hierarchical inference. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 10, 388-403.
Kneppreth, N.P., D.H. Hoessel, D.H. Gustafson, and E.M. Johnson, 1977. A strategy for selecting a worth assessment technique. Technical paper 280, U.S. Army Research Institute for
Behavioral and Social Sciences, Arlington, VA.
MacCrimmon, K.R., 1973. An overview of multiple criteria decision making. In: J.L. Cochrane
MacCrimmon, K.R. and R.N. Taylor, 1975. Problem solving and decision making. In: M.C.
Miller, J.R., 1970. Professional decision making: a procedure for evaluating complex alternatives. New York: Praeger.
Miller, AC., M.W. Merkhofer, R.A. Howard, J.E. Matheson and T.R. Rice, 1976. Development
of automated aids for decision analysis
Raiffa, H., 1968. Decision analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sage, A., 1977. Methodology for large scale systems. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Taylor, R.C., 1974. Nature of problem ill-structuredness: implications for problem formulation and solution. Decision Sciences 5,632-643.
Vlek, C. and W.A. Wagenaar, 1979. Judgment and decision under uncertainty. In: J.A. Michon,
Warfield, J., 1974. Structuring complex systems. Batelle Memorial Institute Monograph, no. 4.
Winterfeldt, D. von, 1978. A decision aiding system for improving the environmental standard
Winterfeldt, D. von and D.W. Fischer, 1975. Multiattribute utility: models and scaling procedures. In: D. Wendt and C. Vlek (eds.), Utility, probability, and human decision making.
Winterfeldt, D. von, R. Avenhaus, W. Htiele and E. Hopfmger, 1978. Procedures for the establishment of standards. IIASA-AR-78-A, B, C. International Institute for Applied Systems
Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document