Handbook of Decision Analysis

Parnell, Gregory S.; Bresnick, Terry A.; Tani, Steven N.; Johnson, Eric R.

doi:10.1002/9781118515853

Cited by 154 publications

(122 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In this context, the DMs involved in the decision process could be a panel of animal scientists, veterinarians, consumers, etc. There are different methods for utility function determination, we chose MACBETH for several reasons: first, due to the available information on how to use this method to facilitate a consensus between stakeholders (Parnell et al, 2013;Bana e Costa et al, 2014), which may be one of the main difficulties which arise when a panel of different DMs is consulted to determine the utility functions and the aggregation parameters in a further stage of the project. Second, due to the fact that this method makes it easier to judge the different attractiveness of options with an increasing number of criteria, due to the use of qualitative judgements, and moreover, a scale of indifferent categories ('very weak', 'weak', 'moderate', 'strong', 'very strong' or 'extreme') (Bana e Costa et al, 2004).…”

Section: General Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a multi-criteria evaluation system to assess growing pig welfare

Martin¹,

Traulsen²,

Buxadé

et al. 2017

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper was to present an alternative multi-criteria evaluation model to assess animal welfare on farms based on the Welfare Quality ® (WQ) project, using an example of welfare assessment of growing pigs. The WQ assessment protocol follows a three-step aggregation process. Measures are aggregated into criteria, criteria into principles and principles into an overall assessment. This study focussed on the first step of the aggregation. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) was used to produce a value of welfare for each criterion. The utility functions and the aggregation function were constructed in two separated steps. The Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical Based Evaluation Technique (MACBETH) method was used for utility function determination and the Choquet Integral (CI) was used as an aggregation operator. The WQ decision-makers' preferences were fitted in order to construct the utility functions and to determine the CI parameters. The methods were tested with generated data sets for farms of growing pigs. Using the MAUT, similar results were obtained to the ones obtained applying the WQ protocol aggregation methods. It can be concluded that due to the use of an interactive approach such as MACBETH, this alternative methodology is more transparent and more flexible than the methodology proposed by WQ, which allows the possibility to modify the model according, for instance, to new scientific knowledge.

show abstract

Section: General Methodologymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of a multi-criteria evaluation system to assess growing pig welfare

Martin¹,

Traulsen²,

Buxadé

et al. 2017

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are different methods for utility function determination. MACBETH was chosen for several reasons: first, due to the available information on how to use this method to facilitate a consensus among stakeholders (Parnell et al, 2013;Bana e Costa et al, 2014), which is one of the main difficulties that a multi-criteria evaluation system for animal welfare faces. Second, due to the fact that this method makes it easier to judge the different attractiveness of options with an increasing number of criteria, due to the use of qualitative judgements, and moreover, a scale of indifferent categories ('very weak', 'weak', 'moderate', 'strong', 'very strong' or 'extreme') (Bana e Costa et al, 2004).…”

Section: Datamentioning

confidence: 99%

Validation of a multi-criteria evaluation model for animal welfare

Martin¹,

Czycholl²,

Buxadé

et al. 2017

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper was to validate an alternative multi-criteria evaluation system to assess animal welfare on farms based on the Welfare Quality ® (WQ) project, using an example of welfare assessment of growing pigs. This alternative methodology aimed to be more transparent for stakeholders and more flexible than the methodology proposed by WQ. The WQ assessment protocol for growing pigs was implemented to collect data in different farms in Schleswig-Holstein, Germany. In total, 44 observations were carried out. The aggregation system proposed in the WQ protocol follows a three-step aggregation process. Measures are aggregated into criteria, criteria into principles and principles into an overall assessment. This study focussed on the first two steps of the aggregation. Multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) was used to produce a value of welfare for each criterion and principle. The utility functions and the aggregation function were constructed in two separated steps. The MACBETH (Measuring Attractiveness by a Categorical-Based Evaluation Technique) method was used for utility function determination and the Choquet integral (CI) was used as an aggregation operator. The WQ decision-makers' preferences were fitted in order to construct the utility functions and to determine the CI parameters. The validation of the MAUT model was divided into two steps, first, the results of the model were compared with the results of the WQ project at criteria and principle level, and second, a sensitivity analysis of our model was carried out to demonstrate the relative importance of welfare measures in the different steps of the multi-criteria aggregation process. Using the MAUT, similar results were obtained to those obtained when applying the WQ protocol aggregation methods, both at criteria and principle level. Thus, this model could be implemented to produce an overall assessment of animal welfare in the context of the WQ protocol for growing pigs. Furthermore, this methodology could also be used as a framework in order to produce an overall assessment of welfare for other livestock species. Two main findings are obtained from the sensitivity analysis, first, a limited number of measures had a strong influence on improving or worsening the level of welfare at criteria level and second, the MAUT model was not very sensitive to an improvement in or a worsening of single welfare measures at principle level. The use of weighted sums and the conversion of disease measures into ordinal scores should be reconsidered.

show abstract

“…Parnell provides a thorough treatment of the MODA process (Parnell et al, 2013) while Neches and Madni write about the opportunity to use MODA for enhanced upfront engineering (Neches & Madni, 2013) and Buede specifically addresses the use of MODA to inform early requirements (Buede, 1997b;Buede, 1994;Buede, 1997a). Foundational works such as (Keeney, 1982;von Winterfeldt, 1980;Howard, 1988;Keeney & Raiffa, 1976;Raiffa, 1968;Kirkwood, 1992;Howard & Matheson, 2005;Howard et al, 1968;Hammond et al, 1998;Bond et al, 2010;Keeney, 2012;Raiffa, 1969;Keeney & von Winterfeldt, 2007;Keeney & Gregory, 2005;Kirkwood, 1996;Keeney, 2002;Keeney, 2009;Keeney, 1974) (Shachter & Kenley, 1989) and work on cost/schedule models ) also have potentially strong ties to MODA design alternative selection methods.…”

Section: An Approach To Design Alternative That Meets Required Princimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the mid 1940's, John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern established the theory of decision analysis and Ward Edwards created a psychology field of study around the theory in the mid 1950's. Howard Raiffa carried the field forward, authoring the first book of decision analysis in 1968 and co-authoring the first multiple objective decision analysis book with Ralph Keeney in 1976 (Parnell et al, 2013;Edwards et al, 2007). Foundational concepts for single objective decision analysis across a wide range of business and policy decisions include decision trees, influence diagrams, sensitivity analyses, probability distributions, and Monte Carlo simulations (Clemen & Reilly, 2013).…”

Section: An Approach To Design Alternative That Meets Required Princimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Foundational concepts for single objective decision analysis across a wide range of business and policy decisions include decision trees, influence diagrams, sensitivity analyses, probability distributions, and Monte Carlo simulations (Clemen & Reilly, 2013). For design trade decisions involving multiple competing objectives, Value Focused Thinking embedded in Multiple Objective Decision Analysis is and established approach (Parnell et al, 2011;Parnell et al, 2013;Keeney, 2009;Kirkwood, 1996).…”

Section: An Approach To Design Alternative That Meets Required Princimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Measuring Perceived Risk of Pitfalls Associated with Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analyses

Cilli¹,

Parnell²,

Cloutier³

et al. 2017

EMR

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) has recently revised the defense acquisition system to address suspected root causes of unwanted acquisition outcomes. One of the major changes in the revised acquisition system is an increased emphasis on systems engineering trade-offs made between capability requirements and lifecycle costs early in the acquisition process (Cilli, Parnell, Cloutier, & Zigh, 2015). Given that systems engineering trade-off analyses will play a pivotal role in future defense acquisition efforts, this paper takes an in-depth look at the state of systems engineering trade-off analysis capability through a review of relevant literature and a survey of systems engineering professionals and military operations research professionals involved in defense acquisition. The survey was developed to measure the perceived level of difficulty associated with compliance to the revised defense acquisition system mandate for early systems engineering trade-off analyses and to measure perceived likelihood and impact of potential pitfalls within systems engineering trade-off studies. The survey instrument was designed using Survey Monkey and was deployed through a link posted on several groups within LinkedIn, a professional social media site, and was also sent directly via email to those with known experience in this research area. Although increased systems engineering activity early in the life cycle is a compelling change for DoD, the findings of the literature review and the survey of practitioners both indicate that there is much to be done in order to position the systems engineering community for success so that the improved defense acquisition outcomes as envisioned by the architects of 2015 DoDI 5000.02 can be realized.

show abstract

Handbook of Decision Analysis

Cited by 154 publications

References 0 publications

Development of a multi-criteria evaluation system to assess growing pig welfare

Development of a multi-criteria evaluation system to assess growing pig welfare

Validation of a multi-criteria evaluation model for animal welfare

Measuring Perceived Risk of Pitfalls Associated with Systems Engineering Tradeoff Analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About