Creativity in MS/OR: Value-Focused Thinking—Creativity Directed toward Decision Making

1993 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 62-67 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph L. Keeney
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Value Focused Thinking

A Value Focused Thinking Approach to Decommissioning Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aaron Tung
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Stakeholder Values ◽  
A Value ◽  
Value Focused Thinking ◽  
Science Theory ◽  
Past Experiences ◽  
Stakeholder Acceptance

Abstract Values are what stakeholders regard to be important to decisions (Kruglanski & Higgins 2007). How stakeholder prioritize, rank, balance, and trade-off values can have significant influence on their reasoning and evaluation of decommissioning outcomes and decisions. Stakeholder values can vary depending on various factors including religious beliefs, personal interests, and past experiences (Lechner et al., 2017). Value-focused thinking is a decision science theory developed by Keeney (1992) which builds upon the concept of varying stakeholder values. Keeney (1992) argues that the best decision is one that best reflects the actual values of stakeholders. which suggests that the acceptability of decommissioning decisions (full removal, partial removal, leave in-situ, rigs-to-reefs, etc.) by stakeholders will vary depending on the values of stakeholder in that particular context. This paper explores the idea of value-focused thinking and derive implications for decommissioning decision-making. Overall, the research finding suggests that rather than basing a decommissioning decision solely on scientific evidence, there is also a need for the decommissioning decisions to be able to reflect the actual values of stakeholders in that particular context. The criteria and weightage of the adopted multi-criteria decision analysis tool, for example, should accurately represent the actual values of stakeholders, so as to enable the tool to produce outcomes and decisions that has a higher probability of stakeholder acceptance.

scholarly journals Combining Value-Focused Thinking and PROMETHEE Techniques for Selecting a Portfolio of Distributed Energy Generation Projects in the Brazilian Electricity Sector

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (19) ◽  
pp. 11091
Author(s):  
Mirian Bortoluzzi ◽  
Marcelo Furlan ◽  
Simone Geitenes Colombo ◽  
Tatiele Martins Amaral ◽  
Celso Correia de Souza ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Portfolio Management ◽  
Decision Model ◽  
Energy Generation ◽  
Preference Ranking ◽  
Distributed Energy ◽  
Numerical Application ◽  
Mato Grosso ◽  
Value Focused Thinking ◽  
Distributed Energy Generation

This article aims to propose a multi-criteria model to support decision-making from a portfolio in selecting technologies for Distributed Generation of Energy (DGE) projects based on the characteristics of the geographic space in Brazil. The decision model involves using multi-criteria to support the evaluation, prioritization, and selection of projects under a multistage decision-making process that fits into a strategic management cycle within the energy sector of Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil). The over-classification techniques Preference Ranking Organization Technique for Enrichment Evaluations (PROMETHEE) II and V were applied under the Value-Focused Thinking (VFT) approach, reflecting the decision-maker or manager preferences among several conflicting criteria in the investment context of sustainable distributed energy generation projects. Based on real data, a numerical application is employed to view the steps of this decision model and illustrate the adequacy and effectiveness in practical issues of portfolio management.

A Career Decision-Making Study Based on Value Engineering

2010 ◽  
Vol 426-427 ◽  
pp. 664-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tang Sheng Wang ◽  
K.R. He ◽  
Jian Feng Hu
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Career Decisions ◽  
Career Decision ◽  
Value Engineering ◽  
Career Decision Making ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Value Focused Thinking ◽  
Primary Focus ◽  
The Right ◽  
Fundamental Values

Alternative-focused thinking is conventionally recognized as the right way to make career decisions, which uses weighted mean to assess the better one. However, alternatives are relevant only because they are means to achieve values. With value-focused thinking (VFT), the authors advance decision-making values should be the primary focus of decision making rather than alternatives. VFT describes and illustrates concepts and procedures for creating better alternatives for career decision-making problems. This article articulates and uses one’s fundamental values to guide and integrate his/her career decision making activities. As a result, career decision-making study has new angle of views and explores many implicated techniques to understand a decision-making setting.

Using Value-Focused Thinking and Multicriteria Decision Making to Evaluate Energy Transition Alternatives

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 330-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim H¨ofer ◽  
Rüdiger von Nitzsch ◽  
Reinhard Madlener
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Multicriteria Decision Making ◽  
Energy Transition ◽  
Energy System ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Multiattribute Utility ◽  
Multiattribute Utility Theory ◽  
Value Focused Thinking ◽  
Objective System

The future transformation of the energy system is a contentious topic, involving a variety of conflicting opinions and interests. In order to structure and evaluate these opinions, we develop a decision-making process with professional stakeholders and energy experts. The aim of this process is to develop a common objective system for the energy transition and to evaluate four possible energy transition alternatives for Germany until 2030. We apply value-focused thinking to define and structure the objectives of the stakeholders and use multiattribute utility theory to evaluate the preferences of the stakeholders toward these objectives. The results show that 8 out of 11 stakeholders prefer the energy transition alternative with the highest climate protection ambitions. Only 3 stakeholders favor the pan-European alternative, where Germany’s power system is further integrated into the European energy system.

Discarding optimality: Throwing out the baby with the bathwater?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Simen ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Reward Rate ◽  
Perceptual Decision ◽  
Standard Observer ◽  
Rate Maximization ◽  
Reward Rate Maximization ◽  
Descriptive Standard ◽  
Observer Model

AbstractRahnev & Denison (R&D) argue against normative theories and in favor of a more descriptive “standard observer model” of perceptual decision making. We agree with the authors in many respects, but we argue that optimality (specifically, reward-rate maximization) has proved demonstrably useful as a hypothesis, contrary to the authors’ claims.

LPCD framework: Analytical tool or psychological model?

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Danks
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Analytical Tool ◽  
Mathematical Framework ◽  
Bayesian Decision ◽  
Perceptual Decision Making ◽  
Psychological Model ◽  
Psychological Reality ◽  
Psychological Theories ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Bayesian Decision Making

AbstractThe target article uses a mathematical framework derived from Bayesian decision making to demonstrate suboptimal decision making but then attributes psychological reality to the framework components. Rahnev & Denison's (R&D) positive proposal thus risks ignoring plausible psychological theories that could implement complex perceptual decision making. We must be careful not to slide from success with an analytical tool to the reality of the tool components.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document