Multiattribute utility theory
Download
1 / 56

Multiattribute Utility Theory - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 292 Views
  • Uploaded on

Multiattribute Utility Theory. concepts application examples. Objectives. ECONOMIC POLICY maximize production equalize distribution GOVERNMENT POLICY reconcile many interest groups BUSINESS reconcile short run/long run tradeoffs utlize long range planning (maintenance, labor).

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Multiattribute Utility Theory' - yamal


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Multiattribute utility theory

Multiattribute Utility Theory

concepts

application

examples


Objectives
Objectives

  • ECONOMIC POLICY

  • maximize production

  • equalize distribution

  • GOVERNMENT POLICY

  • reconcile many interest groups

  • BUSINESS

  • reconcile short run/long run tradeoffs

  • utlize long range planning (maintenance, labor)


Business objectives
BUSINESS OBJECTIVES

  • PROFIT

  • short run cash flow, after tax profit, long run

  • RISK

  • diversify, hedge

  • MARKET DEVELOPMENT

  • new products, wider market, quality

  • CAPITAL REPLENISHMENT

  • LABOR RELATIONS


Multiobjective problems
Multiobjective Problems

  • Energy Policy health, environment, self-determination

  • Administration budgeting, setting objectives

  • Governmentservices, location, tax rates

  • Water Resources Management

  • NASA project selection

  • MIS system selection

  • POM vendor selection


Finnish energy policy
Finnish Energy Policy

  • Finland running out of energy in early 1980s

  • alternatives: large nuclear

  • large coal

  • conservation & small plants

  • 1984 2 companies applied for a nuclear plant

  • hot issue

  • Hamalainen built AHP DSS for interested users


Hierarchy
Hierarchy

  • alternatives of nuclear, coal, & conservation below each lower element

  • Used by members of Parliament

  • after Chernobyl, dropped nuclear


Selection techniques
Selection Techniques

many techniques exist to support selection decisions

  • multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT)

  • simple multi-attribute rating technique (SMART)

  • analytic hierarchy process (AHP)

  • French methods (outranking)

  • Russian methods (ordinal)


Maut concepts
MAUT concepts

rigorously measure value vj

  • identify what is important (hierarchy)

  • identify RELATIVE importance (weights wk)

  • identify how well each alternative does on each criterion (score sjk)

  • can be linear vj =  wk sjk

  • or nonlinear vj = {(1+Kkjsjk) - 1}/K


Maut concepts1
MAUT concepts

  • basis: there is a single dimensional value measure

    • it is cardinal, can be used for ranking

  • analyst’s job - find that function

    • (measure accurately)

    • scores

    • weights


Caveats
caveats

  • people buy insurance (expected payoff < cost) because they avoid risk

  • people gamble (expected payoff << cost) because they are entertained

  • utility theory NORMATIVE (how we SHOULD act)

  • utility not necessarily additive

    [value of 8 eggs not always = 4x(value of 2 eggs)]

    money CAN serve as utility measure


Conclusions
conclusions

  • MAUT considered the “scientific” approach

  • focuses:

    • measure as accurately as possible

    • identify utility function as accurately as possible

    • be as objective as possible


Smart
SMART

  • MAUT is a little abstract

    • difficult to accurately develop tradeoffs

  • SMART based on the same theory

    • simpler implementation

    • linear form

    • direct entry of relative scores & weights


Smart technique
SMART technique

1. identify person whose utilities are to be maximized

2. identify the issue or issues

3. identify the alternatives to be evaluated

4. identify the relevant dimensions of value for evaluating alternatives (attribute scales)

5. rank the dimensions in order of importance

6. rate dimensions in importance, preserving ratios

7. sum the importance weights, & divide by total(wi)

8. measure how well each alternative does on each dimension(sij)

9. U =  wi sij


Points
points

  • in Step 4, limit criteria

    • there are only so many things a human can keep track of at one time

    • 8 plenty

    • if weight extremely low, drop


Methodology
methodology

  • Step 4: Jobs: Big 5 firm, dot.com, local bank

  • Step 5: rank order criteria

    • Experience (no value to cutting edge);

    • Pay ($25k to $50k);

    • Location (unattractive to great);

    • Workload (40 hours/week to 80 hours/week)

    • Travel (very heavy to a little travel)

  • Step 6: rate dimensions

    • least important = 10: travel = 10 workload = 15 location = 20 pay = 30 experience = 45


Methodology1
methodology

Step 7: Develop weights

Divide by total check: 100 for best average

Experience 45/120 = 0.375 100/260 = 0.385 0.38

Pay 30/120 = 0.250 70/260 = 0.269 0.26

Location 20/120 = 0.167 40/260 = 0.154 0.16

Workload 15/120 = 0.125 30/260 = 0.115 0.12

Travel 10/120 = 0.083 20/260 = 0.077 0.08


Methodology2
methodology

  • purpose of swing weighting

    • Consider difference in scales

    • The input is admittedly an approximation

    • Giving values based on a different perspective

      • additional check

      • should yield greater accuracy


Scores
scores

  • Step 8: score each alternative on each criterion

  • need as objective a scale as you can get

  • doesn’t have to be linear

    0 worst ideal 1.0

    Experience none (0) focused (0.3) general (0.9) cutting edge (1.0)

    Pay $25k (0) $30k (0.5) $35k (0.7) $40k (0.8) $50k (1.0)

    Location bad (0) Dallas (0.7) Austin (0.9) Bryan (1.0)

    Workload 80 hr (0) 70 hr (0.2) 50 hr (0.8) 40 hr (1.0)

    Travel excessive (0) lots (0.3) none (0.4) a little (1.0)



Calculation of value
calculation of value

Step 9:

U =  wi sij

EXP PAY LOC WOR TRA

weights0.38 0.26 0.16 0.12 0.08

scores: TOTALS

Big 5 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.710

Dot.com 1.0 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.826

Local bank 0.3 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.304

recommends the Dot.com


Smart1
SMART

  • provides a very workable means to implement the principles of MAUT

  • in fact, it can be MORE accurate than MAUT

    (more realistic scores, tradeoffs)

    identify criteria

    develop scores over criteria

    identify alternatives available, measure scores

    simple calculation


Selecting nuclear depository
selecting nuclear depository

Keeney, An analysis of the portfolio of sites to characterize for selecting a nuclear repository, Risk Analysis7:2 [1987]

DOE - dump nuclear waste - selected Hanford, WA

NAS criticized selection method - said use MAUT

IDENTIFY OBJECTIVE HIERARCHY

objectives attributes measures

DETERMINE RELATIVE IMPORTANCE

lottery tradeoffs

RANK by value =  weights x scores


Doe objectives
DOE objectives

  • at depository worker health effects worker fatalities

    public health effects public fatalities

  • in transit worker health effects worker fatalities

    public health effects public fatalities

  • environmental aesthetic degradation biological

    degradation of archaeological, historical & cultural properties

  • socioeconomic

  • cost repository costs waste transportation costs


Nuclear depository
Nuclear Depository

  • MAUT separated facts from values

  • explicit professional judgments identified

  • 14 criteria

  • each alternative’s value on each criterion measured with metric making sense relative to the decision (radiation - expected deaths rather than rads)

  • interviewed policy makers for tradeoffs


Nuclear depository1
Nuclear Depository

  • Keeney comments:

    • the four policy makers tended to share values

    • “public utility probably should be linear”

  • ended up digging at Yucca Mountain, Carlsbad

  • catch - can’t use either


Hens Pastijn & Struys, “Multicriteria Analysis of the Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR 59 1992 248-261

  • European Community

    • 1958 to 1974 financed by direct contributions by member states

    • Treaty of Rome fixed proportional contributions reflecting ability, advantage

    • disputes about distribution of funds since early 1970s

  • Study of equity of present system


European community revenues
European Community revenues Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • External tariff - 20.1% in 1989

  • agricultural import levies - 2.9%

  • sugar storage levies - 2.9%

  • VAT contributions - 56.8%

    • on goods and services

    • 1988 added element based on GNP

  • GDP-based contributions - 17.2%


European community financing 1989
European Community Financing - 1989 Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

Percent of EC Funding Contributed

Germany 26.4% Belgium 4.1%

France 20.5% Denmark 2.2%

Italy 15.4% Greece 1.2%

Great Britain 14.8% Portugal 1.1%

Spain 7.4% Ireland 0.8%

Netherlands 6.0% Luxemburg 0.2%


European community financing
European Community Financing Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Problems:

    • country of port of entry may not be destination (Rotterdam effect) but customs collected in the Netherlands

    • Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg & the Netherlands paid more than their relative share of GDP

    • BENEFIT PRINCIPLE - those who benefit should pay the tax


Reform proposals
Reform Proposals Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • 1976 Financial Mechanism: refund payable if contribution significantly higher than proportionate share of GNP

    • didn’t work as planned

  • 1984 corrective mechanism: rebate of 66% of difference between VAT payment & budget expenditure share


Criteria
criteria Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • GDP/population

  • POL - political willingness to cooperate

  • EX/GDP - exports per GDP

  • BEN/POP - EC payments/population

    • USED AHP TO GET WEIGHTS!


Weight sets
Weight Sets Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

Scen 1 Scen 2 Scen 3 Scen 4 Scen 5

GDP/POP .25 .4 .53 .53 1.0

POL .25 .4 .27 .13 -

EX/GDP .25 .05 .07 .07 -

BEN/POP .25 .15 .13 .27 -


Proportional contributions
Proportional Contributions Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

1989 Scen 1 Scen 2 Scen 3 Scen 4 Scen 5

Germany 26.36 26.11 26.10 26.39 26.33 26.22

France 20.49 21.59 21.79 21.60 21.45 21.09

Italy 15.43 17.23 17.50 17.22 17.07 17.30

Great Britain 14.77 14.51 14.51 14.87 15.16 15.74

Spain 7.36 6.25 6.37 6.28 6.27 6.27

Netherlands 5.97 5.60 5.37 5.29 5.26 5.09

Belgium 4.12 3.48 3.31 3.25 3.24 3.23

Denmark 2.19 2.48 2.40 2.45 2.51 2.43

Greece 1.23 1.09 1.06 1.06 1.09 1.06


Conclusions1
conclusions Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Great Britain should pay more if weight higher for progressivity

  • Italy should pay less than GDP, but more than they currently do

  • France & Denmark should pay more

  • smaller countries should pay less


Disposition of weapons grade plutonium

Disposition of Weapons Grade Plutonium Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

end of cold war

desire for disarmament

want to get rid of plutonium


Clinton directive
Clinton Directive Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

September 1993

  • Where possible, eliminate stockpiles of HEU & Pu, ensure they are subject to highest standards of safety, security, international accountability

  • Try to purchase HEU from former USSR & other countries and convert to reactor fuel

  • Start comprehensive review of long-term options for Pu disposition, considering technical, nonproliferation, environmental, budgetary, & economic factors; invite international participation


Problem scope
Problem Scope Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • about 50,000 tons of Pu is surplus in US

  • about twice that amount surplus in former USSR

  • form is pits (warheads)

    at plants ready to make warheads

    at breeder reactors (Pu production facilities)

    contaminated waste (gloves, etc.)


Plutonium characteristics
Plutonium Characteristics Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • artificial

  • EXTREMELY toxic

  • very long half-life (centuries)

  • NOT a particularly efficient reactor fuel, but can be used

    • if used in reactors, there still would be about 92% of Pu left over (but it would not be suitable for weapons)

    • lots of other spent fuel Pu, but has natural barrier

      (you die if you pick it up)


Disposition process
Disposition Process Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • transport warhead Pu to oxidation site

  • oxidize Pu to PuOx

  • Process

    • vitrify: apply radionuclide, encase in matrix

    • borehole: vitrify (or none)

    • reactor: burn

  • permanent storage


Decision process
Decision Process Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Notice of Intent for Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement 21 Jun 1994

  • Department of Energy

    • Office of Fissile Materials Disposition

  • want Documented Record of Decision

    • phase 1: SCREENING 17 Mar 9541 options down to 11

    • phase 2: multiattribute analysisdown to 1 - 3

    • phase 3: final decision


Screening criteria
Screening Criteria Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • disposition long term storage

    • resistance to theft & diversion by unauthorized parties *

    • resistance to retrieval, extraction, & reuse by host nation

    • technical viability *

    • environmental, safety, & health *

    • cost effectiveness *

    • timeliness *

    • foster progress & cooperation with Russia and others *

    • public & institutional acceptance *

    • additional benefits


Disposition options
Disposition Options Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • storage options

    • no disposal action baseline

    • radiation barrier alloy X:open-ended, ES&H

  • immobilization with radionuclides

    • underground nuclear detonation X: ES&H, licensing/regulatory

    • borosilicate glass immobilization (DWPF) X: ES&H, cost

    • borosilicate glass immobilization (new) reasonable

    • ceramic immobilization reasonable

    • electrometallurgical treatment reasonable

    • borosilicate glass oxidation/dissolution reasonable


Disposition options1
Disposition Options Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • direct disposal options

    • direct emplacement in HLW repository X: retrievable, time

    • deep borehole (immobilized) reasonable

    • deep borehole (direct emplacement) reasonable

    • discard to WIPP X: capacity

    • hydraulic fracturing X: technical viability

    • deep well injection X: ES&H

    • injection into continental magma X: technical viability, ES&H

    • melting in crystalline rock X: technical viability, ES&H

    • disposal under ice caps X: technical viability, ES&H

    • seabed (placement on ocean floor) X: technical viability

    • ocean dilution X: ES&H, treaty

    • deep space launch X: retrievability, ES&H


Disposition options2
Disposition Options Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Reactor & Accelerator Options

    • Euratom MOX fabrication/reactor burning reasonable

    • existing light water reactors (LWRs) reasonable

    • partially completed LWRS reasonable

    • evolutionary or advanced LWRS reasonable

    • naval propulsion reactors X: transparency

    • modular helium reactors (MHRS) X: technical maturity

    • CANDU heavy water reactors reasonable

    • ALMRS with pyroprocessing X: technical maturity, ES&H

    • accelerator conversion X: technical maturity

    • LWRS with reprocessing X:theft diversion, policy

    • ALMRS with recycle X: technical maturity, policy

    • particle bed, molten salt reactors X: technical maturity


Phase 2 maut analysis
Phase 2: MAUT Analysis Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Decision maker - Secretary of Energy

  • Project manager - Office of Fissile Materials Disposition

  • Technical Analysis - National Laboratories

    • Livermore, Oak Ridge, Sandia

  • MAUT Framework - Pantex

    • UT, Texas A&M


Phase 2 purpose
Phase 2 Purpose Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • to generate a multiattribute utility model

    option score=sum(weights*obj scores)

  • National Laboratories - give accurate estimates of each option’s score on each objective

  • OFMD - source of relative weights


Phase 2 objectives
Phase 2 Objectives Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

evolutionary - this was the initial set

  • non-proliferation max resistance to theft from unauthorized parties

    max resistance to diversion by host nation

    max international cooperation & compliance

  • operational effective max technical viability

    max cost effectiveness

    max timeliness

    max additional benefits

  • env, saf, & health protect human health & safety

    protect the natural environment

    protect the human environment

  • public & institutional acceptance


Phase 2 objectives1
Phase 2 Objectives Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

NonProliferation Theft material characteristics

environment

safeguards & security

Diversion material characteristics

environment

safeguards & security

Irreversibility form

location

International Cooperation Russian

civil use of plutonium

Timeliness start year

time to complete


Phase 2 objectives2
Phase 2 Objectives Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

Operational Effectiveness Technical Maturity

Cost

Investment Cost

Life Cycle Cost

Environment, Safety, & Health

Human Health & Safety

Natural Environment

Socio-Economic

(last 3 measures had many sub-measures)


Bankadvisor
BANKADVISOR Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Mareschal & Brans, EJOR [1991]

  • use PROMETHEE as a bank DSS

  • evaluate firms relative to their competitors

  • input balance sheets, income statements (4 yr)

  • identify ratios

    • management

      • commercial

      • industrial

      • financial


Bankadvisor1
BANKADVISOR Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • PHASE I: display firm financial data

    firm specific

  • PHASE II: industrial evaluation

    comparative

  • each firm an alternative

  • criteria types:solvency rations

    liquidity ratios

    profitability ratios

    management ratios


Croatian highways
Croatian Highways Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Mladineo, Lozic, Stosic, Mlinaric & Radica, EJOR [1992]

  • pick highway route

  • 4 alternatives (2 coastal, 2 inland)

  • interdisciplinary local interests

    social interests


Croatian highways1
Croatian Highways Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • 27 criteria

  • TRAFFIC

  • ENGINEERING/TECHNICAL

  • CIVIL ENGINEERING

  • DEMOGRAPHIC

  • ENVIRONMENTAL

  • SOCIO-ECONOMIC


Jordanian water
Jordanian Water Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Abu-Taleb & Mareschal EJOR [1995]

  • 18 CRITERIA:

    over time, government had developed 18

    these prioritized by PROMETHEE II study

  • groundwater quality, quantity, extractions

    conservation, cost, supply, efficiency

  • sanitation, output value, surface quality& quantity

  • irrigated area, energy, land quality, sedimentation, recreation, air quality, foreign labor


Jordanian water1
Jordanian Water Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Constraints

    • capital budget

    • operating budget

    • geographical dispersion

    • incompatability (bar overlapping combinations)

  • PROMETHEE V gives optimal portfolio with net flows as objective function coefficients


Conclusions2
Conclusions Burden Sharing in the European Community,” EJOR

  • Multiple attributes can be important in many categories of decision making

  • A number of techniques exist

  • Systematic

    • As objective as possible

    • Preference of decision maker inherently subjective


ad