IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jomega/v11y1983i1p49-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A comparison of encoding techniques

Author

Listed:
  • Brooks, Daniel G
  • O'Leary, Timothy J

Abstract

A limiting constraint of many management science techniques is that inputs from the decision maker based upon his experiences, opinions and intuition are not considered. For those models that do allow this type of input, it is assumed that they can be accurately and precisely defined in a subjective probability distribution. Little attention, however, has been directed towards evaluating the techniques to define these distributions in a management setting. This study investigates the relative merits of four of the most commonly used techniques for the quantification of subjective assessments. When these techniques were used with professionals whose jobs entail evaluation of uncertainty, a clear preference was shown. Additionally, some concluding observations concerning the selection and the application of assessment techniques are presented.

Suggested Citation

  • Brooks, Daniel G & O'Leary, Timothy J, 1983. "A comparison of encoding techniques," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 49-55.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:11:y:1983:i:1:p:49-55
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0305-0483(83)90083-X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jomega:v:11:y:1983:i:1:p:49-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/375/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.