IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ordeca/v3y2006i1p33-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Use of Decision Analysis in the Army Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Military Value Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Paul L. Ewing

    (Operations Research Department, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 93940)

  • William Tarantino

    (Graduate School of Operational and Information Sciences, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California 93940)

  • Gregory S. Parnell

    (Department of Systems Engineering, United States Military Academy, West Point, New York 10996-1779)

Abstract

In 2001, Congress enacted legislation that required a 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round to realign military units, remove excess facility capacity, and support defense transformation. The United States Army used multiple-objective decision analysis to determine the military value of installations and an installation portfolio model to develop the starting point to identify potential unit realignments and base closures, providing the basis for all recommendations. Ninety-five percent of the army’s recommendations were accepted by the BRAC 2005 Commission. The army expects these recommendations to create recurring savings of $1.5 billion annually after completion of BRAC implementation. This paper offers four contributions to decision analysis literature: an instructive application of multiple-objective decision analysis methods to portfolio selection, a useful method for constructing scales for interdependent attributes, a new method for assessing weights that explicitly considers importance and variation (Swing Weight Matrix), and practical advice on how to use multiple-objective decision analysis methods in a complex and controversial political environment.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul L. Ewing & William Tarantino & Gregory S. Parnell, 2006. "Use of Decision Analysis in the Army Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 2005 Military Value Analysis," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(1), pages 33-49, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ordeca:v:3:y:2006:i:1:p:33-49
    DOI: 10.1287/deca.1060.0062
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1060.0062
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/deca.1060.0062?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Craig W. Kirkwood & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1980. "Preference Conditions for Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 28(1), pages 225-232, February.
    2. James S. Dyer & Rakesh K. Sarin, 1979. "Measurable Multiattribute Value Functions," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 27(4), pages 810-822, August.
    3. Fred E. Wenstöp & Arne J. Carlsen, 1988. "Ranking Hydroelectric Power Projects with Multicriteria Decision Analysis," Interfaces, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 36-48, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jay Simon & Francois Melese, 2011. "A Multiattribute Sealed-Bid Procurement Auction with Multiple Budgets for Government Vendor Selection," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 8(3), pages 170-179, September.
    2. Min Ding & Jehoshua Eliashberg, 2008. "A Dynamic Competitive Forecasting Model Incorporating Dyadic Decision Making," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(4), pages 820-834, April.
    3. Mohammad A. Shbool & Manuel D. Rossetti, 2020. "Decision-Making Framework for Evaluating Physicians’ Preference Items Using Multi-Objective Decision Analysis Principles," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(16), pages 1-22, August.
    4. Terry P. Harrison & Richard E. Rosenthal, 1988. "Optimizability of utility and value functions," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 411-418, June.
    5. Bana e Costa, Carlos A. & Oliveira, Mónica D. & Vieira, Ana C.L. & Freitas, Liliana & Rodrigues, Teresa C. & Bana e Costa, João & Freitas, Ângela & Santana, Paula, 2023. "Collaborative development of composite indices from qualitative value judgements: The EURO-HEALTHY Population Health Index model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 305(1), pages 475-492.
    6. Michel Grabisch & Christophe Labreuche, 2015. "On the decomposition of Generalized Additive Independence models," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 15064, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    7. Christophe Labreuche & Michel Grabisch, 2016. "A comparison of the GAI model and the Choquet integral with respect to a k-ary capacity," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16004, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Zanakis, Stelios H. & Mandakovic, Tomislav & Gupta, Sushil K. & Sahay, Sundeep & Hong, Sungwan, 1995. "A review of program evaluation and fund allocation methods within the service and government sectors," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 59-79, March.
    9. Nikolaos Argyris & Alec Morton & José Rui Figueira, 2014. "CUT: A Multicriteria Approach for Concavifiable Preferences," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 62(3), pages 633-642, June.
    10. Carland, Corinne & Goentzel, Jarrod & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2018. "Modeling the values of private sector agents in multi-echelon humanitarian supply chains," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 269(2), pages 532-543.
    11. Janne Gustafsson, 2020. "Valuation of Research and Development Projects Using Buying and Selling Prices: Generalized Definitions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 154-168, June.
    12. Peter Reichert & Klemens Niederberger & Peter Rey & Urs Helg & Susanne Haertel-Borer, 2019. "The need for unconventional value aggregation techniques: experiences from eliciting stakeholder preferences in environmental management," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 197-219, November.
    13. Wynn C. Stirling & Teppo Felin, 2016. "Satisficing, preferences, and social interaction: a new perspective," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(2), pages 279-308, August.
    14. Minardi, Stefania & Savochkin, Andrei, 2015. "Preferences with grades of indecisiveness," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 300-331.
    15. Fangzhi Wang & Hua Liao & Richard S. J. Tol & Changjing Ji, 2024. "Endogenous Preference for Nonmarket Goods in Carbon Abatement Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 21(4), pages 235-251, December.
    16. Jay Simon, 2016. "On the existence of altruistic value and utility functions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 371-391, September.
    17. James E. Smith & James S. Dyer, 2021. "On (Measurable) Multiattribute Value Functions: An Expository Argument," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 18(4), pages 247-256, December.
    18. L. A. Shah & A. Etienne & A. Siadat & F. Vernadat, 2016. "Decision-making in the manufacturing environment using a value-risk graph," Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Springer, vol. 27(3), pages 617-630, June.
    19. Marttunen, Mika & Haara, Arto & Hjerppe, Turo & Kurttila, Mikko & Liesiö, Juuso & Mustajoki, Jyri & Saarikoski, Heli & Tolvanen, Anne, 2023. "Parallel and comparative use of three multicriteria decision support methods in an environmental portfolio problem," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 307(2), pages 842-859.
    20. Philippe Delquié, 2008. "The Value of Information and Intensity of Preference," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 5(3), pages 129-139, September.

    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:inm:ordeca:v:3:y:2006:i:1:p:33-49. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.