IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/ormnsc/v18y1972i5-part-1p276-287.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Utility Functions for Multiattributed Consequences

Author

Listed:
  • Ralph L. Keeney

    (Massachusetts Institute of Technology)

Abstract

One of the important methodological problems concerning the application of decision analysis to complex problems is the restrictiveness of existing techniques for systematically assessing multiattributed utility functions valid for decision making under uncertainty. This is the problem addressed in this paper. Operational assumptions are postulated about the decision maker's preferences for multiattributed consequences, and functional forms of utility functions satisfying these assumptions are derived. The results are a number of representation theorems which simplify the assessment of the utility function provided the requisite assumptions hold. A special case of these results is the well-known additive utility function. A procedure to verify the appropriateness of the necessary assumptions is included.

Suggested Citation

  • Ralph L. Keeney, 1972. "Utility Functions for Multiattributed Consequences," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 18(5-Part-1), pages 276-287, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:18:y:1972:i:5-part-1:p:276-287
    DOI: 10.1287/mnsc.18.5.276
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.18.5.276
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/mnsc.18.5.276?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
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. de Almeida, Jonatas Araujo & Costa, Ana Paula Cabral Seixas & de Almeida-Filho, Adiel Teixeira, 2016. "A new method for elicitation of criteria weights in additive models: Flexible and interactive tradeoffAuthor-Name: de Almeida, Adiel Teixeira," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 250(1), pages 179-191.
    2. Voola, Persis & A., Vinaya Babu, 2017. "Study of aggregation algorithms for aggregating imprecise software requirements’ priorities," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 259(3), pages 1191-1199.
    3. Zhang, Junyi & Kuwano, Masashi & Lee, Backjin & Fujiwara, Akimasa, 2009. "Modeling household discrete choice behavior incorporating heterogeneous group decision-making mechanisms," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 230-250, February.
    4. James S. Dyer & James E. Smith, 2021. "Innovations in the Science and Practice of Decision Analysis: The Role of Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(9), pages 5364-5378, September.
    5. Hauser, John R. & Urban, Glen L., 1975. "A normative methodology for modeling consumer response to innovation," Working papers 785-75., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    6. Sven Peters & Mendy Tönsfeuerborn & Rüdiger von Nitzsch, 2024. "Integrating Uncertainties in a Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis with the Entscheidungsnavi," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-28, June.
    7. Kubińska, Elżbieta & Adamczyk-Kowalczuk, Magdalena & Andrzejewski, Mariusz & Rozakis, Stelios, 2022. "Incorporating the status quo effect into the decision making process: The case of municipal companies merger," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 84(C).
    8. Anderson, Jock R. & Hardaker, J. Brian, 1972. "An Appreciation of Decision Analysis in Management," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 40(04), pages 1-15, December.
    9. Dillon, John L. & Perry, Chad, 1977. "Multiattribute Utility Theory, Multiple Objectives And Uncertainty In Ex Ante Project Evaluation," Review of Marketing and Agricultural Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 45(01-2), pages 1-25, March.
    10. Harsha Cheemakurthy & Karl Garme, 2022. "Fuzzy AHP-Based Design Performance Index for Evaluation of Ferries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-27, March.
    11. He, Ying & Huang, Rui-Hua, 2008. "Risk attributes theory: Decision making under risk," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 243-260, April.
    12. John W. Boudreau, 2004. "50th Anniversary Article: Organizational Behavior, Strategy, Performance, and Design in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(11), pages 1463-1476, November.
    13. Pierre Picard, 2016. "A Note on Health Insurance under Ex Post Moral Hazard," Risks, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-9, October.
    14. Fry, Phillip C. & Rinks, Dan B. & Ringuest, Jeffrey L., 1996. "Comparing the predictive validity of alternatively assessed multi-attribute preference models when relevant decision attributes are missing," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 94(3), pages 599-609, November.
    15. John R. Hauser, 1977. "Consumer Preference Axioms: Behavioral Postulates for Describing and Predicting Stochastic Choice," Discussion Papers 287, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    16. S. Schäffler & R. Schultz & K. Weinzierl, 2002. "Stochastic Method for the Solution of Unconstrained Vector Optimization Problems," Journal of Optimization Theory and Applications, Springer, vol. 114(1), pages 209-222, July.
    17. Zhang, Junyi & Timmermans, Harry J. P. & Borgers, Aloys, 2005. "A model of household task allocation and time use," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 81-95, January.
    18. Austen Clark & Matthew J. Friedman, 1982. "The Relative Importance of Treatment Outcomes," Evaluation Review, , vol. 6(1), pages 79-93, February.
    19. James E. Smith & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2004. "Anniversary Article: Decision Analysis in Management Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 50(5), pages 561-574, May.

    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:inm:ormnsc:v:18:y:1972:i:5-part-1:p:276-287. 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: 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.