IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v42y1994i5p793-813.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Values in Operations Research

Author

Listed:
  • Ralph L. Keeney

    (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California)

Abstract

Values pervade the field of operations research. Expressed as objectives, goals, criteria, performance measures, and/or objective functions, they are necessary in theoretical operations research models and in applications. Because of their critical role, it is useful to develop these expressions of values from basic principles. This paper outlines how to identify values for a specific decision problem, how to structure these values to facilitate thinking and analysis, and how to quantify values. Since values provide the basis for interest in a problem, these same values should guide all of our effort on that problem. Two important uses of values are to create better alternatives for decision problems and to define decision problems that are more appealing than those that confront us. On another level, the operations researcher's values are crucial in selecting the research and applications that he or she pursues. I illustrate this with a brief summary of a few projects concerning both life-threatening risks and the storage of nuclear waste. The presentation concludes with a challenge to operations researchers to consider devoting some effort and talent to what I think of as the mega-risks facing our country.

Suggested Citation

  • Ralph L. Keeney, 1994. "Using Values in Operations Research," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 42(5), pages 793-813, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:42:y:1994:i:5:p:793-813
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.42.5.793
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.42.5.793
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.42.5.793?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. Miettinen, Pauli & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1997. "How to benefit from decision analysis in environmental life cycle assessment (LCA)," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 279-294, October.
    2. Vidgen, Richard & Hindle, Giles & Randolph, Ian, 2020. "Exploring the ethical implications of business analytics with a business ethics canvas," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 281(3), pages 491-501.
    3. Robin L. Dillon & M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell & Seth D. Guikema, 2003. "Programmatic Risk Analysis for Critical Engineering Systems Under Tight Resource Constraints," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 51(3), pages 354-370, June.
    4. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    5. Edouard Kujawski, 2021. "Comment on “Feasibility of Measuring Preferences for Chemotherapy Among Early-Stage Breast Cancer Survivors Using a Direct Rank Ordering Multicriteria Decision Analysis Versus a Time Trade-Off”," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 14(1), pages 145-146, January.
    6. Ormerod, Richard J. & Ulrich, Werner, 2013. "Operational research and ethics: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(2), pages 291-307.
    7. Daniel, S. E. & Diakoulaki, D. C. & Pappis, C. P., 1997. "Operations research and environmental planning," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 248-263, October.
    8. Zachary A. Collier & James H. Lambert, 2019. "Principles and methods of model validation for model risk reduction," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 146-153, June.
    9. Marttunen, Mika & Hamalainen, Raimo P., 1995. "Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(3), pages 551-563, December.
    10. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    11. Escobar, María Teresa & Moreno-Jiménez, José María, 2002. "A linkage between the Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Compromise Programming Models," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 359-365, October.
    12. Johannes Ulrich Siebert & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2020. "Comparative Analysis of Terrorists’ Objectives Hierarchies," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 17(2), pages 97-114, June.
    13. Kane J. Smith & Gurpreet Dhillon & Brigid A. Otoo, 2022. "iGen User (over) Attachment to Social Media: Reframing the Policy Intervention Conversation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 24(6), pages 1989-2006, December.
    14. Edouard Kujawski, 2014. "Interaction Effects in the Design of Computer Simulation Experiments for Architecting Systems‐of‐Systems," Systems Engineering, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(4), pages 426-441, December.
    15. Rajabi, Siamak & Kilgour, D. Marc & Hipel, Keith W., 1998. "Modeling action-interdependence in multiple criteria decision making," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(3), pages 490-508, November.
    16. Patricia Ann McKay & Christine A. Vogt & Laura Schmitt Olabisi, 2017. "Development and testing a diagnostic capacity tool for improving socio-ecological system governance," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 156-183, June.
    17. Gurpreet Dhillon & Kane J. Smith, 2019. "Defining Objectives for Preventing Cyberstalking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 157(1), pages 137-158, June.
    18. Florian Methling & Steffen A. Borden & Deepak Veeraraghavan & Insa Sommer & Johannes Ulrich Siebert & Rüdiger von Nitzsch & Mark Seidler, 2022. "Supporting Innovation in Early-Stage Pharmaceutical Development Decisions," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 337-353, December.

    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:oropre:v:42:y:1994:i:5:p:793-813. 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.