Transcript TEACHING MULTI-OBJECTIVE MULTI

TEACHING MULTI-OBJECTIVE
MULTI-STAKEHOLDER DECISION
MODELING WITH CASES
L. Robin Keller*, Jay Simon**
* University of California, Irvine, USA
President, INFORMS (INFORMS.org)
** Defense Resources Management Institute, USA
11TH International Workshop on Operations Research
OR & Human Welfare: Health, Environment, and Education
Havana, Cuba, March 10-13, 2015
1
Decision Analyst
Ralph Keeney
advises us to practice
Value-Focused Thinking
Thinking about what we value as
expressed in our objectives
Keeney, R. L. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking—A Path to Creative Decision Making. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Hammond, J. S., R. L. Keeney, H. Raiffa. 1999. Smart Choices: A Practical Guide to Making Better
Decisions. Harvard Business School Press.
2
Keeney’s Personal Objectives
Maximize my quality of life
Enjoy life
Be intellectually fulfilled
Enhance the lives of family and friends
Contribute to society
Keeney (1992), Value Focused Thinking
3
MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE DECISIONS UNDER CERTAINTY
Model
Objectives hierarchies of stakeholder(s)
Additive “weight & rate” multiple objective measurable value function
Software
Use Excel with sliders to input swing weights
Show sensitivity analysis in real time as bar graphs change
Experiential Learning
Applicable to business, personal, social/charity projects
Apply in class, on homework, and in term project
Students able & willing to “take away” & use in future
Much of this material is at http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/classes/. LR Keller, JSimon, Y Wang. "Multiple objective decision analysis
involving multiple stakeholders," Ch. 7 in M. R. Oskoorouchi (ed.) Tutorials in Operations Research- Decision Technologies and Applications.
INFORMS. (2009). [faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/files/2011/06/multiple-objective-decision-analysis-involving-multiple-stakeholders.pdf]
4
MERGER DECISION
ANALYSIS OF POTENTIAL MERGER OF
OPERATIONS RESEARCH SOCIETY OF AMERICA
(ORSA)
AND
THE INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
(TIMS)
L. Robin Keller and Craig W. Kirkwood, “The Founding of INFORMS: A Decision Analysis
Perspective”, Operations Research. 47(1), Jan.-Feb. 1999, 16-28.
[faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/files/2011/06/The-Founding-of-Informs-Decision-Analysis.pdf]
Powerpoint: http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/classes/
5
ORSA/TIMS COOPERATION
ALTERNATIVES
SEP: SEPARATION OF ORSA & TIMS
SQ: STATUS QUO PARTNERSHIP
SM: SEAMLESS MERGER
M2: MERGE WITH ORSA/TIMS AS SUB-UNITS
M3: MERGE WITH NO ORSA/TIMS SUB-UNITS;
SUB-UNITS ARE REPRESENTED ON BOARD
6
ORSA/TIMS MERGER OBJECTIVES
• FIVE MAIN CATEGORIES
IMPROVE COST EFFICIENCY
ENHANCE QUALITY OF PRODUCTS
ESTABLISH STRONG EXTERNAL IMAGE
MAINTAIN SCOPE/DIVERSITY OF FIELD
IMPROVE OPERATIONS
Elicited stakeholders’ objectives & combined them into 1 hierarchy
7
ADD BRANCHES TO
MAIN CATEGORIES
IMPROVE COST EFFICIENCY
MAINTAIN
ALLOCATE WELL MAINTAIN
EFFICIENT
REVENUES AND EFFICIENT
USE OF FUNDS
EXPENSES
USE OF
TIME
EXPLOIT
ECONOMIES
OF SCALE
BALANCE DUES REMOVE
RATE & FEEDOUBLED
FOR-SERVICE
DUES
8
VALUE RATING SCALE
2: SEEN BY AVERAGE MEMBER AS IMPROVED
1: SEEN BY OFFICERS AS IMPROVED
BUT NOT BY AVERAGE MEMBER
0: NO CHANGE
-1: SEEN BY OFFICERS AS WORSE
-2: SEEN BY AVERAGE MEMBER AS WORSE
9
INTERPRETATION OF
“MEASURABLE” VALUE RATINGS
STRENGTH OF PREFERENCES IS REFLECTED IN
DIFFERENCES OF VALUES
DEGREE OF IMPROVEMENT
FROM 0 TO 1
IS THE SAME AS
FROM 1 TO 2
10
JUDGED VALUE RATING SCORES
JUDGED VALUE RATING
ON ALTERNATIVES
OBJECTIVES
SEP SQ
SM
M2
M3
1. IMPROVE COST EFFICIENCY
1.1 MAINTAIN EFFICIENT USE OF FUNDS
1.1.1 EXPLOIT ECONOMIES OF SCALE
-2
0
1
-1
1
1.1.2 BALANCE DUES RATE AND
-2
0
1
-1
1
-1
0
2
1
2
FEE-FOR-SERVICE
1.1.3 REMOVE DOUBLED DUES
11
WEIGHTS FOR OBJECTIVES
SUM OF WEIGHTS IS 1OO% FOR ALL LOWEST LEVEL OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE’S WEIGHT DEPENDS ON RANGE
ATTAINABLE ON OBJECTIVE
Use a SWING WEIGHT Interpretation
Assume a weighted Additive Model
DECISION MAKER JUDGES WEIGHTS ON OBJECTIVES
12
Evaluation
Judged
Considerations
Weight
Cooperation Alternative
SEP
SQ
SM
M2
M3
1. Improve cost efficiency of TIMS/ORSA operations
1.1 Maintain efficient use of funds
1.2 Allocate well revenues/expenses to activities/entities
1.3 Maintain efficient use of time of volunteers
2. Enhance the quality of ORSA and TIMS products
2.1 Provide high quality main and specialty conferences
2.2 Provide high quality publications
2.3 Provide appropriate career services
2.4 Provide support for sub-units
2.5 Provide other member services
3. Establish a strong & coherent external image of field
3.1 Increase visibility and clout of OR and MS
3.2 Foster professional identity
4. Manage the scope and diversity of the field
4.1 Maintain/improve membership composition
4.2 Create strong relationships with other societies
5. Maintain/improve effectiveness of ORSA and TIMS operations
5.1 Maintain/improve quality of governance process
5.2 Maintain/improve quality of operation output
13
COMPUTE WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF
VALUE RATINGS
MULTIPLY OBJECTIVE’S WEIGHT TIMES
VALUE RATING ON EACH OBJECTIVE
SUM UP OVER ALL OBJECTIVES
(Use SUMPRODUCT function in Excel)
RECOMMENDED OPTION IS ONE WITH
HIGHEST OVERALL VALUE
14
Robin Keller's Evaluation, 12/21/93
Evaluation of ORSA/TIMS Cooperation Alternatives
Judged Score on
Top
2nd
3rd
4th
Cooperation Alternatives
Level
Level
Level
Level Judged
Weights Weights Weights Weights Weights SEP SQ
SM
M2
M3
1. Improve cost efficiency of TIMS/ORSA
0.050
1.1 Maintain efficient use of funds
0.015
1.1.1 Exploit economies of scale
0.005
0.005
-2.0
0.0
1.0 -1.0
1.0
1.1.2 Balance dues rate and fee-for-services
0.005
0.005
-2.0
0.0
1.0 -1.0
1.0
1.1.3 Remove doubled dues
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
1.2 Allocate well revenues/expenses
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
1.0 -1.0
1.0
1.3 Maintain efficient use of time
0.030
0.030
-1.0
0.0
2.0 -1.0
2.0
2. Enhance quality of ORSA/TIMS products
0.720
2.1 Provide high quality conferences
0.240
2.1.1 Provide quality program
0.170
0.170
-2.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
0.0
2.1.2 Manage balance between acad./prac.
0.050
0.050
-1.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
1.0
2.1.3 Set fair cost to member
0.020
0.020
-1.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
1.0
2.2 Provide high quality publications
0.240
2.2.1 Maintain successful editorial oversight
0.020
0.020
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.2.2 Maintain/increase circulation
0.010
0.010
-1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.2.3 Maintain reputation of journals
0.040
0.040
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2.4 Improve readability of tech. journals
0.030
0.030
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.2.5 Provide outlet for applied papers
0.040
0.040
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.2.6 Provide forum for prof. comm.
0.080
0.080
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.2.7 Maintain fair subscription costs
0.020
0.020
-1.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
1.0
2.3 Provide appropriate career services
0.080
2.3.1 Support degree/cont. education
0.020
0.020
-1.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
1.0
2.3.2 Facilitate networking
0.020
0.020
-2.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
0.0
2.3.3 Provide successful job placement
0.020
0.020
-2.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
0.0
2.3.4 Increase job opportunities
0.010
0.010
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
2.3.5 Stimulate research/applications
0.010
0.010
-1.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
1.0
2.4 Provide support for sub-units
0.105
2.4.1 Provide start-up financial support
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
1.0 -1.0
1.0
2.4.2 Maintain loose/tight mgt. of sub-units
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
0.5 -1.0
1.0
2.4.3 Provide business office support
0.010
0.010
-1.0
0.0
0.5 -1.0
1.0
2.4.4 Support sub-unit tracks in main confer.
0.040
0.040
-1.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
1.0
2.4.5 Support sub-unit conferences/journals
0.040
0.040
1.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
2.0
2.4.6 Retain current/potential sub-units
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
1.0
2.5 Provide other member services
0.055
2.5.1 Take lead in use of info. Technology
0.020
0.020
-1.0
0.0
0.5 -1.0
1.0
2.5.2 Improve quality of trans. With offices
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
0.5 -1.0
1.0
2.5.3 Outreach to affiliate with related prof. act.
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
0.0 -0.5
2.0
2.5.4 Provide improved support for practitioners
0.010
0.010
-0.5
0.0
0.0 -0.5
0.5
2.5.5 Provide improved support for lone pract.
0.010
0.010
-0.5
0.0
0.0 -0.5
0.5
2.5.6 Provide improved support for academics
0.005
0.005
-0.5
0.0
0.0 -0.5
0.5
3. Establish a strong/coherent ext'l image of field 0.100
3.1 Increase visibility & clout of OR/MS
0.080
3.1.1 Clarify image of OR/MS and ORSA & TIMS
0.010
0.010
-2.0
0.0
1.0 -1.0
2.0
3.1.2 Make name & activities known to press
0.020
0.020
-2.0
0.0
1.0 -1.0
2.0
3.1.3 Support develop./retention of OR units
0.040
0.040
-1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
1.0
3.1.4 Improve liaison role
0.010
0.010
-1.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
2.0
3.2 Foster professional identity
0.020
3.2.1 Closeness of job title match to name of org.
0.001
0.001
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 -1.0
3.2.2 Maintain OR/MS & ORSA/TIMS name rec.
0.010
0.010
-0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0 -0.5
3.2.3 Make membership signal prof. Identity
0.009
0.009
-0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
4. Manage the scope and diversity of the field
0.050
4.1 Maintain appropriate member. comp.
0.045
4.1.1 Maintain/increase number of members
0.020
4.1.1.1 Retain current members
0.010
0.010
-0.5
0.0
0.5 -0.5
1.0
4.1.1.2 Attract young people to the field
0.005
0.005
-0.5
0.0
0.5 -0.5
1.0
4.1.1.4 Attract non-members to the field
0.005
0.005
-2.0
0.0
0.5 -0.5
1.0
4.1.2 Manage diversity of members
0.025
4.1.2.1 Foster International memberships
0.010
0.010
-0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.1.2.2 Strike balance bet. business/engineering
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
4.1.2.3 Support institutional members (Roundtable)
0.010
0.010
-0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.2 Create strong relations. w/ other soc.
0.005
0.005
-1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
5. Improve effectiveness of operations
0.080
5.1 Improve quality of govern. process
0.020
5.1.1 Streamline governance structure
0.010
0.010
-2.0
0.0
2.0 -2.0
1.0
5.1.2 Improve sub-units' representation
0.005
0.005
-2.0
0.0
0.0 -2.0
2.0
5.1.3 Speed up decision making process
0.005
0.005
1.0
0.0
2.0 -2.0
2.0
5.2 Improve quality of operations
0.060
5.2.1 Focus collective resources on import.. act.
0.030
0.030
-2.0
0.0
2.0 -2.0
2.0
5.2.2 Decrease overlap in offices' responsibilities
0.020
0.020
-2.0
0.0
1.5 -2.0
2.0
5.2.3 Decrease overlap in activities, sub-units, etc.
0.010
0.010
-2.0
0.0
2.0 -2.0
2.0
Evaluation Consideration
Total sum of judged weights, should = 1.00
Calculated weighted average of overall value
for each alternatives, based on judged weights
1.000
1.000
OVERALL VALUE
OF ALTERNATIVE
1.000 -1.130 0.000 0.345 -0.695 0.856
SEP SQ
SM
M2
M3
Formula =
SUMPRODUCT($F11:$F78,G11:G78)
15
RESULTS
OFFICERS PREFERRED MERGER3 ALTERNATIVE
VOCAL OPPONENTS COMPROMISED ON SEAMLESS
MERGER, AS LONG AS NEW NAME included
“OPERATIONS RESEARCH”
16
OUTCOME
MEMBERS VOTED TO MERGE IN
SEAMLESS MERGER
on JAN. 1ST, 1995
into
INSTITUTE FOR OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND
THE MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
17
Perspectives of Multiple Stakeholders
can help…
-identify mutually agreeable alternatives
-foresee opposition to decisions
-design new & better alternatives
-understand the evolution of
past decisions from
multiple perspectives
18
Multiple-Stakeholder Decision Making
The StarKist Tuna Fishing Decision
Stakeholders
San Diego, CA USA
Tuna Fishing Fleet
http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/81fall/images/piva.jpg
http://www.earthisland.org/index.php/donate /
Monika I. Winn and L. Robin Keller, “A Modeling Methodology for Multi-Objective Multi-Stakeholder Decisions: Implications for Research”, Journal of Management Inquiry. 10(2), June 2001, 166-181.
[faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/files/2011/06/A-Modeling-Methodology-for.-Multiobjective-Multistakeholder-Decisions.-Implications-for-Research.pdf]
Much of this material is at http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/classes/
19
Problem: Purse seine nets from boats
can catch dolphins along with tuna fish
image source http://www.crownprince.com/nets-tuna.htm
20
DECISION ALTERNATIVES
Legal Quota
Maintain current practices and stay within legal limits
Limited Mortality
Step up efforts to reduce the number of dolphins killed
Zero-Mortality
No fishing associated with setting nets on dolphins
21
Decision Alternatives Rated for Fishing Fleet
TABLE 3. Decision Alternatives Rated for Fishing Fleet
Objectives Hierarchy
MAINTAIN VIABLE BUSINESS
F1. Maintain Profitability
F1.1. Maintain Lucrative Fishing Grounds
F1.2. Maintain Lucrative Fishing Methods
F1.3. Avoid Foreign Competition
F2. Maintain Livelihood
F2.1. Maintain Fishing Grounds in East. Tropical Pacific
F2.2. Protect Large Investments in Boats
F2.3. Prevent Fishing Grounds from Depletion
F3. Maintain Quality of Life in Local Community
F3.1. Protect Family-Owned Small Businesses & Heritage
F3.2. Maintain Positive Image in Community
F4. Protect Positive Image as Good Global Citizen
F4.1. Legitimate Fishing Methods involving Dolphins
F4.2. Publicize Successes in Reducing Dolphin Mortality
+ favorable
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
?
-
+
+
?
+
+
+
-
+
?
+
+
+
?
0
0
+
+
0 neutral/balanced ? insufficient info. - unfavorable
22
TABLE 2.
Decision Alternatives Rated for
Decision
Alternatives Rated
for Environmental
Interest Groups
Environmental
Interest
Groups
Objectives Hierarchy
PROTECT MARINE MAMMALS
E1. Stop Killing of Dolphins
E1.1. Protect Intelligent Large Marine Mammals
E1.2. Protect Species from Extinction
E2. Stop Cruelty to Dolphins
E2.1. Prevent Herding by Helicopter & Detonations
E2.2. Prevent Harm from Entangling
E3. Generate Positive Public Image for Cause
E3.1. Maximize Favorable Media Coverage
E3.2. Generate Positive Public Sentiment
E4. Improve Prestige of Special Interest Group
E4.1. Increase Financial Support
E4.2. Gain Support from Celebrity Spokespersons
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
?
+
-
?
+
+
-
?
-
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
?
?
+
+
23
TABLE 5. StarKist's "Crisis Mode"
StarKist’s “Crisis Mode”
Objectives Hierarchy
Objectives Hierarchy
Objectives Hierarchy
ENSURE FIRM SURVIVAL
C1. Sustain Profitability
C1.1. Maintain Favorable Industry Competitive Position
C1.1.1 Maintain Viable Cost Structure
C1.1.2 Maintain Revenue Stream
C1.2. Ensure Technological and Operational Feasibility
C2. Minimize Interference from Government Regulation
C2.1. Minimize Regulation-Induced Cost Increases
C2.2. Minimize Constraints on Managerial Discretion
C3. Maintain Organizational Legitimacy
C3.1. Maintain Image as "Good Corporate Citizen”
C3.1.1. Maximize Environmental Citizenship Image
C3.1.2. Maximize Social Citizenship Image
C3.2. Minimize Negative Perception at Critical Events
C3.2.1. Minimize Negative Environmental Perception
C3.2.2. Minimize Perception of Negative Social Impact
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
?
+
+
+
+
+
?
+
?
?
+
?
-
+
?
+
+
-
?
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
?
StarKist’s (1991) Dolphin Safe Policy
"StarKist will not buy any tuna caught in association with
dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific."
24
Home Depot Case
Sell Land?
Feng, T., L. R. Keller, X. Zheng. 2008. Modeling Multi-Objective Multi-Stakeholder
Decisions: A Case-Exercise Approach. INFORMS Transactions on Education 8(3) 103-114,
(http://ite.pubs.informs.org/, http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/ited.1080.0012
supplemental files: HomeDepotTeachingNote.pdf (for instructors), Excel file. Files also at
25
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/classes/
Background
Home Depot proposed to open a
retail building supply store
in San Juan Capistrano, California USA
The new store would be on 15 acres in a strip of industrial land.
Home Depot owned two acres of this land.
The rest of the land was owned by the city, and would need to be
bought.
26
Background
• The city would get $9 Million if it sells Home
Depot the 13 acres.
• Many were concerned that a “big box store”
would destroy its historical small town
feeling.
• Nearby residents also worry that a Home
Depot would cause traffic jams, pollute the
air, produce noise and block ocean breezes.
27
Home Depot Case
Alternatives
Build Home Depot
Don’t develop the land
Build a recreational vehicle park
Build specialty retail facilities
Stakeholders (assign 6 student groups)
City of San Juan Capistrano
Competing Local Small Businesses
Complementary Local Small Businesses
Home Depot
Nearby Residents
Other Area Residents
28
Case Instructions
• Ask the groups to:
– Brainstorm the objectives of the stakeholder. Create
a hierarchy of objectives by grouping related
objectives.
– Put the objectives in the spreadsheet.
– Rate the options’ performance on each objective on a
scale from 0 to 10.
– Make their own judgment of the “raw swing
weights” to put on the lowest level objectives.
– Answer questions and determine the best option
based on the analysis.
– Post completed spreadsheet file to share.
29
Spreadsheet Structure for Each Stakeholder
Questions for the City of San Juan Capistrano
The City of San Juan Capistrano
A. Brainstorm what the objectives of the City of San Juan Capistrano would be. To save time,
finish ONLY the corresponding Excel spreadsheet for the city. Fill in the objectives on the
spreadsheet.
10
9
8
B. Rate the options’ performance on each objective on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 best.
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
C. Make your own judgment of the “raw swing weights” to put on the lowest level objectives.
D. You can use the slider to adjust the raw swing weights assigned to each lowest level
objective. (Note: Do not use the slider until you fill out the corresponding lowest level
objective in the same row.)
E. Calculate the overall value of each option.
F.
A bar graph based on the overall value of each option and a partial hierarchical tree of the
objectives for the City of San Juan Capistrano will be created automatically on the bottom of
the spreadsheet when your group completes all the steps above.
Option 1 "Build Home
Depot"
G. Is there an option which is dominated (which is worse than one other “dominating” option
on each objective)?
Option 2 "Don't develop Option 3 "Build RV Park" Option 4 "Build specialty
the land"
retail"
overall values
H. Save the completed spreadsheet file under the name of “CityofSanJuanCapistrano” and
post/email it to our course’s discussion forum. Choose one person to report your results
orally to the class.
A1.1 Promote job creation
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
Decision Alternatives Rated for the City of San Juan Capistrano
A1.3
A1. Support the city and its residents
A1.4
Rating on Each Objective
0 - 10 = best
Calculated
Weights for
Major
Objectives
Caculated
Normalized
Weights
Slider
Option 1
Option 2
Fill in Raw Swing
"Build Home
"Don't
Weights
(0Depot"
develop the
100)
land"
Option 3
"Build RV
Park"
A1.5
A1.6
Option 4
"Build
specialty
retail"
A2.1 Provide community service
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
A2.2
A2. Enhance viability of community
A1.1 Promote job creation
A2.3
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
A1. Support the city and
its residents
A2.4
A1.3
A2.5
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life
A2.1 Provide community service
A2. Enhance viability of
community
A2.3
A2.4
A2.5
A3. Optimize social
impact on the city
A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation)
A2.2
Improve the
City of San
Juan
Capistrano
A3.3
A3. Optimize social impact on the city
A3.4
A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life
A3.5
A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation)
A3.6
A3.3
A3.4
A3.5
A4.1 Minimize noise
A3.6
A4.1 Minimize noise
A4. Minimize adverse
environmental impact
A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills
A4. Minimize adverse environmental
impact
A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills
A4.3
A4.3
A4.4
A4.4
A4.5
A4.5
A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake
A5. Minimize health and
safety impact
A5.2
A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake
A5.3
A5.4
A5.5
OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF
NORMALIZED WEIGHTS TIMES RATINGS)
A5.2
A5. Minimize health and safety impact
A5.3
A5.4
A5.5
30
Identify group’s objectives
Rating on Each Objective
0 - 10 = best
Calculated
Weights for
Major
Objectives
Caculated
Normalized
Weights
Slider
Option 1
Option 2
Fill in Raw Swing
"Build Home
"Don't
Weights
(0Depot"
develop the
100)
land"
Option 3
"Build RV
Park"
Option 4
"Build
specialty
retail"
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
A1.1 Promote job creation
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
A1. Support the city and
its residents
A1.3 Promote
convenience of shopping
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
A1.1 Promote job creation
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
Improve the
City of San
Juan
Capistrano
A1. Support the city and its residents
A1.3 Promote convenience of shopping
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
31
Complementary Local Small BusinessesRepresentative Hierarchy of Objectives
Ratings on Each Objective
0 - 10 =best
Calculated
Caculated
Weights for
Normalized
Major
Weights
Objectives
Slider
Option 1
Option 2
Fill in Raw
"Build Home "Don't
Swing
Depot" develop the
Weights (0land"
100)
Option 3
"Build RV
Park"
Option 4
"Build
specialty
retail"
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
B1. Maintain market
share
B1.1 Maintain prices competitive
B1.2 Remain competitive by providing nearby convenience
0.35
B1.3
B2.1 Minimize labor costs
B2. Minimize costs
B2.2 Minimize Rent
B2.3 Minimize Inventory Costs
B2.4
OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF NORMALIZED WEIGHTS
TIMES RATINGS)
0.65
1.00
0.10
0.25
0.00
0.35
0.25
0.05
0.00
10
25
5
10
5
5
5
8
3
8
35
25
5
3
4
10
10
10
5
8
8
8
6
6
8
1.00
100
5.55
8.00
7.70
6.30
32
Home Depot in San Juan Capistrano?
A Sample Spreadsheet
to Evaluate the Home Depot Case
• Excel file (HomeDepotCase.xls)
• Make sure to choose "enable the macros" when you
open the spreadsheet. If you still have the problem
of adjusting the sliders due to the security level after
that, please go to the menu of "tools->macro>security", switch the security level from high to
medium, save the file, then close the file and finally
reopen the file and it should work.
33
Moving Sliders on Weights
Dynamically Changes Graph
Decision Alternatives Rated for the City of San Juan Capistrano
Rating on Each Objective
0 - 10 = best
Calculated
Weights for
Major
Objectives
Caculated
Normalized
Weights
Slider
Option 1
Option 2
Fill in Raw Swing
"Build Home
"Don't
Weights
(0Depot"
develop the
100)
land"
Option 3
"Build RV
Park"
Option 4
"Build
specialty
retail"
2
0
0
5
5
5
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
A1.1 Promote job creation
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
A1. Support the city and
its residents
A1.3 Promote conveniance of shopping
A1.4
0.30
A1.5
A1.6
A2.1 Provide community service
A2. Enhance viability of
community
A2.2 Maintain small town feel
A2.3 Increase tax revenue
0.27
A2.4 Min. impact on local businesses
A2.5
A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life
A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation)
A3. Optimize social
impact on the city
A3.3 Min. traffic
A3.4
0.20
A3.5
A3.6
A4.1 Minimize noise
A4. Minimize adverse
environmental impact
A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills
A4.3 Min. air pollution
0.19
A4.4
A4.5
A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake
A5. Minimize health and
safety impact
A5.2 Min. traffic accidents
A5.3 Min. impact on existing infrastructure
0.04
A5.4
A5.5
OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF
NORMALIZED WEIGHTS TIMES RATINGS)
1.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.02
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.09
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
100
100
100
10
10
10
0
0
0
100
20
100 10
50
9
4
0
10
0
0
10
0
10
63
90
51
8
7
6
0
0
0
51
75
66
5
4
3
2
1
0
1.00
1011
15
15
15
7 of San
4 Juan Capistrano
The City
0
5
10
10
7
5
10
10
10
8
3
8
1
8
8
0
0
0
10
10
10
8
8
5
8
8
5
0
10
5
5
0
10
Option 1 "Build Home
0
10
Depot"
Option 2 "Don't develop Option 3 "Build RV Park" Option 4 "Build specialty
5
0
the land"
retail"
5
0
overall values
4.35
5.05
4.59
5.59
34
Moving Sliders on Weights
Dynamically Changes Graph
Decision Alternatives Rated for the City of San Juan Capistrano
Calculated
Caculated
Weights for
Normalized
Major
Weights
Objectives
Slider
Rating on Each Objective
0 - 10 = best
Option 1
Option 2
Fill in Raw Swing
"Build Home
"Don't
Weights
(0Depot"
develop the
100)
land"
Option 3
"Build RV
Park"
Option 4
"Build
specialty
retail"
2
0
0
5
5
5
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
A1.1 Promote job creation
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
A1. Support the city and
its residents
A1.3 Promote conveniance of shopping
A1.4
0.26
A1.5
A1.6
A2.1 Provide community service
A2. Enhance viability of
community
A2.2 Maintain small town feel
A2.3 Increase tax revenue
0.21
A2.4 Min. impact on local businesses
A2.5
A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life
A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation)
A3. Optimize social
impact on the city
A3.3 Min. traffic
A3.4
0.25
A3.5
A3.6
A4.1 Minimize noise
A4. Minimize adverse
environmental impact
A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills
A4.3 Min. air pollution
0.23
A4.4
A4.5
A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake
A5. Minimize health and
safety impact
A5.2 Min. traffic accidents
A5.3 Min. impact on existing infrastructure
0.05
A5.4
A5.5
OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF
NORMALIZED WEIGHTS TIMES RATINGS)
1.00
0.11
0.12
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.10
0.06
0.00
0.08
0.11
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.09
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
91
100
25
10
10
10
0
0
0
20
20
84
50
4
0
10 10
9 0
0
10
0
10
1.00
831
The7City of 4San Juan Capistrano
0
5
10
10
7
5
63
90
51
8
7
6
0
0
0
10
10
10
8
3
8
1
8
8
51
75
66
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
10
10
10
8
8
5
8
8
5
15
15
15
0
10
0Option 1 "Build
10Home
Depot"
0
10
3.71
6.15
5
5
Option
Option 3 "Build RV Park" Option 4 "Build specialty
5 2 "Don't develop
0
the
land"
retail"
5
0
overall values
4.80
5.78
35
Case Discussion
 While comparing the results from different
stakeholders, the instructor inputs the calculated overall
values for each option from each group into a summary
file to create bar charts showing results.
 Sample results from all the six stakeholders
 Take a class vote among the options to predict the actual
vote.
 “This approach can help decision makers understand
the perspectives of different stakeholders, and provide a
way to design more acceptable alternatives.”
36
What do you think: Yes or No?
Sell Land?
(City voters voted on this issue in November 2002.)
37
Example Home Depot Case Perspectives
Overall Values
Option 1
Build
Home
Depot
Option 2
Don't
develop
the land
Option 3
Build
RV
Park
Option 4
Build
specialty
retail
City of San Juan Capistrano
4.5
4.2
4.2
5.6
Competing Local Small
Businesses
0.6
3.0
5.0
8.0
10.0
9.4
5.0
5.7
3.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
5.2
1.4
4.2
6.2
3.8
0.8
3.6
Complementary Local Small
Businesses
Home Depot
Nearby Residents
Other Area Residents
Data from Executive Education session, February 2009. UC Irvine Merage
38
Each Alternative from Different Stakeholders’
Viewpoints
Overall Values for Each Option
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Option 1 "Build Home
Depot"
Option 2 "Don't
develop the land"
City of San Juan Capistrano
Complementary Local Small Businesses
Nearby Residents
Option 3 "Build a RV
Park"
Option 4 "Build
specialty retail"
Competing Local Small Businesses
Home Depot
Other Area Residents
39
Each Stakeholder’s View of
Different Alternatives
Overall Values for Each Stakeholder
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
City of San Juan Competing Local Complementary
Capistrano
Small
Local Small
Businesses
Businesses
Home Depot
Nearby
Residents
Option 1 "Build Home Depot"
Option 2 "Don't develop the land"
Option 3 "Build a RV Park"
Option 4 "Build specialty retail"
Other Area
Residents
40
Appendix 1. Hospital capital budgets
Don Kleinmuntz, former INFORMS President (now at Univ. of Notre Dame)
(http://mendoza.nd.edu/research-and-faculty/directory/don-kleinmuntz/)
started Strata Decision Technology (http://www.stratadecision.com/ )
to create Excel-based (or bigger database) software
to aid hospital administrators in capital budgeting
(choosing a set of expensive projects to fund),
w/ an additive multiple attribute measurable value function +
linear programming (Excel Solver or LINDO for knapsack problem)
Their original capital budgeting software was StrataCap ,
new product is (cloud-based) Strata Jazz
http://www.stratadecision.com/our-solutions/capital-and-equipment
Video, in 1 out of 5 US hospitals: http://www.stratadecision.com/our-company/our-history
41
Weights on
objectives
Maximize Project Benefits
Financial
Quality
Strategy
(from Kleinmuntz)
100
Maximize
Cash Flows
(NPV/IRR)
Identify most
important objective(s)
Score of 100
Rate others objectives
relative to 100
90, 80, 50, …
Divide by total to get
weights that add to
100%
100 Improve
100 Increase
Patient
Outcomes
80
Enhance
Patient/Family
Satisfaction
Enhance
Physician
Satisfaction
65
60
Market
Share
Enhance
Information
Integration
60
75
Promote
Operating
Efficiency
Enhance
Facility
Quality
42
Hospital Capital Budgeting
Objectives Hierarchy
(from Kleinmuntz)
Weights on
objectives
(from Kleinmuntz)
Identify most important
objective(s)
Score of 100
Rate others objectives
relative to 100
90, 80, 50, …
Divide by total to get
weights that add to
100%
Max. Project Benefits
100 Financial
Quality
100
Improve patient outcomes
80
Enhance patient/family satisfaction
65
Enhance physician satisfaction
60
Enhance facility quality
Strategy
Increase market share
100
Enhance information integration
60
65
Promote operating efficiency
43
Planning for potassium iodide (KI) distribution
for thyroid risk from radioactive iodine exposure
Appendix 2.
Evaluate plans for distribution of potassium iodide (KI) to protect against
thyroid cancer, when there will be radioactive iodine exposure as a result of an
incident at a U.S. nuclear power plant.
The types of KI distribution plans include the following:
• Predistribute to households, schools,hospitals, etc.
—Via mail
—Via voluntary pickup
• Stockpile at evacuation reception centers
• Do not predistribute
T. Feng, L. R. Keller, “A Multiple-Objective Decision Analysis for Terrorism Protection: Potassium Iodide Distribution
in Nuclear Incidents”, Decision Analysis, (June 2006), 3 (2): 76-93.
http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/deca.1060.0072
(supplement has Excel file) Much of this material is at http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/classes/
Based on book: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10868/distribution-and-administration-of-potassiumiodide-in-the-event-of-a-nuclear-incident
44
KI study Objectives
Minimize Radioactive Iodine Risk To Thyroid
Maximize KI Availability
Optimize Ability To Take KI On Time
Minimize Harm From Inappropriate KI Administration
Minimize Harm From Other Aspects Of Incident
KI Procedures Don’t Impede Evacuation
Avert Mortality/Morbidity From Radiation Or Accidents
Minimize Panic/Anxiety Due To KI Procedures
KI Procedures’ Resource Use Not Excessive
Simple KI Procedures Before/During Incident
Educate Public To Respond To Incidents
45
Appendix 3. Biological
Biological clock multi-objective utility model with
weights on objectives changing over time
(maximizing family life quality, social life quality, career life quality)
CAREER WOMEN MIGHT WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN ASAP
LiveScience, Nov. 9, 2007 -- A new mathematical model developed by professor
Ralph Keeney and doctoral student Dinah Vernik of Duke's Fuqua School of
Business could help women decide the optimal time in their lives to have kids…
http://www.livescience.com/health/071109-women-children.html
Video of authors talking about paper:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZxXf1W6FxM
“Analysis of the Biological Clock Decision”, RL Keeney, D Vernik,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1070.0094
2007 , 4(3), 114 - 135 (supplement has the Excel file and a user guide)
46
Appendix 4. Multi-objective Prostate Cancer Treatment Choice
Jay Simon worked for a firm that had a prostate cancer decision analysis website to help potential
patients make their treatment decision.
Side effects reduce quality of life score multiplicatively
Survival from prostate cancer without impotence or incontinence = 90
Survival from prostate cancer with incontinence = 90(80%) =72
Survival from prostate cancer with impotence = 90(60%) = 54
Survival from prostate cancer with impotence and incontinence = 90(80%)(60%) = 43.2
(new site, with more focus on info. : http://www.prostatesmart.info/)
“Decision Making with Prostate Cancer: A Multiple-Objective Model with Uncertainty”, Jay Simon, 2009 39(3),
218 - 227, http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/inte.1080.0406
47
Appendix 5.
Andy Grove’s Prostate Cancer
In the fall of 1994, Andy Grove- the former CEO of Intel- was faced with a difficult problem to
solve. Initially, he was presented with an abnormal screening PSA (Prostate Specific Antigen)
test that could represent the presence of cancer. His first reaction was to ask what to do
with that information. At this point, he may or may not have had cancer.
So, to better define if there was a required decision, he chose to gather further information.
Some basic facts he obtained gave him a first understanding of the probabilities and
outcomes he might face, finding that 200,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer in
1994 and that 38,000 would be expected to die, making prostate cancer the second leading
cause of cancer deaths in men.
Since his PSA result was just over the upper limit of normal, he elected to repeat the test in
early 1995 in case his results were within the error margin of the test. The results suggested
more strongly the presence of a tumor and he visualized a sugar-cube-sized tumor in his
prostate. These tests results convinced him of the need to see the urologist for a biopsy to
define if the test result was a true positive or a false positive.
48
Andy Grove’s Prostate Cancer
The biopsy results indicated his PSA result was a true positive.
He did have prostate cancer.
This led to the formulation of his decision problem.
What type of treatment should Mr. Grove pursue for treatment of his prostate cancer? There
appeared to be four main decision alternatives. One option was to have the tumor and prostate
gland surgically removed. This alternative can increase the survival rate and decrease the
recurrence rate as well, however it will lead to a greater chance of being impotent after the
surgery. Another alternative was to receive radiation treatments in the form of “seed”
implantation to destroy the cancer cells. This option can increase the survival rate, but it also
has serious side effects. A third alternative was cryosurgery, or freezing the tumor cells.
Regarding this option, there was not enough information available to make an informed decision.
The last option was to do nothing, taking the “wait and see” approach, which also carried much
risk of losing his life if the cancer grew very quickly.
Apparently, none of these alternatives was perfect. Furthermore, several other stakeholders
were also very concerned with Andy Grove’s situation. Andy’s dilemma will be modeled as a
multi-stakeholder decision problem.
Those stakeholders are: Andy Grove, Urologist, Oncologist,
Andy’s Family/Wife and Andy’s Company – Intel
This case was written by L. Robin Keller and Tianjun Feng, of the UCI MSB, building upon the article by Andy Grove published in Fortune (1996), several case study reports by UCI HCEMBA
students: L. Jeff Koh, Kenneth Rich, Suehei Lee, H. Ena Leo and others. See TAKING ON PROSTATE CANCER by Andy Grove with reporter associate Bethany McLean, FORTUNE, May 13, 1996.
49
Andy Grove’s Prostate Cancer
• Divide into 5 groups.
• For your stakeholder group, rate each
alternative on each objective.
• Determine weights on objectives.
• Compute the overall weighted score for each
alternative.
• Andy Grove Case Excel file at
http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/classes/
50
Added background info. on this talk
Talk Abstract Many know about the use of decision analysis to
decide among alternative investments (such as pharmacological
research and development) using decision trees with chance
nodes to compute expected monetary value of different
alternatives. Such an analysis aims to maximize a single
evaluation measure for a single decision maker.
We demonstrate less widely known decision analysis
techniques using spreadsheet models of the multiple objective
perspectives of the decision stakeholders.
We show how to teach students to analyze real-life decision
problems using case examples and discuss specific skills
students are expected to learn, such as dynamic sensitivity
analysis using sliders in Excel on objectives’ weights, and typical
student questions and errors during case discussion.
51
Talk Abstract, continued
Taught in business courses for both MBAs (including health
care executive MBAs) and undergraduates.
Sometimes, one objectives hierarchy is suitable for a set of
stakeholders, and differences in opinions across stakeholders
can be characterized by differences in the multiple objectives’
weights:
-Merger of the Operations Research Society of America &
The Institute of Management Sciences (INFORMS)
-Protection against radioactive iodine in nuclear incidents
52
Talk Abstract, continued
In other cases, an objectives hierarchy will be constructed for each
stakeholder because their objectives are so different that
construction of separate hierarchies better represents their
divergent perspectives.
-Tuna fish supplier source selection decision
(StarKist, environmentalists, San Diego tuna fishing fleet)
-Siting of a new Home Depot building supply store
-Prostate cancer treatment decision
(former Intel CEO Andy Grove, his family, company, doctors)
53
Keeney’s Professional Objectives
Maximize the contribution of professional activities to…
my quality of life
Max. enjoyment
Max. learning
Provide service
Enhance professional career
Max. economic gain
Build good professional relationships
Min. the time required
Min. time required where I live
Min. time required away from home
54
Keeney (1992), Value Focused Thinking
Objectives for Keeney’s son’s name
1. Single spelling
2. Not a unisex name
3. Reasonable initials
4. Understandable pronunciation
4.2. With last name
4.3. With middle and last name
5. No obvious “unwanted” nickname
6. Not unique
7. Not extremely common
55
Objectives for Keeney’s son’s name
8. Not religious
9. Not named after anyone
10. Has a nice rhythm
10.1. With last name
10.2 With middle and last names
11. Nice-sounding in foreign languages
12. Appealing (i.e., you feel predisposed to talk to or
meet the person)
13. No “ee” sounds
56
Objectives for Keeney’s son’s name
8. Not religious
9. Not named after anyone
10. Has a nice rhythm
10.1 With last name
10.2 With middle and last names
11. Nice-sounding in foreign languages
12. Appealing (i.e., you feel predisposed to talk to or
meet the person)
13. No “ee” sounds
The Winning Name is
Keeney (1992), Value Focused Thinking
Gregory
57
Methodology
• A Multi-objective Multi-stakeholder Decision
Analysis Methodology
Identify
Stakeholders
Develop
the
Weights
Identify
Alternatives
Rate Alternatives
over Objectives
Is There a
Dominant
Alternative?
No
Compute Overall
Values of
Alternatives
Yes
Develop the
Objectives
Hierarchy
Make
the
Recommendations
Conduct Dynamic
Sensitivity Analysis
Using Sliders in Excel
58
Teaching Notes: Skills Students Can Learn
 Learn to assign value ratings to how well
each option satisfies each objective
 Learn to creatively generate objectives and
structure them into a hierarchy of objectives
 Learn to use the swing weight approach to
generate importance weights on objectives
59
Teaching Notes: Skills Students Can Learn
 Learn to do sensitivity analysis in decisions
under certainty, using “sliders” created in the
Excel software.
 Learn to compare the overall values of
options, using the sumproduct function in
Excel.
 Learn to compare and contrast results from
different stakeholder groups.
60
Teaching Notes:
Typical Student Questions & Errors
 Students might not understand the difference
between ratings and weights.
 The same weights assigned to different
subobjectives are allowed.
 Students might generate wrong or redundant
subobjectives for one specific objective.
 Students questioned whether they should start
with the lowest or highest level subobjectives
when computing swing weights.
61
Case Objectives and Pedagogical Benefits
• Enrich the content of the typical undergraduate/masters level
decision analysis or management science course
– Focus on multi-objective multi-stakeholder decisions
– Link creative problem structuring with analytical tool
• Introduce the methodology to the students
– In-class exercises and/or homework
– Decision making tool to tackle real-life context-rich decision
problems
– Applied to corporate strategic decision making for a facility
location problem
62
Stakeholders
• The city of San Juan Capistrano: interested in the potential revenue,
but concerned with interests of multiple stakeholders
• Competing local small businesses: will be influenced by the arrival of
Home Depot in terms of profit, etc.
• Complementary local small businesses: will definitely be affected in
terms of profit, etc.
• Home Depot
• Nearby residents: concerned with the possible adverse impacts on
their quality of life
• Other area residents: will enjoy the convenience, but may suffer from
the possible increased traffic flow
63
1.1 Maintain efficient use of funds
1. Improve cost efficiency of
TIMS/ORSA operations
1.2 Allocate well revenues/expenses to
activities/entities
1.3 Maintain efficient use of time of volunteers
2.1 Provide high quality main and specialty
conferences
2. Enhance the quality of ORSA
and TIMS products
2.3 Provide appropriate career services
2.4 Provide support for sub-units
VALUE
MAXIMIZE OVERALL
2.2 Provide high quality publications
2.5 Provide other member services
3. Establish a strong & coherent
external image of field
3.1 Increase visibility and clout of OR and MS
3.2 Foster professional identity
4.1 Maintain/improve membership composition
4. Manage the scope and diversity
of the field
4.2 Create strong relationships with other societies
5.1 Maintain/improve quality of governance process
5. Maintain/improve effectiveness
of ORSA and TIMS operations
5.2 Maintain/improve quality of operation output
64
Decision AlternativesTABLE
Rated
with
1.
Decision Alternatives
Rated with
StarKist’s “Business-As-Usual”
Objectives
Hierarchy
StarKist’s "Business-As-Usual" Objectives Hierarchy
MAXIMIZE PROFIT
B1. Minimize Cost
B1.1. Minimize Cost of Tuna
B1.2. Minimize Cost of Canning Operations
B1.3. Minimize Cost of Transportation Logistics
B1.4. Maximize Quality of Tuna and Operations
B2. Maximize Revenue
B2.1. Maintain and Expand Brand Loyalty
B2.2. Increase Customers w/ Differentiated Product Line
B3. Optimize Industry Competitive Position
B3.1. Capture "First Mover" Advantages
B3.2. Hold Market Share Leadership
B4. Minimize Legal and Regulatory Interference
B4.1. Minimize Legal Liabilities
B4.2. Minimize Regulatory Intervention
B5. Maintain Favorable Stakeholder Relations
B5.1. Maintain Good Supplier Relations
B5.2. Maintain Good Shareholder and Banking Relations
B5.3. Maintain Good Relations to Corporate Headquarters
B6. Maintain Reputation as "Good Corporate Citizen"
Decision Alternatives
Keep
Reduce
Go
Status
Dolphin
Dolphin
Quo
Mortality
Safe
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
?
?
0
?
+
?
?
0
?
+
?
?
-
0
-
0
+
+
?
?
-
0
?
?
-
?
?
+
Key for Rating Alternative’s Performance on Objective: "+": favorable
"0": neutral or balanced
"-": unfavorable "?": insufficient information
65
StarKist’s “Strategic
Planning” Objectives Hierarchy
TABLE 4. StarKist's "Strategic Planning"
Objectives Hierarchy
Objectives Hierarchy
MAXIMIZE PROFIT
Keep
Status
Quo
?
Decision Alternatives
Reduce
Go
Dolphin
Dolphin Safe
Mortality
?
+
S1. Minimize Operational Changes and Restrictions
S1.1. Manage Profit-Related Changes
+
+
-
S1.1.1 Minimize Restrictions on Fishing Territory
+
+
-
S1.1.2 Maintain Yield
+
+
?
S1.2.1 Maintain Control over Distant Fleet
+
+
-
S1.2.2 Minimize Strain on Relations with Local Fleet
+
+
-
+
?
+
-
+
?
+
-
+
?
+
?
?
?
?
-
?
?
?
?
?
+
?
+
?
+
+
+
+
+
+
-
+
?
?
+
+
+
+
?
?
?
?
?
?
+
+
+
+
+
-
?
+
S1.2. Maintain Good Supplier Relations
S2. Maintain Firm Profitability
S2.1. Minimize Cost (closely related to S1.1.)
S2.2. Maintain Revenue Stream
S2.2.1. Hold Tuna Price Down
S2.2.2. Avoid Boycotts of Canned Tuna
S3. Maintain Favorable Industry Competitive Position
S3.1. Remain Market Share Leader
S3.1.1. Hold Leadership Position
S3.1.2. Lead Industry on Pricing and Policy
S3.1.3. Hold Leadership-Related Brand Loyalty
S3.2. Capture “First-Mover” Advantages
S3.2.1. Set Industry Standard on Dolphin Policy
S3.2.2. Maximize Positive Media Coverage
S3.2.3. Maintain Profit Margin with Higher Price
S4. Minimize Government Regulation
S4.1. Minimize Regulation-Induced Cost Increases
S4.2. Minimize Constraints on Managerial Discretion
S4.2.1. Avoid Compliance or Forced Reactive Mode
S4.2.2. Avoid Regulation-Related Bureaucracy
S5. Improve Firm Reputation & Public Perception
S5.1. Enhance Image of “Good Corporate Citizen”
S5.1.1. Maximize Goodwill
S5.2.2. Ensure Perceived Legitimacy (Firm & Industry)
S5.2. Avoid Negative Press
S5.3. Minimize Uncertainty from Regulation
S6. Minimize Impact on Marine Life
S6.1. Minimize Short Term Impact
66