A Microcomputer Program for Decision-making

  • Stuart S. Nagel
Part of the Policy Studies Organization Series book series (PSOS)


The purpose of this chapter is to show how microcomputer software can aid in overcoming key methodological problems in program/ policy evaluation.


Analytic Hierarchy Process Analytic Hierarchy Process Method Threshold Analysis Main Menu Minimum Constraint 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    On relations between evaluation research and microcomputers, see the symposium on that subject in the June 1986 issue of the Evaluation Review. Also see S. Nagel, “Microcomputers and Public Policy Analysis”, Public Productivity Review 9: 130–42 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. On the methodological problems perspective to evaluation, see S. Nagel, “Problems in Doing Systematic Problem Analysis,” in S. Nagel, Public Policy Analysis and Management ( Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  3. 2.
    On multi-criteria decision-making methods and software in general, see Milan Zeleny, Multi-Criteria Decision-Making ( New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  4. On Policy/Goal percentaging, see S. Nagel, “P/G% Analysis: An Evaluation Aiding Program”, Evaluation Review, 9: 209–14 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. and S. Nagel, Evaluation Analysis with Microcomputers ( Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1988 ).Google Scholar
  6. 3.
    On dealing with the problem of multiple dimensions on multiple goals, see A. Easton Complex Managerial Decisions Involving Multiple Objectives ( New York: Wiley, 1973 )Google Scholar
  7. and S. Nagel, “Nonmonetary Variables in Benefit—Cost Evaluation”, Evaluation Review, 7: 37–64 (1983);CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. S. Nagel, “Part/Whole Percentaging as a Useful Method in Policy/Program Evaluation”, Evaluation and Program Evaluation, 8: 63–8 (1985);Google Scholar
  9. and S. Nagel, “Economic Transformations of Nonmonetary Benefits in Program Evaluation”, New Directions for Program Evaluation, 26: 63–8 (1985).Google Scholar
  10. 4.
    On dealing with missing information through sensitivity analysis, see M. Thompson, Decision Analysis for Program Evaluation ( Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1982 );Google Scholar
  11. S. Nagel, “Dealing with Unknown Variables in Policy/Program Evaluation,” Evaluation and Program Planning, 6: 107–20 (1983); and “New Varieties of Sensitivity Analysis,” Evaluation Review, 9: 772–9 (1986).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 5.
    On dealing with multiple alternatives of allocation analysis, see C. McMillan, Mathematical Programming: An Introduction to the Design and Application of Optimal Decision Machines ( New York: Wiley, 1970 )Google Scholar
  13. and S. Nagel, “Optimally Allocating Federal Money to Cities”, Public Budgeting and Finance, 5: 39–50 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 7.
    See Thomas Saaty, The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation ( New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980 ).Google Scholar
  15. 8.
    See Ward Edwards and Robert Newman, Multi-Attribute Evaluation ( Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1982 ).Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    See X. T. Bui, Evaluation Planning with Basic ( Berkeley, CA: Sybex, 1981 ).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Policy Studies Organisation 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stuart S. Nagel
    • 1
  1. 1.University of IllinoisUSA

Personalised recommendations