The Need for Simplicity in Spite of All That Multiplicity
The purpose of this chapter is to explain how traditional optimizing can be improved by multiple criteria decision-making (MCDM) in general and the Policy/Goal Percentaging (P/G%) variation of MCDM in particular.
KeywordsDecision Matrix Traditional Optimize Multiple Alternative Reciprocal Causation MCDM Approach
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes and References
- S. Nagel, Evaluation Analysis with Microcomputers ( Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1987 );Google Scholar
- 2.Traditional optimizing methodologies are described in such books as Samuel Richmond, Operations Research for Management Decisions ( New York: Ronald, 1968 );Google Scholar
- Warren Erickson and Owen Hall, Computer Models for Management Science ( Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1986 );Google Scholar
- Elwood Buffa and James Dyer, Management Science/Operations Research: Model Formulation and Solution Methods ( New York: Wiley, 1981 )Google Scholar
- and Sang Lee and Laurence Moore, Introduction to Decision Science (Princeton, N. J.: Petrocelli/Charter, 1975 ).Google Scholar
- 3.The P/G% approach is consistent with incrementalism in policy analysis in view of the emphasis in P/G% on trial-and-error and sensitivity analysis. See Aaron Wildaysky, Speaking Truth to Power: The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis (Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown, 1979 )Google Scholar
- and Charles Lindblom, The Policy-Making Process (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1980 ). This approach is also consistent with rationalism in policy analysis in view of its emphasis on systematically determining goals to be achieved, alternatives for achieving them, and relations between goals and alternatives in order to choose the best alternative, combination, or allocation.Google Scholar
- See Edward Quade, Analysis for Public Decisions ( Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1983 )Google Scholar
- and Duncan MacRae and James Wilde, Policy Analysis for Public Decisions (N. Scituate, Mass.: Duxbury, 1979 ).Google Scholar
- S. Nagel “Using Microcomputers and P/G% to Predict Court Cases”, Akron Law Review, 19: 541–74 (1985);Google Scholar