Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
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
2
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.
3
Keeney’s Personal Objectives
Maximize my quality of life
Enjoy lifeBe intellectually fulfilledEnhance the lives of family and friendsContribute to society
Keeney (1992), Value Focused Thinking
MULTIPLE OBJECTIVE DECISIONS UNDER CERTAINTYModel
Objectives hierarchies of stakeholder(s)Additive “weight & rate” multiple objective measurable value function
SoftwareUse 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 projectsApply in class, on homework, and in term projectStudents 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
5
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/
6
ORSA/TIMS COOPERATION ALTERNATIVES
SEP: SEPARATION OF ORSA & TIMS
SQ: STATUS QUO PARTNERSHIPSM: SEAMLESS MERGER
M2: MERGE WITH ORSA/TIMS AS SUB-UNITS
M3: MERGE WITH NO ORSA/TIMS SUB-UNITS; SUB-UNITS ARE REPRESENTED ON BOARD
7
ORSA/TIMS MERGER OBJECTIVES
• FIVE MAIN CATEGORIES
IMPROVE COST EFFICIENCYENHANCE QUALITY OF PRODUCTSESTABLISH STRONG EXTERNAL IMAGEMAINTAIN SCOPE/DIVERSITY OF FIELD
IMPROVE OPERATIONS
Elicited stakeholders’ objectives & combined them into 1 hierarchy
8
ADD BRANCHES TO MAIN CATEGORIES
IMPROVE COST EFFICIENCY
MAINTAIN ALLOCATE WELL MAINTAINEFFICIENT REVENUES AND EFFICIENTUSE OF FUNDS EXPENSES USE OF
TIME
EXPLOIT BALANCE DUES REMOVEECONOMIES RATE & FEE- DOUBLEDOF SCALE FOR-SERVICE DUES
9
VALUE RATING SCALE2: SEEN BY AVERAGE MEMBER AS IMPROVED1: SEEN BY OFFICERS AS IMPROVED BUT NOT BY AVERAGE MEMBER0: NO CHANGE-1: SEEN BY OFFICERS AS WORSE-2: SEEN BY AVERAGE MEMBER AS WORSE
10
INTERPRETATION OF “MEASURABLE” VALUE RATINGS
STRENGTH OF PREFERENCES IS REFLECTED IN DIFFERENCES OF VALUES
DEGREE OF IMPROVEMENT
FROM 0 TO 1IS THE SAME AS
FROM 1 TO 2
11
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
FEE-FOR-SERVICE-2 0 1 -1 1
1.1.3 REMOVE DOUBLED DUES -1 0 2 1 2
12
WEIGHTS FOR OBJECTIVESSUM 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
13
Evaluation Judged Cooperation Alternative
Considerations Weight 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
14
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
15
Robin Keller's Evaluation, 12/21/93
Evaluation Consideration Top 2nd 3rd 4thLevel Level Level Level Judged Weights Weights Weights Weights Weights SEP SQ SM M2 M3
1. Improve cost efficiency of TIMS/ORSA 0.0501.1 Maintain efficient use of funds 0.0151.1.1 Exploit economies of scale 0.005 0.005 -2.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 1.01.1.2 Balance dues rate and fee-for-services 0.005 0.005 -2.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 1.01.1.3 Remove doubled dues 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.01.2 Allocate well revenues/expenses 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 1.01.3 Maintain efficient use of time 0.030 0.030 -1.0 0.0 2.0 -1.0 2.02. Enhance quality of ORSA/TIMS products 0.7202.1 Provide high quality conferences 0.2402.1.1 Provide quality program 0.170 0.170 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.02.1.2 Manage balance between acad./prac. 0.050 0.050 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.02.1.3 Set fair cost to member 0.020 0.020 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.02.2 Provide high quality publications 0.2402.2.1 Maintain successful editorial oversight 0.020 0.020 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.02.2.2 Maintain/increase circulation 0.010 0.010 -1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.02.2.3 Maintain reputation of journals 0.040 0.040 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.2.4 Improve readability of tech. journals 0.030 0.030 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02.2.5 Provide outlet for applied papers 0.040 0.040 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.02.2.6 Provide forum for prof. comm. 0.080 0.080 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.02.2.7 Maintain fair subscription costs 0.020 0.020 -1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.02.3 Provide appropriate career services 0.0802.3.1 Support degree/cont. education 0.020 0.020 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.02.3.2 Facilitate networking 0.020 0.020 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.02.3.3 Provide successful job placement 0.020 0.020 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 0.02.3.4 Increase job opportunities 0.010 0.010 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.02.3.5 Stimulate research/applications 0.010 0.010 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.02.4 Provide support for sub-units 0.1052.4.1 Provide start-up financial support 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 1.02.4.2 Maintain loose/tight mgt. of sub-units 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 0.5 -1.0 1.02.4.3 Provide business office support 0.010 0.010 -1.0 0.0 0.5 -1.0 1.02.4.4 Support sub-unit tracks in main confer. 0.040 0.040 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.02.4.5 Support sub-unit conferences/journals 0.040 0.040 1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 2.02.4.6 Retain current/potential sub-units 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -1.0 1.02.5 Provide other member services 0.0552.5.1 Take lead in use of info. Technology 0.020 0.020 -1.0 0.0 0.5 -1.0 1.02.5.2 Improve quality of trans. With offices 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 0.5 -1.0 1.02.5.3 Outreach to affiliate with related prof. act. 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 0.0 -0.5 2.02.5.4 Provide improved support for practitioners 0.010 0.010 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 0.52.5.5 Provide improved support for lone pract. 0.010 0.010 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 0.52.5.6 Provide improved support for academics 0.005 0.005 -0.5 0.0 0.0 -0.5 0.53. Establish a strong/coherent ext'l image of field 0.1003.1 Increase visibility & clout of OR/MS 0.0803.1.1 Clarify image of OR/MS and ORSA & TIMS 0.010 0.010 -2.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 2.03.1.2 Make name & activities known to press 0.020 0.020 -2.0 0.0 1.0 -1.0 2.03.1.3 Support develop./retention of OR units 0.040 0.040 -1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 1.03.1.4 Improve liaison role 0.010 0.010 -1.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 2.03.2 Foster professional identity 0.0203.2.1 Closeness of job title match to name of org. 0.001 0.001 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 -1.03.2.2 Maintain OR/MS & ORSA/TIMS name rec. 0.010 0.010 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 -0.53.2.3 Make membership signal prof. Identity 0.009 0.009 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.54. Manage the scope and diversity of the field 0.0504.1 Maintain appropriate member. comp. 0.0454.1.1 Maintain/increase number of members 0.0204.1.1.1 Retain current members 0.010 0.010 -0.5 0.0 0.5 -0.5 1.04.1.1.2 Attract young people to the field 0.005 0.005 -0.5 0.0 0.5 -0.5 1.04.1.1.4 Attract non-members to the field 0.005 0.005 -2.0 0.0 0.5 -0.5 1.04.1.2 Manage diversity of members 0.0254.1.2.1 Foster International memberships 0.010 0.010 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.1.2.2 Strike balance bet. business/engineering 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.04.1.2.3 Support institutional members (Roundtable) 0.010 0.010 -0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04.2 Create strong relations. w/ other soc. 0.005 0.005 -1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.05. Improve effectiveness of operations 0.0805.1 Improve quality of govern. process 0.0205.1.1 Streamline governance structure 0.010 0.010 -2.0 0.0 2.0 -2.0 1.05.1.2 Improve sub-units' representation 0.005 0.005 -2.0 0.0 0.0 -2.0 2.05.1.3 Speed up decision making process 0.005 0.005 1.0 0.0 2.0 -2.0 2.05.2 Improve quality of operations 0.0605.2.1 Focus collective resources on import.. act. 0.030 0.030 -2.0 0.0 2.0 -2.0 2.05.2.2 Decrease overlap in offices' responsibilities 0.020 0.020 -2.0 0.0 1.5 -2.0 2.05.2.3 Decrease overlap in activities, sub-units, etc. 0.010 0.010 -2.0 0.0 2.0 -2.0 2.0
Total sum of judged weights, should = 1.00 1.000 1.000 1.000 -1.130 0.000 0.345 -0.695 0.856SEP SQ SM M2 M3
Calculated weighted average of overall value OVERALL VALUE Formula =for each alternatives, based on judged weights OF ALTERNATIVE SUMPRODUCT($F11:$F78,G11:G78)
Judged Score onCooperation Alternatives
Evaluation of ORSA/TIMS Cooperation Alternatives
16
RESULTS
OFFICERS PREFERRED MERGER3 ALTERNATIVE
VOCAL OPPONENTS COMPROMISED ON SEAMLESS MERGER, AS LONG AS NEW NAME included “OPERATIONS RESEARCH”
17
OUTCOME
MEMBERS VOTED TO MERGE IN SEAMLESS MERGER on JAN. 1ST, 1995intoINSTITUTE FOR OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND THE MANAGEMENT SCIENCES
18
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
19
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/
Problem: Purse seine nets from boats can catch dolphins along with tuna fish
image source http://www.crownprince.com/nets-tuna.htm
20
21
DECISION ALTERNATIVES
Legal QuotaMaintain current practices and stay within legal limits
Limited MortalityStep up efforts to reduce the number of dolphins killed
Zero-MortalityNo fishing associated with setting nets on dolphins
22
Decision Alternatives Rated for Fishing Fleet
TABLE 3. Decision Alternatives Rated for Fishing Fleet
Decision Alternatives
Objectives Hierarchy
Keep Status Quo
Reduce Dolphin Mortality
Go Dolphin
Safe 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 ? 0 - F4.2. Publicize Successes in Reducing Dolphin Mortality 0 + +
+ favorable 0 neutral/balanced ? insufficient info. - unfavorable
23
Decision Alternatives Rated for Environmental Interest GroupsTABLE 2. Decision Alternatives Rated for Environmental Interest Groups
Decision Alternatives
Objectives Hierarchy Keep Status Quo
Reduce Dolphin Mortality
Go Dolphin
Safe 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 + ? +
24
StarKist’s “Crisis Mode” Objectives HierarchyTABLE 5. StarKist's "Crisis Mode"
Objectives Hierarchy
Decision Alternatives
Objectives Hierarchy
Keep Status Quo
Reduce Dolphin Mortality
Go Dolphin
Safe 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 - ? ?
StarKist’s (1991) Dolphin Safe Policy"StarKist will not buy any tuna caught in association with
dolphins in the Eastern Tropical Pacific."
25
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.1080.0012supplemental files: HomeDepotTeachingNote.pdf (for instructors), Excel file. Files also at http://faculty.sites.uci.edu/lrkeller/classes/
26
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.
27
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.
Home Depot CaseAlternatives
Build Home DepotDon’t develop the landBuild a recreational vehicle parkBuild specialty retail facilities
Stakeholders (assign 6 student groups)
City of San Juan CapistranoCompeting 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
A1.1 Promote job creation
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
A1.3
A1.4
A1.5
A2.4
A2.5
A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life
A1.6
A2.1 Provide community service
A2.2
A2.3
A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation)
A3.3
A3.4
A3.5
A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake
A5.2
A3.6
A4.1 Minimize noise
A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills
A4.3
A5.3
A5.4
A5.5
A1. Support the city and its residents
A2. Enhance viability of community
A3. Optimize social impact on the city
A4. Minimize adverse environmental impact
A5. Minimize health and safety impact
A4.4
A4.5
Improve the City of San
Juan Capistrano
The City of San Juan Capistrano
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Option 1 "Build HomeDepot"
Option 2 "Don't developthe land"
Option 3 "Build RV Park" Option 4 "Build specialtyretail"
overall values
Decision Alternatives Rated for the City of San Juan Capistrano
Rating on Each Objective0 - 10 = best
Calculated Weights for
Major Objectives
Caculated Normalized
WeightsSlider
Fill in Raw Swing Weights (0-
100)
Option 1 "Build Home
Depot"
Option 2 "Don't
develop the 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 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.6 A2.1 Provide community service A2.2 A2.3 A2.4 A2.5 A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation) A3.3 A3.4 A3.5 A3.6 A4.1 Minimize noise A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills A4.3 A4.4 A4.5 A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake A5.2 A5.3 A5.4 A5.5 OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF NORMALIZED WEIGHTS TIMES RATINGS)
A4. Minimize adverse environmental impact
A5. Minimize health and safety impact
A3. Optimize social impact on the city
A1. Support the city and its residents
A2. Enhance viability of community
Questions for 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.
B. Rate the options’ performance on each objective on a scale from 0 to 10, with 10 best.
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.
G. Is there an option which is dominated (which is worse than one other “dominating” option on each objective)?
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.
30
Identify group’s objectives
Rating on Each Objective0 - 10 = best
Calculated Weights for
Major Objectives
Caculated Normalized
WeightsSlider
Fill in Raw Swing Weights (0-
100)
Option 1 "Build Home
Depot"
Option 2 "Don't
develop the 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 A1.3 A1.4 A1.5 A1.6
A1. Support the city and its residents
A1.1 Promote job creation
A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive
A1.3
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
A1. Support the city and its residentsImprove the City of San
Juan Capistrano
Promote convenience of shopping
Promote convenience of shopping
31
32
Ratings on Each Objective0 - 10 =best
Calculated Weights for
Major Objectives
Caculated Normalized
WeightsSlider
Fill in Raw Swing
Weights (0-100)
Option 1 "Build Home
Depot"
Option 2 "Don't
develop the land"
Option 3 "Build RV
Park"
Option 4 "Build
specialty retail"
B1.1 Maintain prices competitive 0.10 10 5 5 5 3B1.2 Remain competitive by providing nearby convenience 0.25 25 10 5 8 8B1.3 0.00B2.1 Minimize labor costs 0.35 35 3 10 8 6B2.2 Minimize Rent 0.25 25 4 10 8 6B2.3 Minimize Inventory Costs 0.05 5 10 5 8 8B2.4 0.00OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF NORMALIZED WEIGHTS TIMES RATINGS) 1.00 1.00 100 5.55 8.00 7.70 6.30
0.35
0.65
B1. Maintain market share
B2. Minimize costs
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
Complementary Local Small Businesses-Representative Hierarchy of Objectives
33
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.
34
Moving Sliders on Weights Dynamically Changes Graph
Decision Alternatives Rated for the City of San Juan Capistrano
Rating on Each Objective0 - 10 = best
Calculated Weights for
Major Objectives
Caculated Normalized
WeightsSlider
Fill in Raw Swing Weights (0-
100)
Option 1 "Build Home
Depot"
Option 2 "Don't
develop the land"
Option 3 "Build RV
Park"
Option 4 "Build
specialty retail"
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
A1.1 Promote job creation 0.10 100 10 0 2 5 A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive 0.10 100 10 0 0 5 A1.3 Promote conveniance of shopping 0.10 100 10 0 0 5 A1.4 0.00 A1.5 0.00 A1.6 0.00 A2.1 Provide community service 0.10 100 4 0 7 4 A2.2 Maintain small town feel 0.02 20 0 10 0 10 A2.3 Increase tax revenue 0.10 100 10 0 5 7 A2.4 Min. impact on local businesses 0.05 50 0 10 10 5 A2.5 0.00 A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life 0.06 63 0 10 8 1 A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation) 0.09 90 0 10 3 8 A3.3 Min. traffic 0.05 51 0 10 8 8 A3.4 0.00 A3.5 0.00 A3.6 0.00 A4.1 Minimize noise 0.05 51 0 10 8 8 A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills 0.07 75 0 10 8 8 A4.3 Min. air pollution 0.07 66 0 10 5 5 A4.4 0.00 A4.5 0.00 A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake 0.01 15 0 10 5 5 A5.2 Min. traffic accidents 0.01 15 0 10 5 0 A5.3 Min. impact on existing infrastructure 0.01 15 0 10 5 0 A5.4 0.00 A5.5 0.00OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF NORMALIZED WEIGHTS TIMES RATINGS) 1.00 1.00 1011 4.35 5.05 4.59 5.59
A4. Minimize adverse environmental impact 0.19
A5. Minimize health and safety impact 0.04
A3. Optimize social impact on the city 0.20
A1. Support the city and its residents 0.30
A2. Enhance viability of community 0.27
The City of San Juan Capistrano
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Option 1 "Build HomeDepot"
Option 2 "Don't developthe land"
Option 3 "Build RV Park" Option 4 "Build specialtyretail"
overall values
35
Moving Sliders on Weights Dynamically Changes Graph
Rating on Each Objective0 - 10 = best
Calculated Weights for
Major Objectives
Caculated Normalized
WeightsSlider
Fill in Raw Swing Weights (0-
100)
Option 1 "Build Home
Depot"
Option 2 "Don't
develop the land"
Option 3 "Build RV
Park"
Option 4 "Build
specialty retail"
OVERALL OBJECTIVES
A1.1 Promote job creation 0.11 91 10 0 2 5 A1.2 Keep the city's retail base competitive 0.12 100 10 0 0 5 A1.3 Promote conveniance of shopping 0.03 25 10 0 0 5 A1.4 0.00 A1.5 0.00 A1.6 0.00 A2.1 Provide community service 0.02 20 4 0 7 4 A2.2 Maintain small town feel 0.02 20 0 10 0 10 A2.3 Increase tax revenue 0.10 84 10 0 5 7 A2.4 Min. impact on local businesses 0.06 50 0 10 10 5 A2.5 0.00 A3.1 Minimize disruption to daily life 0.08 63 0 10 8 1 A3.2 Minimize crime (day laborer congregation) 0.11 90 0 10 3 8 A3.3 Min. traffic 0.06 51 0 10 8 8 A3.4 0.00 A3.5 0.00 A3.6 0.00 A4.1 Minimize noise 0.06 51 0 10 8 8 A4.2 Minimize hazardous material spills 0.09 75 0 10 8 8 A4.3 Min. air pollution 0.08 66 0 10 5 5 A4.4 0.00 A4.5 0.00 A5.1 Minimize impact from possible earthquake 0.02 15 0 10 5 5 A5.2 Min. traffic accidents 0.02 15 0 10 5 0 A5.3 Min. impact on existing infrastructure 0.02 15 0 10 5 0 A5.4 0.00 A5.5 0.00OVERALL VALUE (SUMPRODUCT OF NORMALIZED WEIGHTS TIMES RATINGS) 1.00 1.00 831 3.71 6.15 4.80 5.78
A4. Minimize adverse environmental impact 0.23
A5. Minimize health and safety impact 0.05
A3. Optimize social impact on the city 0.25
A1. Support the city and its residents 0.26
A2. Enhance viability of community 0.21
The City of San Juan Capistrano
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Option 1 "Build HomeDepot"
Option 2 "Don't developthe land"
Option 3 "Build RV Park" Option 4 "Build specialtyretail"
overall values
Decision Alternatives Rated for the City of San Juan Capistrano
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
37
What do you think: Yes or No?
Sell Land?
(City voters voted on this issue in November 2002.)
38
Example Home Depot Case PerspectivesOverall Values
Option 1 Build
Home Depot
Option 2 Don't
develop the land
Option 3 BuildRV Park
Option 4 Build
specialty retail
City of San Juan Capistrano 4.5 4.2 4.2 5.6Competing Local Small Businesses 0.6 3.0 5.0 8.0Complementary Local Small Businesses 10.0 5.0 5.7 3.5
Home Depot 9.4 1.0 1.0 1.0
Nearby Residents 1.0 5.2 1.4 4.2
Other Area Residents 6.2 3.8 0.8 3.6
Data from Executive Education session, February 2009. UC Irvine Merage
39
Each Alternative from Different Stakeholders’ Viewpoints
Overall Values for Each Option
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Option 1 "Build HomeDepot"
Option 2 "Don'tdevelop the land"
Option 3 "Build a RVPark"
Option 4 "Buildspecialty retail"
City of San Juan Capistrano Competing Local Small Businesses Complementary Local Small Businesses Home DepotNearby Residents Other Area Residents
40
Each Stakeholder’s View of Different Alternatives
Overall Values for Each Stakeholder
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
City of San JuanCapistrano
Competing LocalSmall
Businesses
ComplementaryLocal SmallBusinesses
Home Depot NearbyResidents
Other AreaResidents
Option 1 "Build Home Depot" Option 2 "Don't develop the land"
Option 3 "Build a RV Park" Option 4 "Build specialty retail"
Appendix 1. Hospital capital budgetsDon 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(from Kleinmuntz)
Identify most important objective(s)
Score of 100Rate others objectives relative to 100
90, 80, 50, … Divide by total to get weights that add to 100%
M axim izeC ash F low s(N P V /IR R )
F in an c ia l
Im p roveP atien t
O u tcom es
E n h an ceP atien t/F am ily
S a tis fac tion
E n h an ceP h ys ic ian
S atis fac tion
E n h an ceF ac ilityQ u a lity
Q u a lity
In c reaseM arke tS h are
E n h an ceIn fo rm ationIn teg ra tion
P rom oteO p era tin gE ffic ien cy
S tra teg y
M axim ize P ro jec t B en efits
100 100
60
75
100
80
65
60
42
Hospital Capital BudgetingObjectives Hierarchy (from Kleinmuntz)
43
Max. Project BenefitsFinancialQuality
Improve patient outcomesEnhance patient/family satisfactionEnhance physician satisfactionEnhance facility quality
StrategyIncrease market shareEnhance information integrationPromote operating efficiency
Weights on objectives(from Kleinmuntz)
Identify most important objective(s)
Score of 100Rate others objectives relative to 100
90, 80, 50, … Divide by total to get weights that add to 100%
100
100
80
65
60
100
60
65
Appendix 2. Planning for potassium iodide (KI) distribution for thyroid risk from radioactive iodine exposure
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-potassium-iodide-in-the-event-of-a-nuclear-incident
44
KI study Objectives Minimize Radioactive Iodine Risk To Thyroid
Maximize KI AvailabilityOptimize Ability To Take KI On TimeMinimize Harm From Inappropriate KI Administration
Minimize Harm From Other Aspects Of IncidentKI Procedures Don’t Impede EvacuationAvert Mortality/Morbidity From Radiation Or Accidents
Minimize Panic/Anxiety Due To KI ProceduresKI Procedures’ Resource Use Not ExcessiveSimple KI Procedures Before/During IncidentEducate 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 ASAPLiveScience, Nov. 9, 2007 -- A new mathematical model developed by professor
Ralph Keeney and doctoral student Dinah Vernik of Duke's Fuqua School ofBusiness 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
48
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.
49
Andy Grove’s Prostate CancerThe 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.
50
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/
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
54
Keeney’s Professional Objectives
Maximize the contribution of professional activities to… my quality of lifeMax. enjoymentMax. learningProvide serviceEnhance professional careerMax. economic gainBuild good professional relationshipsMin. the time required
Min. time required where I live Min. time required away from home
Keeney (1992), Value Focused Thinking
55
Objectives for Keeney’s son’s name
1. Single spelling2. Not a unisex name 3. Reasonable initials4. Understandable pronunciation
4.2. With last name4.3. With middle and last name
5. No obvious “unwanted” nickname6. Not unique7. Not extremely common
56
8. Not religious9. Not named after anyone10. Has a nice rhythm
10.1. With last name10.2 With middle and last names
11. Nice-sounding in foreign languages12. Appealing (i.e., you feel predisposed to talk to or meet the person)13. No “ee” sounds
Objectives for Keeney’s son’s name
57
8. Not religious9. Not named after anyone10. Has a nice rhythm
10.1 With last name 10.2 With middle and last names
11. Nice-sounding in foreign languages12. Appealing (i.e., you feel predisposed to talk to or meet the person)13. No “ee” sounds
Keeney (1992), Value Focused Thinking
Objectives for Keeney’s son’s name
The Winning Name is
Gregory
58
Methodology• A Multi-objective Multi-stakeholder Decision
Analysis Methodology
Identify Stakeholders
Identify Alternatives
Develop theObjectives Hierarchy
Developthe
Weights
Rate Alternatives over Objectives
Is There a Dominant
Alternative?
Compute Overall Values of
Alternatives
Make the
Recommendations
Yes
No
Conduct Dynamic Sensitivity Analysis
Using Sliders in Excel
59
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
60
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.
61
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.
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
63
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
64
1. Improve cost efficiency ofTIMS/ORSA operations
2. Enhance the quality of ORSAand TIMS products
3. Establish a strong & coherentexternal image of field
4. Manage the scope and diversityof the field
5. Maintain/improve effectivenessof ORSA and TIMS operations
1.1 Maintain efficient use of funds
1.2 Allocate well revenues/expenses toactivities/entities
1.3 Maintain efficient use of time of volunteers
2.1 Provide high quality main and specialtyconferences
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
3.1 Increase visibility and clout of OR and MS
3.2 Foster professional identity
4.1 Maintain/improve membership composition
4.2 Create strong relationships with other societies
5.1 Maintain/improve quality of governance process
5.2 Maintain/improve quality of operation output
M
AX
IMIZ
E O
VE
RA
LL
VA
LU
E
65
Decision Alternatives Rated with StarKist’s “Business-As-Usual” Objectives Hierarchy
TABLE 1.
Decision Alternatives Rated with
StarKist’s "Business-As-Usual" Objectives Hierarchy
Decision Alternatives Keep
Status Quo
Reduce Dolphin Mortality
Go Dolphin
Safe 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 ? 0 + B2.2. Increase Customers w/ Differentiated Product Line ? ? ?
B3. Optimize Industry Competitive Position B3.1. Capture "First Mover" Advantages - 0 + B3.2. Hold Market Share Leadership ? ? ?
B4. Minimize Legal and Regulatory Interference B4.1. Minimize Legal Liabilities ? 0 0 B4.2. Minimize Regulatory Intervention - - +
B5. Maintain Favorable Stakeholder Relations B5.1. Maintain Good Supplier Relations + 0 - B5.2. Maintain Good Shareholder and Banking Relations ? ? ? B5.3. Maintain Good Relations to Corporate Headquarters ? ? ?
B6. Maintain Reputation as "Good Corporate Citizen" - - +
Key for Rating Alternative’s Performance on Objective: "+": favorable "0": neutral or balanced "-": unfavorable "?": insufficient information
66
StarKist’s “Strategic Planning” Objectives HierarchyTABLE 4. StarKist's "Strategic Planning"
Objectives Hierarchy Decision Alternatives
Objectives Hierarchy
Keep Status Quo
Reduce Dolphin Mortality
Go Dolphin Safe
MAXIMIZE PROFIT ? ? +
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. Maintain Good Supplier Relations
S1.2.1 Maintain Control over Distant Fleet + + -
S1.2.2 Minimize Strain on Relations with Local Fleet + + -
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 - ? +
