Methods for exploring ill-defined problems are now being developed. Claims for these methods are frequently based on analogies with optimization processes. More persuasive backing for these claims can be obtained by conducting experiments that consider both the analyst or decisionmaker and the method. The most fruitful experimental design is for each subject to apply one method to one problem. Solution quality is then assessed by external judges, using the solutions from all the subjects as a source of knowledge about the ill-defined problem.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrillE DJr, 1979, “The use of optimization models in public sector planning”Management Science25(2), 413–422
2.
BrillE DJrChangS-YHopkinsL D, 1982, “Modeling to generate alternatives: The HSJ approach and an illustration using a problem in land use planning”Management Science28(3) 221–235
3.
ChangS-YBrillE DJrHopkinsL D, 1982, “Use of mathematical models to generate alternative solutions to water resources planning problems”Water Resources Research1858–64
4.
CohonJ LMarksD H, 1975, “A review and evaluation of multiobjective programming techniques”Water Resources Research11208–220
5.
DarkeJ, 1979, “The primary generator and the design process”Design Studies136–43
6.
DickmeyerN, 1983, “Measuring the effects of a university planning decision aid”Management Science29(6), 673–685
7.
HarrisB, 1971, “Planning as a branch and bound process”Papers of the Regional Science Association2653–66
8.
HopkinsL D, 1973, “Design method evaluation: An experiment with corridor selection”Socioeconomic Planning Sciences7423–436
9.
HopkinsL D, 1975Optimum-seeking Models for Design of Suburban Land Use Plans PhD dissertation, Department of City and Regional Planning, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
10.
HopkinsL D, 1977, “Land-use plan design—quadratic assignment and central-facility models”Environment and Planning A9625–642
11.
HopkinsL DBrillE DJrWongB, 1982, “Generating alternative solutions for dynamic programming models of water resources problems”Water Resources Research18782–790
12.
HopkinsL DLosM, 1979, “Location-allocation algorithms for land use plan design with fixed and substitutable interactions”Journal of Regional Science19345–361
13.
KshirsagarS R, 1983Ideation and Evaluation in Environmental Planning PhD dissertation, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA
14.
KvashnyA, 1982, “Enhancing creativity in landscape architectural education”Landscape Journal1104–112
15.
McCloskeyD N, 1983, “The rhetoric of economics”Journal of Economic Literature21481–517
16.
MoroneyM J, 1951Facts from Figures (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Middx)
17.
SchoemakerP J HWaidC C, 1982, “An experimental comparison of different approaches to determining weights in additive utility models”Management Science28182–196
