The structure of composite benefit measures that provide an overall ranking of alternatives for the system analyst is investigated. These composite benefit measures are functions of individual benefit measures, and the individual benefit measures may give conflicting rankings of the various alternatives. A functional form for the composite benefit measure is identified that is symantically meaningful and avoids scaling problems. In addition a method for estimating coefficients in this composite benefit measure is outlined.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BittersD. L., unpublished Ph. D. dissertation draft (in preparation), 1975.
2.
BridgmanD. W., Dimensional Analysis, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922.
3.
BridgmanD. W., “The Logic of Modern Physics,” in Feigl and Broadbeck Readings in the Philosophy of Science, New York: Appleton Century, Crofts, 1953.
4.
ChurchmanC. W.AckoffR.ArnoffE. L., Introduction to Operations Research, New York: Wiley, 1957.
5.
ClarkG. M.HutchersonD. C., Small Unit Combat Simulation (DYNTACS X), Systems Research Group, Report RF 2978-FR 71-3A, AD890443, Columbus: The Ohio State University, October, 1971.
6.
FishburnP. C., “Decision and Value Theory,” publications in Operations Research, No. 10, New York: Wiley, 1964.
7.
FishburnP. C., “Independence in Utility Theory with Whole Product Sets,”Operations Research, 13, No. 1, 1965a, pp. 20–45.
8.
FishburnP. C., “Independence, Trade-Offs, and Transformations in Bivariate Utility Functions,”Management Science, 11, No. 9, 1965b, pp. 752–801.
9.
FishburnP. C., “A Note on Recent Developments in Additive Utility Theories for Multiple-Factor Situations,”Operations Research, 14, No. 4, 1966a, pp. 1143–1148.
10.
FishburnP. C., Utility Theory for Decision Making, New York: Wiley, 1970.
11.
FishburnP. C., “Additive Representations of Real-Valued Functions on Subsets of Product Sets,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 8, 1971, p. 382.
12.
FishburnP. C., “Interdependent Preferences on Finite Sets,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 9, 1972, p. 225.
13.
KeeneyR. L., Quasi-Separable Utility Functions, Technical Report No. 33, Contract No. DA-31-124-ARC-D, Durham: U. S. Army Research Office, 1967.
14.
KeeneyR. L., “Evaluating Multidimensional Situations Using a Quasi-Separable Utility Function,”IEEE Transactions on Man-Machine Systems, MM-9, No. 2, June 1968.
15.
KeeneyR. L., “Utility Independence and Preferences for Multi-attributed Consequences,”Operations Research, 19, No. 4, 1971, pp. 875–893.
16.
KeeneyR. L., “Utility Functions for Multiattributed Consequences,”Management Science, 18, No. 5, Part 1, 1972, pp. 276–287.
17.
LuceR. D., “On the Possible Psychophysical Laws,”The Psychological Review, 66, No. 2, 1959, pp. 81–95.
18.
LuceR. D., “A Generalization of a Theorem of Dimensional Analysis,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964, p. 278.
19.
OsbornD. K., “Further Extensions of a Theorem of Dimensional Analysis,”Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 7, 1970, pp. 236–242.
20.
PfanzaglJ., Theory of Measurement, New York: International Publications Service, 1971.
21.
RozeboomW. W., “Scaling Theory and Measurement,”Synthesis, 16, No. 2, November 1966, p. 170.
22.
StevensS. S., “Mathematics, Measurement, and Psychophysics,” in Stevens (ed.) Handbook of Experimental Psychology, New York: Wiley, 1951.
23.
Von NeumannJ.MorgensternO., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 3rd edition, 1953.
