Decisions with Multiple Objectives¶
Keeney, R. L., & Raiffa, H. (1993). Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. Cambridge University Press.
Cited by¶
6 citations across 6 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Commensurability
- A hospital administrator facing decisions about allocating a bounded budget across oncology, pediatrics, emergency care, and research can do so only if these departments are commensurized (all translated into cost per life-year saved, or cost per patient served, or some other metric), an approach Keeney and Raiffa (1976) formalized as multi-attribute utility theory for collapsing high-dimensional decision problems into tractable scalar objectives.
This sourceCanonical multi-attribute utility theory: develops additive and multiplicative value functions over heterogeneous attributes (cost, performance, aesthetics, safety) to make trade-offs between incommensurable objectives explicit and tractable; supports the manages-complexity claim about collapsing high-dimensional decisions into a scalar objective.
- A hospital administrator facing decisions about allocating a bounded budget across oncology, pediatrics, emergency care, and research can do so only if these departments are commensurized (all translated into cost per life-year saved, or cost per patient served, or some other metric), an approach Keeney and Raiffa (1976) formalized as multi-attribute utility theory for collapsing high-dimensional decision problems into tractable scalar objectives.
- Decision
- This frames the problem, bounds analytical scope, and makes trade-offs visible — a multi-criteria decomposition Keeney and Raiffa (1976) formalized in their canonical treatment of decisions with multiple objectives.
This sourceCanonical multi-attribute utility theory: additive and multiplicative value functions over heterogeneous attributes to make trade-offs explicit.
- This frames the problem, bounds analytical scope, and makes trade-offs visible — a multi-criteria decomposition Keeney and Raiffa (1976) formalized in their canonical treatment of decisions with multiple objectives.
- Multiobjective Optimization
- Not free of preference-articulation — whether preferences are articulated up front (weights, priorities, goals), after seeing results (a-posteriori), or interactively, preference articulation is required to select a single solution from the Pareto set. Not appropriate when objectives are commensurable and reducible — if objectives can be legitimately converted to a common unit (e.g., all monetary, or all utility), collapsing to single-objective optimization may be appropriate and simpler. Not purely a technical method — in multi-stakeholder contexts, multiobjective optimization is as much a communication and negotiation framework as a computational one, an orientation Keeney and Raiffa (1976) crystallized in their multi-attribute decision-analysis program.
This sourceCanonical multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) text: develops additive and multiplicative value functions over heterogeneous attributes (cost, performance, aesthetics, safety) to make implicit trade-offs explicit and tractable.
- Not free of preference-articulation — whether preferences are articulated up front (weights, priorities, goals), after seeing results (a-posteriori), or interactively, preference articulation is required to select a single solution from the Pareto set. Not appropriate when objectives are commensurable and reducible — if objectives can be legitimately converted to a common unit (e.g., all monetary, or all utility), collapsing to single-objective optimization may be appropriate and simpler. Not purely a technical method — in multi-stakeholder contexts, multiobjective optimization is as much a communication and negotiation framework as a computational one, an orientation Keeney and Raiffa (1976) crystallized in their multi-attribute decision-analysis program.
- Preference Heterogeneity and Conflict
- Trade-off situations in design and engineering: User-interface designers balance complexity and simplicity (power users want advanced features, novices want ease of use); software architects balance consistency and flexibility (standardization supports coordination, customization supports heterogeneous needs); urban planners balance density and open space (residents want affordable housing proximity, others want parks and greenery); supply chain managers balance cost and resilience (cost minimization favors concentrated suppliers, risk management favors redundancy), trade-offs Keeney and Raiffa (1976) formalize as multi-attribute decision problems with conflicting objectives.
This sourceCanonical multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) text: develops additive and multiplicative value functions over heterogeneous attributes (cost, performance, aesthetics, safety) to make implicit trade-offs explicit and tractable.
- Trade-off situations in design and engineering: User-interface designers balance complexity and simplicity (power users want advanced features, novices want ease of use); software architects balance consistency and flexibility (standardization supports coordination, customization supports heterogeneous needs); urban planners balance density and open space (residents want affordable housing proximity, others want parks and greenery); supply chain managers balance cost and resilience (cost minimization favors concentrated suppliers, risk management favors redundancy), trade-offs Keeney and Raiffa (1976) formalize as multi-attribute decision problems with conflicting objectives.
- Value Commensuration
- This commensuration is often implicit, embedded in feature selection and trade-off decisions, but Keeney and Raiffa (1976) supply the canonical multi-attribute utility framework for making such trade-offs explicit through additive or multiplicative value functions over heterogeneous attributes.
This sourceCanonical multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) text: develops additive and multiplicative value functions over heterogeneous attributes (cost, performance, aesthetics, safety) to make implicit trade-offs explicit and tractable.
- This commensuration is often implicit, embedded in feature selection and trade-off decisions, but Keeney and Raiffa (1976) supply the canonical multi-attribute utility framework for making such trade-offs explicit through additive or multiplicative value functions over heterogeneous attributes.
Mechanisms¶
- Indifference Map
- Its strength is making "equally good" explicit and comparable across people: laying two stakeholders' maps side by side turns a vague disagreement into a visible geometry, and reveals which trades are genuinely contested versus merely assumed — the graphical logic of the economist's indifference curve
This sourceUses indifference judgments and curves to make equal-value tradeoffs explicit in multi-objective decisions.
- Its strength is making "equally good" explicit and comparable across people: laying two stakeholders' maps side by side turns a vague disagreement into a visible geometry, and reveals which trades are genuinely contested versus merely assumed — the graphical logic of the economist's indifference curve
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Links previously used in the corpus¶
Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.
Registry ID ref:82f86efa3ad3 · see in the full table