IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/navres/v46y1999i3p233-253.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Value added analysis for army equipment modernization

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew G. Loerch
  • Robert R. Koury
  • Daniel T. Maxwell

Abstract

This paper describes the Value Added Analysis methodology which is used as part of the U.S. Army's Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution System to assist the Army leadership in evaluating and prioritizing competing weapon system alternatives during the process of building the Army budget. The Value Added Analysis concept uses a family of models to estimate an alternative system's contribution to the Army's effectiveness using a multiattribute value hierarchy. A mathematical optimization model is then used to simultaneously determine an alternative's cost‐benefit and to identify an optimal mix of weapon systems for inclusion in the Army budget. © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Naval Research Logistics 46: 233–253, 1999

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew G. Loerch & Robert R. Koury & Daniel T. Maxwell, 1999. "Value added analysis for army equipment modernization," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(3), pages 233-253, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:46:y:1999:i:3:p:233-253
    DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199904)46:33.0.CO;2-D
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199904)46:33.0.CO;2-D
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6750(199904)46:33.0.CO;2-D?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Andrew G. Loerch, 1999. "Incorporating learning curve costs in acquisition strategy optimization," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(3), pages 255-271, April.
    2. James S. Dyer, 1990. "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 249-258, March.
    3. Yoram Wind & Thomas L. Saaty, 1980. "Marketing Applications of the Analytic Hierarchy Process," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 26(7), pages 641-658, July.
    4. Nicholas G. Hall & John C. Hershey & Larry G. Kessler & R. Craig Stotts, 1992. "A Model for Making Project Funding Decisions at the National Cancer Institute," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 40(6), pages 1040-1052, December.
    5. Edwards, Ward & Barron, F. Hutton, 1994. "SMARTS and SMARTER: Improved Simple Methods for Multiattribute Utility Measurement," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 60(3), pages 306-325, December.
    6. Coyle, R. G., 1992. "The optimisation of defence expenditure," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 304-318, February.
    7. James S. Dyer, 1990. "A Clarification of "Remarks on the Analytic Hierarchy Process"," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 36(3), pages 274-275, March.
    8. Dutton, John M. & Thomas, Annie & Butler, John E., 1984. "The History of Progress Functions as a Managerial Technology," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 204-233, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrew G. Loerch, 1999. "Incorporating learning curve costs in acquisition strategy optimization," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 46(3), pages 255-271, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Katie Steele & Yohay Carmel & Jean Cross & Chris Wilcox, 2009. "Uses and Misuses of Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) in Environmental Decision Making," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(1), pages 26-33, January.
    2. Kun Chen & Gang Kou & J. Michael Tarn & Yan Song, 2015. "Bridging the gap between missing and inconsistent values in eliciting preference from pairwise comparison matrices," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 235(1), pages 155-175, December.
    3. Suwignjo, P. & Bititci, U. S & Carrie, A. S, 2000. "Quantitative models for performance measurement system," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(1-3), pages 231-241, March.
    4. Madjid Tavana & Mariya Sodenkamp & Leena Suhl, 2010. "A soft multi-criteria decision analysis model with application to the European Union enlargement," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 393-421, December.
    5. Hoene, Andreas & Jawale, Mandar & Neukirchen, Thomas & Bednorz, Nicole & Schulz, Holger & Hauser, Simon, 2019. "Bewertung von Technologielösungen für Automatisierung und Ergonomieunterstützung der Intralogistik," ild Schriftenreihe 64, FOM Hochschule für Oekonomie & Management, Institut für Logistik- & Dienstleistungsmanagement (ild).
    6. Yael Grushka-Cockayne & Bert De Reyck & Zeger Degraeve, 2008. "An Integrated Decision-Making Approach for Improving European Air Traffic Management," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(8), pages 1395-1409, August.
    7. Tavana, M. & Kennedy, D. T. & Joglekar, P., 1996. "A group decision support framework for consensus ranking of technical manager candidates," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 523-538, October.
    8. Zachary F. Lansdowne, 1996. "Ordinal ranking methods for multicriterion decision making," Naval Research Logistics (NRL), John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(5), pages 613-627, August.
    9. Dong, Yucheng & Xu, Yinfeng & Li, Hongyi & Dai, Min, 2008. "A comparative study of the numerical scales and the prioritization methods in AHP," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 186(1), pages 229-242, April.
    10. Devesh Kumar & Gunjan Soni & Rohit Joshi & Vipul Jain & Amrik Sohal, 2022. "Modelling supply chain viability during COVID-19 disruption: A case of an Indian automobile manufacturing supply chain," Operations Management Research, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 1224-1240, December.
    11. Srinivas K. Reddy & Jay E. Aronson & Antonie Stam, 1998. "SPOT: Scheduling Programs Optimally for Television," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 44(1), pages 83-102, January.
    12. Elliott, Michael A., 2010. "Selecting numerical scales for pairwise comparisons," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 750-763.
    13. Satish Tyagi, 2016. "An improved fuzzy-AHP (IFAHP) approach to compare SECI modes," International Journal of Production Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 54(15), pages 4520-4536, August.
    14. Jiří Mazurek, 2018. "Some notes on the properties of inconsistency indices in pairwise comparisons," Operations Research and Decisions, Wroclaw University of Science and Technology, Faculty of Management, vol. 28(1), pages 27-42.
    15. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Influence of aggregation and measurement scale on ranking a compromise alternative in AHP," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(4), pages 700-710, April.
    16. Alessio Ishizaka & Sajid Siraj, 2020. "Interactive consistency correction in the analytic hierarchy process to preserve ranks," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 43(2), pages 443-464, December.
    17. Begoña Gutiérrez-Nieto & Carlos Serrano-Cinca & Juan Camón-Cala, 2016. "A Credit Score System for Socially Responsible Lending," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 691-701, February.
    18. Azzopardi, Ernest & Nash, Robert, 2013. "A critical evaluation of importance–performance analysis," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 222-233.
    19. A Ishizaka & D Balkenborg & T Kaplan, 2011. "Does AHP help us make a choice? An experimental evaluation," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(10), pages 1801-1812, October.
    20. Arslan, Turan & Khisty, Jotin, 2006. "A rational approach to handling fuzzy perceptions in route choice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 168(2), pages 571-583, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:navres:v:46:y:1999:i:3:p:233-253. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1002/(ISSN)1520-6750 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.