IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/inm/oropre/v53y2005i1p1-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives

Author

Listed:
  • Ralph L. Keeney

    (Fuqua School of Business, Duke University, Box 90120, Durham, North Carolina 27708)

  • Robin S. Gregory

    (Decision Research, 1201 Oak Street, Suite 200, Eugene, Oregon 97401)

Abstract

The foundation for any decision is a clear statement of objectives. Attributes clarify the meaning of each objective and are required to measure the consequences of different alternatives. Unfortunately, insufficient thought typically is given to the choice of attributes. This paper addresses this problem by presenting theory and guidelines for identifying appropriate attributes. We define five desirable properties of attributes: they should be unambiguous, comprehensive, direct, operational, and understandable. Each of these properties is discussed and illustrated with examples, including several cases in which one or more of the desirable properties are not met. We also present a decision model for selecting among the different types of natural, proxy, and constructed attributes.

Suggested Citation

  • Ralph L. Keeney & Robin S. Gregory, 2005. "Selecting Attributes to Measure the Achievement of Objectives," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(1), pages 1-11, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:inm:oropre:v:53:y:2005:i:1:p:1-11
    DOI: 10.1287/opre.1040.0158
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/opre.1040.0158
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1287/opre.1040.0158?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. Ralph L. Keeney & Alan Sicherman, 1983. "Illustrative Comparison of One Utility's Coal and Nuclear Choices," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 31(1), pages 50-83, February.
    2. Miley W. Merkhofer & Ralph L. Keeney, 1987. "A Multiattribute Utility Analysis of Alternative Sites for the Disposal of Nuclear Waste," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(2), pages 173-194, June.
    3. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels & Cary Swoveland, 1995. "Evaluating Improvements in Electric Utility Reliability at British Columbia Hydro," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 43(6), pages 933-947, December.
    4. Ralph L. Keeney, 1982. "Feature Article—Decision Analysis: An Overview," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 30(5), pages 803-838, October.
    5. Camerer, Colin & Weber, Martin, 1992. "Recent Developments in Modeling Preferences: Uncertainty and Ambiguity," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 5(4), pages 325-370, October.
    6. Jeffrey P. Krischer, 1976. "Utility Structure of a Medical Decision-Making Problem," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(5), pages 951-972, October.
    7. Keeney, Ralph L. & Robilliard, Gordon A., 1977. "Assessing and evaluating environmental impacts at proposed nuclear power plant sites," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 153-166, June.
    8. Robin Gregory & Lee Failing, 2002. "Using decision analysis to encourage sound deliberation: water use planning in British Columbia, Canada," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(3), pages 492-499.
    9. Hsee, Christopher K., 1996. "The Evaluability Hypothesis: An Explanation for Preference Reversals between Joint and Separate Evaluations of Alternatives," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 247-257, September.
    10. Ralph L. Keeney & Timothy L. McDaniels, 1999. "Identifying and Structuring Values to Guide Integrated Resource Planning at BC Gas," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 47(5), pages 651-662, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. A. Peter McGraw & Eldar Shafir & Alexander Todorov, 2010. "Valuing Money and Things: Why a $20 Item Can Be Worth More and Less Than $20," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(5), pages 816-830, May.
    2. Donald L. Keefer & Craig W. Kirkwood & James L. Corner, 2004. "Perspective on Decision Analysis Applications, 1990–2001," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 1(1), pages 4-22, March.
    3. Andrea C. Hupman & Jay Simon, 2023. "The Legacy of Peter Fishburn: Foundational Work and Lasting Impact," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 20(1), pages 1-15, March.
    4. M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell & Robin L. Dillon, 2006. "The Respective Roles of Risk and Decision Analyses in Decision Support," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 3(4), pages 220-232, December.
    5. Robin Gregory & Baruch Fischhoff & Tim McDaniels, 2005. "Acceptable Input: Using Decision Analysis to Guide Public Policy Deliberations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 2(1), pages 4-16, March.
    6. Şule Güney & Ben R. Newell, 2019. "An exploratory investigation of the impact of evaluation context on ambiguity aversion," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 335-348, May.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:14:y:2019:i:3:p:335-348 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Robin Gregory & Nathan Dieckmann & Ellen Peters & Lee Failing & Graham Long & Martin Tusler, 2012. "Deliberative Disjunction: Expert and Public Understanding of Outcome Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(12), pages 2071-2083, December.
    9. Bateman, Ian J. & Day, Brett H. & Jones, Andrew P. & Jude, Simon, 2009. "Reducing gain-loss asymmetry: A virtual reality choice experiment valuing land use change," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 106-118, July.
    10. Yuanyuan Liu & Timothy B. Heath & Ayse Onculer, 2020. "The Future Ambiguity Effect: How Narrow Payoff Ranges Increase Future Payoff Appeal," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(8), pages 3754-3770, August.
    11. Timothy McDaniels, 2021. "Four Decades of Transformation in Decision Analytic Practice for Societal Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 491-502, March.
    12. Milad Zamanifar & Timo Hartmann, 2021. "A prescriptive framework for recommending decision attributes of infrastructure disaster recovery problems," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 633-650, December.
    13. Anne Corcos & François Pannequin & Sacha Bourgeois-Gironde, 2012. "Aversions to Trust," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 78(3), pages 115-134.
    14. Lucius Caviola & Nadira Faulmüller & Jim. A. C. Everett & Julian Savulescu & Guy Kahane, 2014. "The evaluability bias in charitable giving: Saving administration costs or saving lives?," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(4), pages 303-315, July.
    15. Alexandra Rausch & Alexander Brauneis, 2015. "It’s about how the task is set: the inclusion–exclusion effect and accountability in preprocessing management information," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 313-344, June.
    16. Moore, Don A., 1999. "Order Effects in Preference Judgments: Evidence for Context Dependence in the Generation of Preferences, ," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 146-165, May.
    17. Stefania Pighin & Lucia Savadori & Elisa Barilli & Rino Rumiati & Sara Bonalumi & Maurizio Ferrari & Laura Cremonesi, 2013. "Using Comparison Scenarios to Improve Prenatal Risk Communication," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 33(1), pages 48-58, January.
    18. Li, Xilin & Hsee, Christopher K., 2021. "Free-riding and cost-bearing in discrimination," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 80-90.
    19. Duersch, Peter & Römer, Daniel & Roth, Benjamin, 2013. "Intertemporal stability of ambiguity preferences," Working Papers 0548, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    20. W. Kip Viscusi & Scott DeAngelis, 2018. "Decision irrationalities involving deadly risks," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 225-252, December.
    21. Jie, Yun, 2020. "Responding to requests for help: Effects of payoff schemes with small monetary units," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    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:inm:oropre:v:53:y:2005:i:1:p:1-11. 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: Chris Asher (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/inforea.html .

    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.