IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i2p415-424.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk‐Adjusted Mission Value: Trading Off Mission Risk for Mission Value

Author

Listed:
  • Ralph F. Miles

Abstract

This article develops a decision‐theoretic methodology for the risk‐adjusted mission value (RAMV) for selecting between alternative missions in the presence of uncertainty in the outcomes of the missions. This methodology permits trading off mission risk for mission value, something that probabilistic risk analysis cannot do unless it explicitly incorporates both mission value and risk aversion of the project management. The methodology, in its complete implementation, is consistent with the decision theory known as expected utility theory, although it differs from conventional decision theory in that the probabilities and all but one of the utilities are not those of the decision maker. The article also introduces a new interpretation of risk aversion. The methodology is consistent with the elementary management concept concerning division of labor. An example is presented for selecting between discrete alternatives—four landing sites on Mars. A second example is presented for selecting among a set of continuous alternatives—a comet flyby distance. The methodology is developed within the context of scientific missions, but the methodology is equally applicable to any situation requiring outcome value judgments, probability judgments, and risk aversion judgments by different constituencies.

Suggested Citation

  • Ralph F. Miles, 2004. "Risk‐Adjusted Mission Value: Trading Off Mission Risk for Mission Value," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(2), pages 415-424, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:2:p:415-424
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00443.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00443.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00443.x?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. Stanley Kaplan & B. John Garrick, 1981. "On The Quantitative Definition of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(1), pages 11-27, March.
    2. Yaari, Menahem E., 1969. "Some remarks on measures of risk aversion and on their uses," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 1(3), pages 315-329, October.
    3. Daniel Ellsberg, 1961. "Risk, Ambiguity, and the Savage Axioms," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 75(4), pages 643-669.
    4. Grover, Steven L., 1993. "Why Professionals Lie: The Impact of Professional Role Conflict on Reporting Accuracy," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 251-272, July.
    5. Ross, Stephen A, 1981. "Some Stronger Measures of Risk Aversion in the Small and the Large with Applications," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(3), pages 621-638, May.
    6. Machina, Mark J, 1982. "A Stronger Characterization of Declining Risk Aversion," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(4), pages 1069-1079, July.
    7. Milton Friedman & L. J. Savage, 1948. "The Utility Analysis of Choices Involving Risk," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56, pages 279-279.
    8. James S. Dyer & Ralph F. Miles, 1976. "An Actual Application of Collective Choice Theory to the Selection of Trajectories for the Mariner Jupiter/Saturn 1977 Project," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 24(2), pages 220-244, April.
    9. Ramsey, Frank P., 1926. "Truth and Probability," Histoy of Economic Thought Chapters, in: Braithwaite, R. B. (ed.),The Foundations of Mathematics and other Logical Essays, chapter 7, pages 156-198, McMaster University Archive for the History of Economic Thought.
    10. Tony Reichhardt, 2002. "NASA launch heralds fresh wave of comet exploration," Nature, Nature, vol. 417(6892), pages 889-889, June.
    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. Enrico G. De Giorgi & Ola Mahmoud, 2016. "Diversification preferences in the theory of choice," Decisions in Economics and Finance, Springer;Associazione per la Matematica, vol. 39(2), pages 143-174, November.
    2. Chateauneuf, Alain & Eichberger, Jurgen & Grant, Simon, 2007. "Choice under uncertainty with the best and worst in mind: Neo-additive capacities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 137(1), pages 538-567, November.
    3. Laurent Denant-Boemont & Olivier L’Haridon, 2013. "La rationalité à l'épreuve de l'économie comportementale," Revue française d'économie, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(2), pages 35-89.
    4. Thorlund-Petersen, Lars, 2001. "Third-degree stochastic dominance and axioms for a convex marginal utility function," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 167-199, March.
    5. Karni, Edi & Schmeidler, David, 1990. "Utility Theory and Uncertainty," Foerder Institute for Economic Research Working Papers 275480, Tel-Aviv University > Foerder Institute for Economic Research.
    6. John Kay, 2022. "Commentary on "Selecting futures: The role of conviction, narratives, ambivalence, and constructive doubt" by Fenton‐O'Creevy and Tuckett (2021)," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(3-4), September.
    7. Karni, Edi & Maccheroni, Fabio & Marinacci, Massimo, 2015. "Ambiguity and Nonexpected Utility," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications,, Elsevier.
    8. Itzhak Gilboa & Andrew Postlewaite & Larry Samuelson & David Schmeidler, 2019. "What are axiomatizations good for?," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 339-359, May.
    9. Christian Gollier & James Hammitt & Nicolas Treich, 2013. "Risk and choice: A research saga," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 47(2), pages 129-145, October.
    10. Ghirardato, Paolo & Marinacci, Massimo, 2002. "Ambiguity Made Precise: A Comparative Foundation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 102(2), pages 251-289, February.
    11. Jewitt, Ian & Mukerji, Sujoy, 2017. "Ordering ambiguous acts," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 213-267.
    12. Courgeau, Daniel, 2012. "Probability and social science : methodologial relationships between the two approaches ?," MPRA Paper 43102, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Jean-Michel Courtault, 1992. "Développements limités sur les mesures de l'aversion au risque," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 43(3), pages 509-518.
    14. Thibault Gajdos & Jean-Marc Tallon & Jean-Christophe Vergnaud, 2002. "Coping with imprecise information: a decision theoretic approach," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04056, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), revised May 2004.
    15. John Quiggin, 2022. "Production under uncertainty and choice under uncertainty in the emergence of generalized expected utility theory," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 92(3), pages 717-729, April.
    16. Grant, S. & Quiggin, J., 2001. "A Model-Free Definition of Increasing Uncertainty," Discussion Paper 2001-84, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    17. Li, Jingyuan & Liu, Liqun, 2014. "The monetary utility premium and interpersonal comparisons," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 125(2), pages 257-260.
    18. Frank Hansen, 2006. "Decreasing Relative Risk Premium," Discussion Papers 06-21, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    19. Jakusch, Sven Thorsten & Meyer, Steffen & Hackethal, Andreas, 2019. "Taming models of prospect theory in the wild? Estimation of Vlcek and Hens (2011)," SAFE Working Paper Series 146, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2019.
    20. Maddalena Ferranna, 2017. "Does Inefficient Risk Sharing Increase Public Self-Protection?," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, Springer;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 42(1), pages 59-85, March.

    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:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:2:p:415-424. 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/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.