Winter 1985 used the techniques in management union

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: en et al. (1983) applied decision tree analysis to a problem faced by the management of a coal-fired power plant in evaluating and selecting particular emission control equipment. Winter (1985) used the techniques in management union bargaining. A number of researchers (for example, Newendorp, 1996; Hosseini, 83 1986; Grayson, 1960) have applied decision tree analysis and EMV to drilling decisions. Often these problems consider only two possible outcomes, namely success and failure. However, in some problems the number of possible outcomes may be very large or even infinite. Consider, for example, the possible levels of recoverable reserves a company might achieve from drilling an exploration well. Such a variable could be represented by a continuous probability distribution. This can then be included in a decision tree by using a discrete probability distribution as an approximation. A number of methods for making this type of approximation have been proposed in the literature, the most commonly referred to is the ExtendedPearson Tukey approximation (EPT). This approximation technique, developed by Keefer and Bodily (1983), based on earlier work by Pearson and Tukey (1965), is acknowledged to generate good approximations to a wide range of continuous probability distributions. For an illustration see Goodwin and Wright (1991 p110). As Keefer and Bodily acknowledge however, the EPT approximation does have limitations. For example, it is not applicable when the continuous probability distribution has more than one peak or the continuous probability distribution is highly skewed. Despite this, the technique is widely recognised as providing a useful mechanism for generating an approximation for continuous probability distributions (Goodwin and Wright, 1991 p110). The prescriptive decision analysis literature does not provide a normative technique for eliciting the structure of a decision tree (some behavioural analysts have proposed influence diagrams as a useful tool for eliciting the decision tree structure from the decision-maker; see Goodwin and Wright (1991 p118) for a full explanation). Structuring decision trees is therefore a major problem in the application of decision analysis to real problems and, clearly if the structure is wrong, the subsequent computations may well be invalid. Following such observations Von Winterfeldt (1980) notes that it is good decision analysis practice to spend much effort on structuring and to keep an open mind about possible revisions. However, problem representation, according to Goodwin and Wright (1991), is an art rather than a science. Fischoff (1980) argues similarly: 84 “Regarding the validation of particular assessment techniques we know … next to nothing about eliciting the structure of problems from decisionmakers.” (Goodwin and Wright, 1991 p115) Many decision-makers report that they feel the process of problem representation is perhaps more important than the subsequent computations (Goodwin and Wright, 1991 p117). Humphreys (1980) has labelled the latter the “direct value” of decis...
View Full Document

Ask a homework question - tutors are online