15 - Ethical Decision Making

Engineering and Society:
Ethical Decision Making
Dr. Gershon Weltman

Engineering 183EW, UCLA SEAS
Lecture 15
Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014
The Decision Environment1

Perceive
& build
Situation
Model
Real
World
Use heuristics
to select
Act on the
real world
Course
of Action
Naturalistic
Decision
Making
After: Cohen, M.S. Improving Critical Thinking, Cognitive Technologies, Inc., 2005
The Decision Environment1

Analyze
& build a
Situation
Model
Refine &
quantify
Real
World
Quantitatively
select optimal
Act on the
real world
Course
of Action
Analysis Test
Is some delay acceptable?
Is the cost of an error high?
Is the situation unfamiliar or problematic?
Is traceability/accountability desirable?
Naturalistic
Decision
Making
Analytical
Decision
Making
If yes, proceed to
Decision Analysis
1
After: Cohen, M.S. Improving Critical Thinking, Cognitive Technologies, Inc., 2005
Analytical Decision Making
A Professional Requirement
Working Level
Management Level
Strategic and Policy Level
A Conscious Process
Cognitive Performance
Meta-Cognitive Evaluation
A Learnable Skill
Methodologies
Experience and Practice
Feedback and Adjustment
Dealing with Stress
Working Collaboratively
InInthe
thereal
realworld,
world,decisions
decisionsare
aregenerally
generallyaacombination
combinationofofnaturalistic
naturalisticand
andanalytical
analytical
Two Main Types of Decision Analyses
Certain Outcomes
Probabilistic Outcomes
Decisions With Certain Outcomes
Typical Conditions
Typical Decision Criteria
A number of acceptable Alternatives

Alternatives have several known Attributes or Characteristics
Objective is to select Best Alternative
Minimum Cost
Maximum Value
Maximum Utility (Universal Measure of Value)
Useful Method: Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis (MAUA)
Options
Attributes
Utility Function (Relative Value of Attributes)
Weighting Function (Relative Importance of Attributes)
MAUA 1: Options and Attributes
Car Purchase Options
Attribute
Alta
Bulldog
Cruiser
Delta
Egret
Fleet
Garnett
Cost
-$20
-$18
-$16
-$14
-$12
-$10
-$15
Lifetime
10
10
Carbon
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
Medium
High
High
Cost:
Thousands of Dollars
Lifetime:
Estimated Years
Carbon:
3-Level Test Summary
MAUA 2: Dominated Option

1
Attribute
Alta
Bulldog
Cruiser
Delta
Egret
Fleet
Garnett
Cost
-$20
-$18
-$16
-$14
-$12
-$10
-$15
Lifetime
10
10
Carbon
Low
Medium
Low
Medium
High
High
High
Cost:
Thousands of Dollars
Lifetime:
Estimated Years
Carbon:
3-Level Test Summary
Garnett
Garnettcosts
costsmore
morethan
thanthe
theDelta,
Delta,has
hasthe
thesame
samelifetime
lifetimeand
andhas
hasaa
higher
higherpollution
pollutionrating;
rating;ititisisthus
thusdominated
dominatedand
andcan
canbe
beeliminated
eliminated
MAUA 3: Monetary Equivalents

1
Attribute
Alta
Bulldog
Cruiser
Delta
Egret
Fleet
Cost
-$20
-$18
-$16
-$14
-$12
-$10
Lifetime
$2
$2
$1
$1
$0
$0
Carbon
$6
$4
$6
$4
$0
$0
Cost
-$12
-$12
-$9
-$9
-$12
-$10
Cost
-$ Thousand
Lifetime
6 years = $0, each additional year = +$500
10
Carbon
High = $0, Medium = +$4,000, Low = +$6,000
We
Wegive
giveLifetime
Lifetimeand
andPollution
Pollutionequivalent
equivalentnegative
negativecosts
costs
dollars
dollarsininorder
orderto
tomake
makethem
themdirectly
directlycomparable
comparableto
toCost.
Cost.
inin
MAUA 3: Monetary Equivalents

1
Car Purchase Alternatives
Attribute
Alta
Bulldog
Cruiser
Delta
Egret
Fleet
Cost
-$20
-$18
-$16
-$14
-$12
-$10
Lifetime
$2
$2
$1
$1
$0
$0
Carbon
$6
$4
$6
$4
$0
$0
Eq. Cost
-$12
-$12
-$9
-$9
-$12
-$10
Cost
-$ Thousand
Lifetime
6 years = $0, each additional year = +$500
10
Carbon
High = $0, Medium = +$4,000, Low = +$6,000
Medium
Mediumprice,
price,medium
mediumlife
lifeand
andlow
lowor
ormedium
mediumpollution
pollutionmake
makeeither
either
the
theCruiser
Cruiseror
orDelta
Deltathe
thebest
bestchoice
choiceon
onaaleast
leastcost
costbasis
basis
10
MAUA 4: Utility Measure

Utility (0 to 1)
Cost:
Lifetime:
Carbon:
U($0) = 1, U($20,000) = 0.2; linear

U(0 years) = 0, U(10 years) = 1; linear
U(High) = 0, U(Medium) = 0.8, U(Low) = 1;
Utility
Utility
0.5
0
$0K
$10K
Cost
$20K
0
Low
5
Lifetime
Med
Carbon
10
High
The
TheUtility
Utilitymeasure
measureputs
putsthe
thevarious
variousattributes
attributeson
onan
anequivalent
equivalentvalue
valuebasis.
basis.
11
MAUA 4: Utility and Weight
Utility (0 to 1)
Cost:
Lifetime:
Carbon:
U($0) = 1, U($20,000) = 0.2; linear

U(6 years) = 0, U(10 years) = 1; linear
U(High) = 0, U(Medium) = 0.8, U(Low) = 1; non-linear
Weight (0 to 1)
Cost
= 0.50
Lifetime
= 0.15
Carbon
= 0.35
Sum = 1.00 (Always)
Utility
Utilitymeasures
measuresthe
theamount
amountof
ofsatisfaction
satisfactionassociated
associatedwith
witheach
eachattribute.
attribute.
Weight
Weightmeasures
measuresthe
therelative
relativeimportance
importanceofofeach
eachattribute
attributefor
fortotal
totalsatisfaction.
satisfaction.
12
MAUA 5: Weighted Multi-Attribute Utility

1
Attribute
Alta
Bulldog
Cruiser
Delta
Egret
Fleet
Cost
0.20
0.30
0.39
0.42
0.55
0.60
Lifetime
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
Carbon
1.00
0.80
1.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
Weighted MAU
0.60
0.58
0.67
0.61
0.37
0.39
Weighted MAU
U(Car) = w CostUCost + wLifeULife + w PollUPoll
Weights
w1 + w2 + w 3 = 1
Weighted
WeightedMAU
MAUtakes
takesinto
intoaccount
accountboth
boththe
thevalue
valueand
andimportance
importanceof
ofdecision
decision
attributes.
attributes.Using
Usingthis
thiscriterion,
criterion,the
theCruiser
Cruiseremerges
emergesas
asthe
theoptimum
optimumchoice.
choice.
13
MAUA 6: Sensitivity
New Weights
Cost
Lifetime
Carbon
= 0.80
= 0.10
= 0.10
(v. 0.50)
(v. 0.15)
(v. 0.35)
New Result
Attribute
Alta
Bulldog
Cruiser
Delta
Egret
Fleet
Cost
0.20
0.30
0.39
0.42
0.55
0.60
Lifetime
1.00
1.00
0.80
0.80
0.60
0.60
Carbon
1.00
0.80
1.00
0.80
0.00
0.00
Summed Utility
2.20
2.10
2.19
2.02
1.15
1.20
Weighted Utility
0.36
0.42
0.49
0.50
0.50
0.54
High
Highrelative
relativeweight
weightmakes
makesCost
Costdominate
dominatethe
theanalysis.
analysis. Sensitivity
Sensitivitytests
testscan
can
help
helpdetermine
determineon
onwhich
whichspecific
specificattributes
attributesan
ananalysis
analysisshould
shouldfocus
focus
14
Decisions With Probabilistic Outcomes
Conditions
Typical Decision Criterion
Several Alternatives
Probabilistic Outcomes and Consequences
Optimal Choice Among Alternatives
Minimum Expected Cost
Maximum Expected Value
Maximum Expected Utility
Useful Method: Decision Tree
Alternatives
Outcomes Positive and Negative
Values/Utilities of Outcomes
Probability (Likelihood) of Outcomes
15
Conventional Decision Tree1
This
ThisDecision
DecisionTree
Treehas
hasno:
no:
Relative
RelativeValues
Values
Negative
NegativeOutcomes
Outcomesor
orCosts
Costs
Uncertainties
Uncertainties
and
andas
as aaresult
resultitit is
is useless
uselessfor
for
meaningful
meaningful decision
decisionmaking
making
From www.smartdraw.com, 2003
16
Top Level Decision Making: President Bush
17
Top Level Decision Making: President Obama

Obama personally reenergized the hunt (for Osama bin
Laden)He began pushing his national security team to come up
with creative, new approaches to the manhunt, and once the
intelligence community received its first big break, Obama and
his team pursued a data-driven review of their options that
would have made Romney proud. The final decision to launch
the assault was not a cavalier roll of the dice, it was a
calculated risk backed up by one of the most elaborate and
meticulous intelligence operations in American history.
Daniel Klaidman, The Fortunate One
Newsweek, November 19, 2012
18
Decision Tree 1: Initial Options
New Product
Development
Improve
Business
Decision
Uncertainty
Improvement in
Existing Business
19
Decision Tree 2: Secondary Options
Full Development
New Product
Improve
Business
Fast Development
More Advertising
Business
Improvement
Better Service
20
Decision Tree 3: Uncertain Consequences
Full Development
Success
Failure
New Product
Success
Improve
Business
Fast Development
More Advertising
Failure
Success
Failure
Business
Improvement
Success
Better Service
Failure
21
Decision Tree 4: Estimated Outcomes ($)

Full Development
Success
Failure
New Product
Success
Improve
Business
Fast Development
Failure
More Advertising
Success
Failure
Business
Improvement
Success
Better Service
Failure
Benefit
Cost
$450K
($200K)
$50K
($200K)
$450K
($100K)
$0K
($100K)
$250K
($75K)
$25K
($75K)
$300K
($75K)
$20K
($50K)
We
Weestimate
estimatethe
theBenefit
Benefitand
andCost
Costof
ofeach
eachpossible
possibleoutcome
outcome
22
Decision Tree 5: Estimated Probabilities (P)

Full Development
P(S) = 0.90
P(F) = 0.10
New Product
P(S) = 0.75
Improve
Business
Fast Development
P(F) = 0.25
More Advertising
P(S) = 0.80
P(F) = 0.20
Business
Improvement
P(S) = 0.60
Better Service
P(F) = 0.40
Benefit
Cost
$450K
($200K)
$50K
($200K)
$450K
($100K)
$0K
($100K)
$250K
($75K)
$25K
($75K)
$300K
($50K)
$20K
($50K)
We
Weestimate
estimatethe
theprobability
probabilityor
orlikelihood
likelihoodthat
thateach
eachpossible
possibleoutcome
outcomewill
willoccur
occur
23
Decision Tree 6: Net Value ($)

Net Value
Full Development
P(S) = 0.90
P(F) = 0.10
New Product
P(S) = 0.75
Improve
Business
Fast Development
P(F) = 0.25
More Advertising
P(S) = 0.80
P(F) = 0.20
Business
Improvement
P(S) = 0.60
Better Service
P(F) = 0.40
$250K
($150K)
$350K
($100K)
$175K
($50K)
$250K
($30K)
Net
NetValue
Value==Benefit
Benefit($)
($)++Cost
Cost(-$)
(-$)
24
Decision Tree 7: Expected Value ($)

Net Value
Full Development
P(S) = 0.90
P(F) = 0.10
New Product
P(S) = 0.75
Improve
Business
Fast Development
P(F) = 0.25
More Advertising
P(S) = 0.80
P(F) = 0.20
Business
Improvement
P(S) = 0.60
Better Service
P(F) = 0.40
Expected
Value
$250K
$210K
($150K)
$350K
$238K
($100K)
$175K
$130K
($50K)
$250K
$138K
($30K)
Expected
ExpectedValue
Value==PP(S)(S)(Net
(NetValue
ValueSuccess)
Success)++PP(F)(F)(Net
(NetValue
ValueFailure)
Failure)
25
Decision Tree 7: Selected Option

Net Value
Full Development
P(S) = 0.90
P(F) = 0.10
New Product
P(S) = 0.75
Improve
Business
Fast Development
P(F) = 0.25
More Advertising
P(S) = 0.80
P(F) = 0.20
Business
Improvement
P(S) = 0.60
Better Service
P(F) = 0.40
Expected
Value
$250K
$210K
($150K)
$350K
$238K
($100K)
$175K
$130K
($50K)
$250K
$138K
($30K)
The
Theselected
selecteddecision
decisionhas
hastraceability
traceabilityand
andaccountability
accountabilityas
asbranch
branchinintree
tree
26
Decision Tree 8: Value in MAU

MAU
Full Development
P(S) = 0.90
P(F) = 0.10
New Product
P(S) = 0.75
Improve
Business
Fast Development
P(F) = 0.25
More Advertising
P(S) = 0.80
P(F) = 0.20
Business
Improvement
P(S) = 0.60
Better Service
P(F) = 0.40
Expected
Utility
MAU1
EUFull
MAU2
MAU3
EUFast
MAU4
MAU5
EUAds
MAU6
MAU7
EUServe
MAU8
Expected
ExpectedUtility
Utility==PP(S)(S)(Utility
(UtilityofofSuccess)
Success)++PP(F)(F)(Utility
(UtilityofofFailure)
Failure)
27
Summary
Chose Meaningful Value Measure
Perform Realistic Decision Analysis
$ Thousand, $ Million, $ Billion

U = 0 to +1, +10, +100
Include all reasonable options
Consider negative and positive consequences
Include all important attributes
Estimate probabilities accurately
Assign weights honestly
Realize having a comprehensive model is often more important
than having precise numbers
Try to Overcome Natural Biases

What are the attributes of Dr. Weltmans car?
28
Example of Biases: Estimating Deaths Per Year

Rare but highly
publicized events
are overestimated
Common but less

individualized events
are underestimated
Researchers
Researchershave
havestudied
studiedaavariety
varietyof
ofother
otherbiases
biasesthat
thatcan
canaffect
affectthe
the
rationality
of
decisions
made
on
the
basis
of
commonly
used
heuristics
rationality of decisions made on the basis of commonly used heuristics
From Baruch Fischhoff et al, Acceptable Risk, Cambridge University Press, 1981
29
Example of Applications
Lawsuit Decision Tree Analysis
Martha Stewart Ethical Analysis
30
Lawsuit Decision Tree Analysis*
Range of Outcomes
Probability
0.50
Expected Award
(weighted average)
0.25
0.00
$0K
$290
$500K
$1 M
Award
Use Analysis for
Points to Investigate
Fair Settlement Value
Accept Offer Decision
*From Victor, M., Litigation Risk Analysis, Inc., 2001

31
Martha Stewart Decision Point
Sell My
Stock
What
to do?
Hold My
Stock
Save Money
Look Smart
Lose Money
Look Stupid
Marthas
Marthasbrokers
brokersassistant
assistantcalls
callsher
herwhile
whileshe
sheisison
onvacation
vacationininMexico
Mexico
and
andtells
tellsher
herthat
thatinside
insideowners
ownersare
arerapidly
rapidlyselling
sellingall
alltheir
theirImClone
ImClonestock
stock
32
Martha Stewart Makes Intuitive Decision
Sell My
Stock
What
to do?
Hold My
Stock
Save Money
Look Smart
Lose Money
Look Stupid
Martha
MarthaStewart
Stewartdecides
decidestotosell
sellon
onbasis
basisofofpotential
potentialinside
insideinformation.
information.
SEC
SECinvestigates,
investigates,Martha
Marthalies
liesto
tothem
themand
andisisprosecuted,
prosecuted,winds
windsup
upininjail.
jail.
Image from http://tubegator.com/funpic/martha_jailbird.jpg
33
Martha Stewart Makes Analytical Decision
Sell My
Stock
What
to do?
Hold My
Stock
Benefit
Cost
Net
Success P=.99
$50K
($0K)
$50K
Failure P=.01
$50K
($2B)
(~$2B)
Success P=1.0
$0K
($50K)
($50K)
Failure P= 0.0
$--
$--
$--
EV
($20M)
($50K)
Martha
MarthaStewart
Stewartdoes
doesaaback
backof
ofthe
theenvelope
envelopeanalysis,
analysis,sees
seesthe
thebig
bigdifference
difference
ininExpected
ExpectedValue,
Value, holds
holdsher
herstock
stockand
andparties
partieson
onwith
withno
notroubles
troublesatatall.
all.
34
Martha Stewart Makes Ethical Decision
Sell My
Stock
What
to do?
Hold My
Stock
Martha
MarthaStewart
Stewartdoes
doesan
anethical
ethicalaudit
auditand
andrecognizes
recognizesthat
thatititisisunethical
unethical
for
forher
hertotosell
sellon
onsuspected
suspectedinside
insideinformation,
information,even
evenififititmight
mightbe
belegal.
legal.
She
Sheholds
holdsher
herstock,
stock,loses
losesmomentarily,
momentarily,but
butagain
againlives
liveshappily
happilyever
everafter.
after.
35
An Ethicists
Dilemma?
Bad
Baddecisions,
decisions,even
evenbad
badethical
ethical
decisions,
may
not
all
have
decisions, may not all havebad
bad
consequences.
consequences.Martha
Marthasays:
says:
IIcant
canteven
evenremember
rememberwhat
whatI I
was
wasconvicted
convictedfor.
for.
Did
DidMartha
Marthaand
andthe
theAmerican
American
business
community
business communitylearn
learn
anything
anythingfrom
fromthis
thiscase
casehistory?
history?
The
Therecent
recentfinancial
financialcrisis
crisiscaused
caused
by
byrampant
rampantlying,
lying,cheating
cheatingand
and
stealing
stealingininthe
themortgage
mortgagemarket
market
suggests
that
it
didnt.
suggests that it didnt.
36
But There May be Justice After All
Los Angeles Times, December 5, 2010

37
Summary: Ethics in Decision Making
The Controlling Factor
Another Benefit and Cost Factor
Personal, Organizational or Societal Values and Weights
The Product of an Ethical Culture
E.g. Ethics trumps economics

We dont do that!
We have to do this!
Project and Team: Collaborative decisions

Organizational: Ethics Committees, Ethical Officers
National and International: Universal Ethical Standards
A Personal Action
Being Ethical vs. Having Ethics

What do you stand for?
What do you do about it?
38
Group Decision Making
A Common Process Today
Decision Groups Are:
The Decision Making Procedure Is:
Long Standing or Ad hoc

Generally Multi-Disciplinary
Local or Remote
Advisory or Final
Unstructured and Unaided
Structured
Analytical (MAUA, decision tree)
Another Methodology
Structured and Aided
39
Unstructured Decision Group Procedure
Evolving Solution.Maybe.
Purdue University, Personnel Briefing, 2005
40
Early Group Decision Analysis Aid
Computer Aided:
RT Participation
Tree Construction
Value Elicitation
Conflict Resolution
Option Analysis
Group Decision Aid, Perceptronics, 1980
41
Aided vs Unaided Team Activities

Activity
Aided Groups
Unaided Groups
Objectives Definition
8%
6%
Information Exchange
14%
37%
Action Generation
26%
54%
Value Estimation
21%
4%
7%
0.9%
Attributed Weighting
10%
1.0%
Conflict Resolution
11%
0.0%
Probability Estimation
Aided
Aidedgroups
groupsspread
spreadtheir
theirtime
timemore
moreevenly
evenlyover
overanalytical
analyticaldecision
decisionactivities.
activities.
42
State-of-the-Art Decision Support System

1.1.Provides
Providesaacommon
common
analytical
framework.
analytical framework.
2.2.Organizes
Organizesrelevant
relevant
situational
information
situational information
3.3.Highlights
Highlights&&resolves
resolves
situational
data
conflicts
situational data conflicts
Decision Infrastructure for Collaborative Planning
COA
COAEvaluation
Evaluation
COA
Selection
COA Selection
Sensitivities
Sensitivities
7.7.Provides
Providesdistinct
distinct
decision
products
decision products
4.4.Promotes
Promotesdevelopment
development
ofofmultiple
COA
multiple COAoptions
options
5.5.Enables
Enablesevaluation
evaluationand
and
comparison
of
COA
options
comparison of COA options
6.6.Highlights
Highlightsdecisiondecisionrelevant
information
relevant information
Diagram courtesy Perceptronics Solutions, Inc.

43
Influence Diagram Representation

A simple Influence Diagram
Part of an Influence Diagram used for mission
planning: The optional tasks are on the left, the
outcomes they influence and the situation
factors affecting those outcomes are in the
middle, and the end state utility is on the right
Influence
InfluenceDiagrams
Diagramsare
arean
anefficient
efficientway
waytotorepresent
representlarge
largeDecision
DecisionTrees
Trees
44
Decision Making Under Stress
The causes of stress
The effects of stress on decision making
Assessment that task demands may exceed personal capacity

Realization that seriously bad outcomes may occur
Narrowed attention leaves less capacity for problem solving
Simplified strategies reduce the set of options considered
Decisions are hurried to relieve the stress effects
Strategies for mitigating the effects of stress
Recognize the stress level

Expect and understand the psycho-physiological effects
Depend more on structured, familiar procedures
Learn to use the stress reaction energy productively
45
Documenting the Decision Process
Executive Summary
Approach
Outline Objectives, Method & Measures

Describe Benefits and Limitations
Results
State the Problem

Summarize the Methodology
Give the Conclusions
Numerical Data and Backup

Recommendations and Reasoning
Appropriate Formats
Report or Memorandum
Formal or Informal Briefing
15-30 Second Elevator Pitch
The
Thepurpose
purposeisisrecommendation,
recommendation,justification
justificationand
andaccountability.
accountability.
46
The Decision Matrix
Good Decision
Bad Decision
Good Outcome
Bad Outcome
Expected
Unlucky
Lucky
Expected
The right thing in Engineering Decision Making is:

Include ALL of the relevant factors
Make BEST USE of the information at hand
Do
Dothe
theright
rightthing
thingenough
enoughtimes
timesand
andthe
theresults
resultstake
takecare
careof
ofthemselves.
themselves.
Amarillo
AmarilloSlim,
Slim,US
USPoker
PokerChampion
Champion
47
A Danger: Not Admitting to Bad Decisions
Resolution of Cognitive Dissonance
Good features of Cognitive Dissonance
Natures doublethink prevention

Self justification makes alternatives look
better after they are chosen
Dont sweat the small stuff
May help you learn about yourself
Bad features of Cognitive Dissonance
Holding on to false premises in the face of

later facts
Rationalizing ones choices as the best
possible under the circumstance
Escalating wrong courses of action
Avoiding blame when blame is due
Failing to learn from mistakes!
48
Learning from Mistakes is Not Really a New Idea
A great man
When he makes a mistake, he realizes it.
Having realized it, he admits it.
Having admitted it, he corrects it.
He considers those who point out his faults
as his most benevolent teachers.
Lao Tzu
Old Master of China Father of Taoism,
6th Century B.C.
49

15 - Ethical Decision Making

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

15 - Ethical Decision Making

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Engineering and Society:

Ethical Decision Making

Dr. Gershon Weltman

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

The Decision Environment1

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

The Decision Environment1

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Analytical Decision Making

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Two Main Types of Decision Analyses

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Decisions With Certain Outcomes

Typical Decision Criteria

A number of acceptable Alternatives

Useful Method: Multi-Attribute Utility Analysis (MAUA)

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

MAUA 1: Options and Attributes

Car Purchase Options

3-Level Test Summary

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

MAUA 2: Dominated Option

Car Purchase Options

3-Level Test Summary

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

MAUA 3: Monetary Equivalents

Car Purchase Options

6 years = $0, each additional year = +$500

High = $0, Medium = +$4,000, Low = +$6,000

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

MAUA 3: Monetary Equivalents

Car Purchase Alternatives

6 years = $0, each additional year = +$500

High = $0, Medium = +$4,000, Low = +$6,000

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

MAUA 4: Utility Measure

U($0) = 1, U($20,000) = 0.2; linear

MAUA 4: Utility and Weight

U($0) = 1, U($20,000) = 0.2; linear

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

MAUA 5: Weighted Multi-Attribute Utility

Car Purchase Alternatives

U(Car) = w CostUCost + wLifeULife + w PollUPoll

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Decisions With Probabilistic Outcomes

Typical Decision Criterion

Useful Method: Decision Tree

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Conventional Decision Tree1

From www.smartdraw.com, 2003

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Top Level Decision Making: President Bush

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Top Level Decision Making: President Obama

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Decision Tree 1: Initial Options

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Decision Tree 2: Secondary Options

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Decision Tree 3: Uncertain Consequences

Copyright Gershon Weltman, 2014

Decision Tree 4: Estimated Outcomes ($)

Decision Tree 5: Estimated Probabilities (P)