[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University
[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University
[Sample B: Approval/Signature Sheet] - George Mason University
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
4.3.2 Assumptions<br />
As described before, the value model was built based on the identification of<br />
objectives using affinity diagrams. This methodology identified ideas that were mutually<br />
exclusive and collective exhaustive, considering the decision context of this research.<br />
In other words, mutual exclusivity means that the objectives stemming from the<br />
same parent should not be redundant, while collective exhaustive means that the<br />
objectives expressed at each level of the hierarchy must completely define its parent.<br />
The goal was to identify fundamental objectives as oppose to means objectives.<br />
As explained before, the theory behind the fundamental objectives is that the lower-level<br />
objectives are part of the higher-level objectives, with no causal relationships.<br />
―Fundamental objectives hierarchies have a clear and simple order. Each lower-level<br />
objective pertains only to the upper level objective directly above it.‖ 99 This structure led<br />
to the assumption of an additive value model for the fundamental objectives hierarchy.<br />
Clemen and Reilly argue that the additive utility function is very useful when<br />
used in value models with many attributes:<br />
any approach that helps to understand tradeoffs among objectives is welcome and<br />
the additive utility function, despite its limitations, is exceptionally useful in the<br />
process of understanding preferences and resolving a difficult decision, especially<br />
in complicated situations with many attributes. 100<br />
99 Keeney, Value-Focused Thinking, 78.<br />
100 Clemen, Making Hard Decisions, 621.<br />
56