The emphasis on identifying organizational values is what makes VFT distinct
within soft OR methods and from OR methods generally (Keeney 1992). Often,
organizations will have a general idea or statement of their fundamental values or
mission, but less clarity on how their decisions directly and indirectly achieve those
values. Keeney distinguishes between values-driven and alternatives-driven decision
processes, noting that the latter, while more common in traditional OR practice,
lead decision makers toward solutions that may be operationally practical and
efficient but that may not achieve their desired objectives. Focusing on values,
Keeney argues, not only broadens the decision space and alternatives to be
considered, but also fosters more strategic thinking about how such decisions may
influence the achievement of multiple objectives. More recently, Keeney has made
explicit the distinction between VFT and decision analysis through ‘value models’,
which include utility functions and value functions as special cases and that rely on
VFT, as traditionally understood, to ensure that these models reflect the actual
values and fundamental concerns of multiple stakeholders (Keeney and von
Winterfeldt 2008). We will refer to the primary method that generates values
structures and trade-offs as ‘value-focused thinking’ and ‘values structuring’
interchangeably henceforth.
Value-focused thinking is similar to PSMs in that it may explore core organizational
issues within their context, through a hands-on and iterative process in which
decision makers identify successive levels of objectives. The levels range from those
that are directly measured and influenced by organizational decisions to the more
conceptual and mission-driven goals that define the organizations’ purpose. VFT goes
beyond most PSMs, however, by linking objectives to specific actions with potentially
measurable outcomes (Keisler 2012). While some overlap between VFT, PSMs, and
other soft OR methods is apparent (Mingers 2011), we note that the former is rarely
discussed as an option for conducting analyses of the latter. This may be because, as
Mingers (2011) notes, VFT occupies a fuzzy middle ground between soft OR and
traditional OR methods, as it combines qualitative data collection with quantitative
analytical techniques for solving identified problems. PSMs, meanwhile, are not
fundamentally focused on solving the problem, but instead in representing it in novel
ways. Moreover,VFTcan serve as both an intervention methodology and as a means to
generate data about organizations and problem contexts. The notion of VFT as a multidimensional
method that bridges diverse decision modeling approaches is central to
the case analysis we present below.
The emphasis on identifying organizational values is what makes VFT distinctwithin soft OR methods and from OR methods generally (Keeney 1992). Often,organizations will have a general idea or statement of their fundamental values ormission, but less clarity on how their decisions directly and indirectly achieve thosevalues. Keeney distinguishes between values-driven and alternatives-driven decisionprocesses, noting that the latter, while more common in traditional OR practice,lead decision makers toward solutions that may be operationally practical andefficient but that may not achieve their desired objectives. Focusing on values,Keeney argues, not only broadens the decision space and alternatives to beconsidered, but also fosters more strategic thinking about how such decisions mayinfluence the achievement of multiple objectives. More recently, Keeney has madeexplicit the distinction between VFT and decision analysis through ‘value models’,which include utility functions and value functions as special cases and that rely onVFT, as traditionally understood, to ensure that these models reflect the actualvalues and fundamental concerns of multiple stakeholders (Keeney and vonWinterfeldt 2008). We will refer to the primary method that generates valuesstructures and trade-offs as ‘value-focused thinking’ and ‘values structuring’interchangeably henceforth.Value-focused thinking is similar to PSMs in that it may explore core organizationalissues within their context, through a hands-on and iterative process in whichdecision makers identify successive levels of objectives. The levels range from thosethat are directly measured and influenced by organizational decisions to the moreconceptual and mission-driven goals that define the organizations’ purpose. VFT goesbeyond most PSMs, however, by linking objectives to specific actions with potentiallymeasurable outcomes (Keisler 2012). While some overlap between VFT, PSMs, andother soft OR methods is apparent (Mingers 2011), we note that the former is rarelydiscussed as an option for conducting analyses of the latter. This may be because, asMingers (2011) notes, VFT occupies a fuzzy middle ground between soft OR andtraditional OR methods, as it combines qualitative data collection with quantitativeanalytical techniques for solving identified problems. PSMs, meanwhile, are notfundamentally focused on solving the problem, but instead in representing it in novelways. Moreover,VFTcan serve as both an intervention methodology and as a means togenerate data about organizations and problem contexts. The notion of VFT as a multidimensionalmethod that bridges diverse decision modeling approaches is central tothe case analysis we present below.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..
The emphasis on identifying organizational values is what makes VFT distinct
within soft OR methods and from OR methods generally (Keeney 1992). Often,
organizations will have a general idea or statement of their fundamental values or
mission, but less clarity on how their decisions directly and indirectly achieve those
values. Keeney distinguishes between values-driven and alternatives-driven decision
processes, noting that the latter, while more common in traditional OR practice,
lead decision makers toward solutions that may be operationally practical and
efficient but that may not achieve their desired objectives. Focusing on values,
Keeney argues, not only broadens the decision space and alternatives to be
considered, but also fosters more strategic thinking about how such decisions may
influence the achievement of multiple objectives. More recently, Keeney has made
explicit the distinction between VFT and decision analysis through ‘value models’,
which include utility functions and value functions as special cases and that rely on
VFT, as traditionally understood, to ensure that these models reflect the actual
values and fundamental concerns of multiple stakeholders (Keeney and von
Winterfeldt 2008). We will refer to the primary method that generates values
structures and trade-offs as ‘value-focused thinking’ and ‘values structuring’
interchangeably henceforth.
Value-focused thinking is similar to PSMs in that it may explore core organizational
issues within their context, through a hands-on and iterative process in which
decision makers identify successive levels of objectives. The levels range from those
that are directly measured and influenced by organizational decisions to the more
conceptual and mission-driven goals that define the organizations’ purpose. VFT goes
beyond most PSMs, however, by linking objectives to specific actions with potentially
measurable outcomes (Keisler 2012). While some overlap between VFT, PSMs, and
other soft OR methods is apparent (Mingers 2011), we note that the former is rarely
discussed as an option for conducting analyses of the latter. This may be because, as
Mingers (2011) notes, VFT occupies a fuzzy middle ground between soft OR and
traditional OR methods, as it combines qualitative data collection with quantitative
analytical techniques for solving identified problems. PSMs, meanwhile, are not
fundamentally focused on solving the problem, but instead in representing it in novel
ways. Moreover,VFTcan serve as both an intervention methodology and as a means to
generate data about organizations and problem contexts. The notion of VFT as a multidimensional
method that bridges diverse decision modeling approaches is central to
the case analysis we present below.
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..