Multiple Objectives in Dynamic Decision Making
Within the framework of Dynamic Decision Making the two preceding Chapters 5 and 6 are designed as to distinctly characterize scalar objectives (Type A objectives) on the one side, and trajectorial objectives (Type B objectives) on the other, as well as t
- PDF / 2,737,121 Bytes
- 34 Pages / 439.37 x 666.14 pts Page_size
- 7 Downloads / 256 Views
Within the framework of Dynamic Decision Making the two preceding Chapters 5 and 6 are designed as to distinctly characterize scalar objectives (Type A objectives) on the one side, and trajectorial objectives (Type B objectives) on the other, as well as to clearly mark the differences between them. A Type A objective is scalar per definitionem, and therefore does naturally not bring up the notion of multiple decision makers. Neither does a Type B objective, even though it very much suggests employing the MCDM methodology: This is because the object of consideration is one decision maker who has to deal with one objective along the time line, i.e. the decision maker has multiple objectives stemming
from the intertemporal decision making problem -
the idea of multiple
decision makers each having one scalar objective at exactly one distinct point of time within the planning horizon can merely serve as a thought experiment to approach a solution to the problem of intertemporal deci-
sion making. However, building upon Chapters 5 and 6 the current chapter is devoted to (re-) combinations of Type A and Type B objectives. This is worth considering especially for the reason that two different scenarios can be treated with the same approach: There is on the one hand the scenario, that a single decision maker has multiple objectives, and on the B. Glaser, Efficiency versus Sustainability in Dynamic Decision Making © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002
7 Multiple Objectives in Dynamic Decision Making
192
II Type A Type B
Type A
Type B
AxA
AxB
Section 7.1
Section 7.2
AxB
BxB
Section 7.2
Section 7.3
Table 7.1: Multiple objectives in dynamic decision making other hand the scenario, that multiple cooperative decision makers with each one l objective have to come to terms. As it is always possible to deduce statements for models with three or more objectives from the basic model of two objectives, the following discussion shall henceforth confine itself to only two objectives. Table 7.1 indicates the combinations of Type A and B objectives and the section within which they are discussed. It is mentioned in Chapter 5 (see pages 91£), that, on the one side, a single objective concerning the minimization or maximization of the terminal point of time t* is formally an objective of Type A. But on the other side, pursuing such a time-oriented objective does not make very much sense, if there is not at least one more objective to create a kind of antagonism: This can be present, for instance, with another extremizing objective related to a fundamental variable other than time, i.e. a problem oriented or intrinsic variable connected to a time-consuming activity underlying to the regarded problem. Or one can imagine that the decision maker sets up an aspiration value together with a satisficing, approximizing, or fixing objective, so that the optimal point of time t* does not attain a trivial solution like 0 or
00,
which it is likely to assume
otherwise. Hence, models dealing with the terminal point of time t* as o
Data Loading...
