Alan Pearman

Breaking the frame: An analysis of strategic cognition and decision making under uncertainty

This paper reports the findings of two experimental investigations into the efficacy of a causal cognitive mapping procedure as a means for overcoming cognitive biases arising from the framing of strategic decision problems. In Study 1, final year management studies undergraduate students were presented with an elaborated strategic decision scenario, under one of four experimental conditions: positively vs. negatively framed decision scenarios, with prechoice vs. postchoice mapping task orders (i.e., participants were required to engage in cognitive mapping before or after making a decision). As predicted, participants in the postchoice mapping conditions succumbed to the framing bias whereas those in the prechoice mapping conditions did not. Study 2 replicated and extended these findings in a field setting, on a sample of senior managers, using a decision scenario that closely mirrored a strategic dilemma currently facing their organization. Taken together, the findings of these studies indicate that the framing bias is likely to be an important factor in strategic decision making, and suggest that cognitive mapping provides an effective means of limiting the damage accruing from this bias. Copyright

Economic appraisal of European transport projects: The state-of-the-art revisited

Substantial investment has been made at national and European level in transport infrastructure over the past 50 years and is likely to continue in the future. The need to appraise transport projects in economic and social terms has developed alongside this in both scope and complexity. The state-of-the-art in the economic appraisal of transport projects is reviewed, progress is assessed and future challenges are identified. The review addresses the general framework, treatment of major impacts, presentation of outputs and issues such as uncertainty. It draws on national practice in Western European countries, which varies substantially reflecting a range of cultural and economic differences. Some points of commonality exist and the principle of monetizing direct transport impacts is generally accepted. Progress has been made towards the measurement of environmental impacts, but the assessment of the wider impacts remains under-developed. Increased sophistication and complexity has brought increasing data...

Model choice in multicriteria decision aid

Abstract The purpose of this paper is to illustrate, using a real case study, one of the points stressed in the “Manifesto of the new Multi Criteria Decision Aid (MCDA) era” (Bouyssou et al., 1993) regarding the application of the basic theory of MCDA procedures. Although the great diversity of MCDA procedures may be seen as a strong point, it can be a weakness, and a systematic analysis of decision procedures if one method makes more sense than another for a specific problem is necessary. The problem of selecting the most appropriate (MCDA) technique for a particular application is in itself a MCDA problem since the decision making criteria used for the selection are different and conflicting in nature. In this paper three selection models are implemented to assist the system analyst, when confronted with a multi-objective decision problem, to select the most appropriate MCDA technique for application to the problem of optimal ranking of water development projects in an arid country. These models are developed by Deason (1984), Gershon (1981), and Tecle (1988). Results indicated that PROMETHEE was the most preferred method for this problem.

EU involvement in TEN development: Network effects and European value added

The recent White Paper emphasises once more that the Trans-European transport network (TEN) is a key element in European Union (EU) policy, yet that its realisation is jeopardised by the lack of an integrated approach during evaluation and funding of cross-border infrastructure. Despite the intervention of the EU in conceptualising the TEN, subsidiarity and continued use of conventional evaluation procedures mean that most assessment of individual TEN components is still undertaken in relatively narrow, national terms. The primary objective of this paper is to explore how the international character of the TEN may be recognised and incorporated in still predominantly national evaluation processes, and which evaluation horizons may be broadened based on the concepts of network effects and European value added (EVA). We present some examples of EVA and discuss EU involvement in projects with potentially high EVA, either by co-ordinating bilateral negotiations for compensation between Member States or by co-financing projects that support the achievement of strategic EU transport policy objectives.

The role of weights in multi-criteria decision aid, and the ranking of water projects in Jordan

Abstract A case study to build the water sector objectives hierarchy and their weights utilising a structured group brainstorming workshop is described. This became an input to rank the major water projects in Jordan utilising a multi-criteria decision aid method. Finally, weights sensitivity analysis was conducted to judge the stability of the results.

Risk Perception in the U.K. Oil and Gas Production Industry: Are Expert Loss‐Prevention Managers' Perceptions Different From Those of Members of the Public?

This article investigates potential differences in risk perception between experts (loss-prevention managers in the U.K. oil and gas production industry) and nonexperts (managers and students). Extant research on expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk is reviewed, followed by the present study concerning risk perceptions of seven pen-picture scenarios involving the occurrence of hazardous events in the U.K. oil and gas production industry. In contrast to many of the earlier studies of expert versus nonexpert perceptions of risk, the present analysis concludes that experts did not judge the overall riskiness of the portrayed hazardous events as less risky than the nonexperts. Nevertheless, the experts believe more strongly than our nonexperts that the risks portrayed in the scenarios pose little threat to future generations, are more precisely known, and are relatively controllable. Use of multiple regression analysis to help uncover the basis of overall riskiness assessments for expert and lay respondents was inconclusive, however. Finally, little evidence was found that nonexperts were any more heterogeneous in their risk perceptions than experts. It may be that the nature of the risks assessed in the present study may account for the general lack of clear expert versus nonexpert differences in overall perceptions of the riskiness of hazardous events in the North Sea. Earlier findings of strong expert versus nonexpert differences in risk perception assessed hazards of major public concern. It is inferred that using such extreme hazards may have resulted in an exaggerated view of differences in expert versus public (nonexpert) perception of risk.

Problem formulation for multi-criteria decision analysis: Report of a workshop

This paper reports on a workshop on Problem Formulation in Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis held at SPUDM97. The focus of the workshop was the problem formulation phase which occurs between the analyst meeting a person with a ‘mess’ and the time he or she begins to analyse a structured problem with several alternatives scored against several attributes or criteria. The objectives were: to share experience on procedures which might be transferable between the methodologies; to demonstrate different skills used by the analyst in structuring decision problems; and to catalyse a discussion on the problem formulation phase of an analysis. Three analysts, who generally approach problems using multiattribute methods, addressed the same problem. The problem used was constructed to be realistic to three decision makers, who had been trained in the issues of concern. There were two sessions. Each analyst was assigned a decision maker and formulated the problem independently in the first session, held in parallel. They were each observed by two observers and many of the audience at the workshop. The three formulations were presented along with the comments of the observers and discussed at a second plenary session. This paper reports the three formulations and observations, remarking on the ‘tricks of the trade’ employed by the analysts in formulating the problem. The analysts also describe their thinking and their aims in adopting their approach and style of interaction. More general remarks on the process of decision analysis are also offered.

AN ASSESSMENT OF ADVANCED TRANSPORT TELEMATICS EVALUATION PROCEDURES

This paper reviews and critically assesses procedures which have been adopted to evaluate Advanced Transport Telematics (ATT) projects. The importance of such a review at this juncture stems from the changing position of ATT in transport planning. ATT is no longer simply a field for experimentation, where technical feasibility and user acceptance are dominant concerns. Rather it is a potential mainstream contributor to the functioning of road transport systems. For this reason, ATT project appraisal needs to be developed to the same form, level of sophistication and consistency as the appraisal of conventional transport infrastructure investment. Based on the review set out here, we argue that appropriate methods have not yet been established which, in turn, poses a number of challenging questions, since current socio‐economic evaluation procedures are not directly suited to either measuring or evaluating many of the impacts which ATT schemes are implemented to achieve.

Transport projects, programmes and policies: Evaluation needs and capabilities

The Role of Evaluation: Transport appraisal in a policy context, Peter Mackie and John Nellthorp Strategic transport planning evaluation - the Scandinavian experience, Henning Lauridsen Old myths and new realities of transport infrastructure assessment - implications for EU interventions in Central Europe, Deike Peters Norwegian urban road tolling - what role for evaluation?, Odd I. Larsen. Technical Aspects of Evaluation: Spatial economic impacts of transport infrastructure investments, Jan Oosterhaven and Thijs Knaap The economic development effects of transport investments, David Banister and Yossi Berechman European versus national level evaluation - the case of the PBKAL high-speed rail project, Rana Roy Welfare basis of evaluation, Marco Ponti Conceptual foundations of cost-benefit analysis - a minimalist account, Robert Sugden. Evaluation in the Policy Process: Impact assessment of strategic road management and development plan of Finnish road administration, Eeva Linkama, Mervi Karhula, Seppo Lampinen and Anna Saarlo Major infrastructure transport projects decision-making process - interactions between outputs and outcomes as a contemporary public action, Marianne Ollivier-Trigalo Involving stakeholders in the evaluation of transport pricing, Jose M. Viegas and Rosario Macario Accessibility analysis concepts and their application to transport policy, programme and project evaluation, Derek Halden Strategic environmental assessment and its relationship to transportation projects, Paul Tomlinson and Chris Frey.

The Use of Multicriteria Techniques to Rank Highway Investment Proposals

Local authority transport planners are annually faced with the problem of selecting, from a wide range of proposals, a sub-set of projects which is in some sense “best” relative to their investment budget constraint. The choice is a complex one, for at least three reasons. The range of proposals is often wide in terms of project type, cost and impacts. Many of the impacts are difficult to quantify, both in theory and practice. Finally, there is not a single decision maker, but a series of groups, each with legitimate interests in what proposals should go ahead.