Abstract
We have reviewed a range of MCDM methods in previous chapters and many others have appeared in the literature. Despite the energy industry’s widespread use of these techniques, too little attention has been paid to their validity and reliability. They differ in their theoretical underpinnings, in the type of questions they ask users, and in the results they yield. Therefore, users need reliable information on the performance of these methods in practice. There is a large literature in which psychologists and decision-scientists have contrasted the perceived usefulness, results, and validity of various MCDM methods (e.g., von Winterfeldt and Edwards, 1986; Hobbs, 1986; Corner and Buchanan, 1997; Zapatero et al, 1997), but most of these experiments have involved students or have simplified problems.2
Reason also is choiceMILTON, Paradise Lost, 3.108 (1667)
Ah! Dont say that you agree with me. When people agree with me I have always feel that I must be wrong.OSCAR WILDE, Intentions (1891)
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2000 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hobbs, B.F., Meier, P. (2000). MCDM Experiments at Seattle City Light. In: Hobbs, B.F., Meier, P. (eds) Energy Decisions and the Environment. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 28. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4477-7_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-4477-7_10
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-7017-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-4615-4477-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive