Multicriteria methods for resource planning: an experimental comparison

Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods are widely used for comparing alternatives when there are multiple objectives. For instance, utilities use them for resource bidding, externality quantification, facility siting, and resource planning. There are many alternative methods, differing in thei...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inIEEE transactions on power systems Vol. 9; no. 4; pp. 1811 - 1817
Main Authors Hobbs, B.F., Meier, P.M.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States IEEE 01.11.1994
Subjects
296000 > Energy Planning & Policy > Electric Power
ALLOCATIONS
Assembly
Cities and towns
Costs
DECISION MAKING
ELECTRIC UTILITIES
ENERGY PLANNING, POLICY AND ECONOMY
ENERGY SYSTEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Functional programming
LOAD MANAGEMENT
MANAGEMENT
PLANNING
Portfolios
Power generation economics
POWER SYSTEMS
POWER TRANSMISSION AND DISTRIBUTION
Process planning
Psychology
PUBLIC UTILITIES 240100 > Power Systems > (1990-)
SITE SELECTION
Systems engineering and theory
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Multicriteria decision making (MCDM) methods are widely used for comparing alternatives when there are multiple objectives. For instance, utilities use them for resource bidding, externality quantification, facility siting, and resource planning. There are many alternative methods, differing in their ease of use, validity, results, and appropriateness to resource planning. Several MCDM methods are compared in an experiment involving the choice of resource portfolio for Seattle City Light. Planners and interest group representatives applied direct weight assessment, tradeoff weight assessment, additive value functions, and goal programming. Most of the participants concluded that MCDM methods could promote insight and confidence in decision making. However, the authors also confirmed the existence of method biases previously identified by psychologists. No single method emerged as best. Thus, application of two or more methods as consistency checks is recommended to guard against bias, and to stimulate insight.< >
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
None
ISSN:0885-8950
1558-0679
DOI:10.1109/59.331435