多极安全合作规划:多目标、对抗性风险分析方法

IF 2.5 4区 管理学 Q3 MANAGEMENT Decision Analysis Pub Date : 2022-08-24 DOI:10.1287/deca.2022.0458
William N. Caballero, Ethan Gharst, David L. Banks, J. Weir
{"title":"多极安全合作规划:多目标、对抗性风险分析方法","authors":"William N. Caballero, Ethan Gharst, David L. Banks, J. Weir","doi":"10.1287/deca.2022.0458","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In an increasingly competitive environment, defense organizations are met with more difficult decisions than in years past. This problem is especially apparent in security cooperation, that is, defense diplomacy, conducted by the United States. Both the United States and its competitors offer military assistance to third-party nations who, in turn, select an offer based on their own self-interest. Unfortunately, current security cooperation planning practices adopt an ad hoc approach to such problems. Therefore, we set forth herein a decision-analytic-planning framework by (1) provisioning a generic utility model for security cooperation planning applicable to myriad stakeholders and (2) developing a Bayesian solution that allows the stakeholder to select an action that maximizes their expected utility. This combination of value-focused thinking and adversarial risk analysis improves upon standard U.S. defense practices; it tractably encodes planning assumptions and more comprehensively considers the relevant uncertainties. The efficacy of this planning approach is illustrated on a notional U.S. Air Force case study in which a host nation must choose between security assistance from the United States or a competing nation.","PeriodicalId":46460,"journal":{"name":"Decision Analysis","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach\",\"authors\":\"William N. Caballero, Ethan Gharst, David L. Banks, J. Weir\",\"doi\":\"10.1287/deca.2022.0458\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In an increasingly competitive environment, defense organizations are met with more difficult decisions than in years past. This problem is especially apparent in security cooperation, that is, defense diplomacy, conducted by the United States. Both the United States and its competitors offer military assistance to third-party nations who, in turn, select an offer based on their own self-interest. Unfortunately, current security cooperation planning practices adopt an ad hoc approach to such problems. Therefore, we set forth herein a decision-analytic-planning framework by (1) provisioning a generic utility model for security cooperation planning applicable to myriad stakeholders and (2) developing a Bayesian solution that allows the stakeholder to select an action that maximizes their expected utility. This combination of value-focused thinking and adversarial risk analysis improves upon standard U.S. defense practices; it tractably encodes planning assumptions and more comprehensively considers the relevant uncertainties. The efficacy of this planning approach is illustrated on a notional U.S. Air Force case study in which a host nation must choose between security assistance from the United States or a competing nation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46460,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Decision Analysis\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Decision Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2022.0458\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"管理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Decision Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/deca.2022.0458","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在竞争日益激烈的环境中,国防组织面临着比过去更困难的决策。这个问题在美国进行的安全合作,即国防外交中尤为明显。美国及其竞争对手都向第三方国家提供军事援助,而第三方国家则根据自身利益选择援助方案。不幸的是,目前的安全合作规划实践对这类问题采用了一种特别的方法。因此,我们通过(1)提供适用于无数利益相关者的安全合作规划的通用实用模型,(2)开发一个贝叶斯解决方案,允许利益相关者选择一个使其预期效用最大化的行动,在此提出了一个决策分析-规划框架。这种以价值为中心的思维和对抗性风险分析的结合改进了标准的美国国防实践;它可追溯地编码规划假设,并更全面地考虑相关的不确定性。这种规划方法的有效性在一个假想的美国空军案例研究中得到了说明,在这个案例研究中,东道国必须在来自美国或竞争国家的安全援助之间做出选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Multipolar Security Cooperation Planning: A Multiobjective, Adversarial-Risk-Analysis Approach
In an increasingly competitive environment, defense organizations are met with more difficult decisions than in years past. This problem is especially apparent in security cooperation, that is, defense diplomacy, conducted by the United States. Both the United States and its competitors offer military assistance to third-party nations who, in turn, select an offer based on their own self-interest. Unfortunately, current security cooperation planning practices adopt an ad hoc approach to such problems. Therefore, we set forth herein a decision-analytic-planning framework by (1) provisioning a generic utility model for security cooperation planning applicable to myriad stakeholders and (2) developing a Bayesian solution that allows the stakeholder to select an action that maximizes their expected utility. This combination of value-focused thinking and adversarial risk analysis improves upon standard U.S. defense practices; it tractably encodes planning assumptions and more comprehensively considers the relevant uncertainties. The efficacy of this planning approach is illustrated on a notional U.S. Air Force case study in which a host nation must choose between security assistance from the United States or a competing nation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Decision Analysis
Decision Analysis MANAGEMENT-
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Measuring and Mitigating the Risk of Advanced Cyberattackers On the Value of Information Across Decision Problems Curbing the Opioid Crisis: Optimal Dynamic Policies for Preventive and Mitigating Interventions From the Editor: 2023 Clemen–Kleinmuntz Decision Analysis Best Paper Award A Behavioral Model of Responsible Sourcing in Supply Chains: The Role of Dual-Sourcing Bias
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1