【24h】

Decisions, decisions

机译:决定,决定

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

One of the key drivers in the emergence of civil engineering systems in the 1960s as a field of discourse was the potential of developing greater engineering understanding using a range of systems models and the need for better engineering decisions and outcomes. Important engineering decisions generally fall into two types. Those that seek to minimise losses such as those associated with very low probability and high consequence catastrophic outcomes and those that seek to maximise opportunity between competing options. This short essay concerns the latter. The assessment of large-scale, wide impact engineering decisions has proved problematic. This stems from a number of factors. There are often many non-monetary impacts, the systems boundaries (in space and time) are not clear, the stakes are high and there are many stakeholders (some of whom are not involved in the decision process). All these factors mean that the use of Cost-Benefit analysis as a decision-making criterion is controversial, ambiguous and in some cases inappropriate. In addition, there are often other non-monetary factors to be considered. The consequence is that long-term infrastructure decisions get bogged down or deferred and the default decision is to do nothing.
机译:1960年代作为讨论领域的土木工程系统兴起的主要推动力之一是,通过使用一系列系统模型以及对更好的工程决策和结果的需求,可以增强对工程的了解。重要的工程决策通常分为两种类型。那些试图使损失最小化的企业,例如那些具有极低概率和高后果灾难性结果的企业,以及那些试图使竞争性选择之间的机会最大化的企业。这篇短文涉及后者。事实证明,评估大规模,影响广泛的工程决策是有问题的。这源于许多因素。通常会有很多非货币影响,系统边界(在空间和时间上)不明确,风险很高,并且有很多利益相关者(其中一些人没有参与决策过程)。所有这些因素意味着使用成本效益分析作为决策标准是有争议的,模棱两可的,在某些情况下是不合适的。此外,通常还需要考虑其他非货币因素。结果是长期基础设施决策陷入困境或被推迟,默认决策是什么也不做。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号