• Keine Ergebnisse gefunden

Interactive Information System for Technology Assessments

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Aktie "Interactive Information System for Technology Assessments"

Copied!
50
0
0

Wird geladen.... (Jetzt Volltext ansehen)

Volltext

(1)

W O R K I N G P A P E R

I N T E R A C T I V E INFOXIilATION S Y S T E M F O R TECHNOLOGY A S S E S S M E N T S

A . K . A l a b y a n A . P . G o l o v i n e V . R . O k o r o k o v V . P o n o m a r e v

N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 7 W P - 8 7 - 1 2 1

I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e for Applied Systems Analysis

(2)

I - N T l m A m INmRMATION

ETrsrm FOR

TM=HNOIXH;Y ASSESSMENTS

A.K. ALabyan A.F. Golovine

VR.

Okorokou 1.I Ponomareu

November

1 9 8 7

WP-87-121

Working P a p e r s are interim r e p o r t s on work of the International Institute f o r Applied Systems Analysis and have r e c e i v e d only limited review. Views or opinions e x p r e s s e d h e r e i n d o not necessarily r e p r e s e n t those of the Institute or of i t s National Member Organizations.

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE

FOR

APPLIED SYSTEMS ANALYSIS A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria

(3)

Evaluation and assessment of new technologies i s a r a t h e r complicated t a s k due to t h e involvement of g r o u p s of e x p e r t s , multiple c r i t e r i a c h a r a c t e r i z i n g s e v e r a l al- t e r n a t i v e s as well as incomplete information a b o u t t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e s . E x p e r t analysis of new technologies by d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s c a n b e one of t h e wayx of estimat- ing t h e advantages a n d shortcomings of e a c h of them a n d of forecasting t h e i r development and usage.

Due to t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e assessment p r o c e d u r e , especially in t h e g r o u p ex- p e r t situation, l a r g e amounts of information must b e processed and analyzed in o r d e r to find t h e final conclusion. Additionally, s e v e r a l f a c t o r s reflecting t h e quality of t h e r e s u l t s , quality of e x p e r t s opinions, etc. must b e calculated during t h e assessment p r o c e s s . T h e r e f o r e , this task should b e s u p p o r t e d by some comput- er based tools. The p a p e r p r e s e n t s s u c h a n information management system sup- porting t h e p r o c e s s of technology assessment. The system perfarms such functions like information collection a n d s t o r a g e , i n t e r a c t i o n with e x p e r t s a n d analysts, aggregation of information, g r a p h i c presentation of d a t a and r e s u l t s as well as computes s e v e r a l s t a t i s t i c a l f a c t o r s n e c e s s a r y to analyze t h e d a t a submitted by e x p e r t s . The system, being t h e f i r s t s t e p towards development of more advanced decision s u p p o r t systems h a s been applied at IIASA f o r analysis of s e v e r a l techno- logies f o r e n e r g y production.

Alexander B. Kurzhanski Chairman

System and Decision Sciences Frograrn

(4)

Content

INTRODUCTION

MAIN P R I N C I P L E S OF TAS ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE GENERAL STRUCTURE OF TAS SOME PRELIMINARY ASPECTS REFERENCES

(5)

I N T E ' R A m INRIRMATION

!3WlXM

FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESS-

A.K. ALabyan, A.P. Golovine, J!R. Okmrokou and I.! P o n o m a r e u

1.

INTRODUCTION

T h e r e are s e v e r a l ways t o d e a l with t h e problems of technology assess- ments. The t r a d i t i o n a l o n e s use d i f f e r e n t s o r t s of economic analysis a n d are well known. The t r a d i t i o n a l a p p r o a c h i s useful f o r well-defined technologies, f o r which t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e input d a t a i s highly verified. When we d e a l with some new technologies i t i s no l o n g e r t h e c a s e . T h e r e are many i s s u e s beyond t h e economic f a c t o r s s u c h as s a f e t y ,

R&D

problems, environmental a n d s o c i a l impacts and o t h e r s t h a t are of g r e a t i m p o r t a n c e b u t sometimes c a n n o t b e e v a l u a t e d nu- merically with economic calculations. While assessing t h e f u t u r e develop- ment of new technologies, i t i s possible to r e d u c e u n c e r t a i n t i e s relying on t h e opinions of e x p e r t s . E x p e r t analysis of new technologies by d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s c a n b e o n e of t h e ways of estimating t h e a d v a n t a g e s a n d shortcomings of e a c h of them a n d of f o r e c a s t i n g t h e i r f u t u r e development a n d usage.

The method of a n e x p e r t computerized a n a l y s i s of technologies developed at IIASA a n d d e s c r i b e d h e r e i s based on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e (an example of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o b e filled o u t by o n e of t h e e x p e r t s i s p r e s e n t e d in Appendix I ) , surnmerizing a l l n e c e s s a r y information t a k e n f r o m t h e e x p e r t s a n d a n i n t e r a c - t i v e c o m p u t e r system t h a t makes a l l calculations, d a t a p r o c e s s i n g , and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s .

This f i r s t v e r s i o n of technology assessments (TAS) d e s c r i b e s an information system f o r t h e policy m a k e r s as a tool f o r t h e full-scale analysis of d i f f e r e n t t e c h - nologies.

Before d e s c r i b i n g t h e p r o p o s e d p r o c e d u r e of technology a s s e s s m e n t s some preliminary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s should b e made c o n c e r n i n g t h e problem of t h e human possibiUties to make estimates. Some assumptions c o n c e r n i n g t h e models of human information processing a n d decision making could b e found in t h e works devoted to sociological r e s e a r c h a n d in modern t r e n d s in e x p e r t systems design (see, f o r example 11, 2, 31).

(6)

R e s e a r c h e r s engaged in measurement a n d mathematical modelling of hu- man phenomena meet t h e problem to s u b j e c t human b e h a v i o u r t o numerical analysis. T h e r e i s s t r o n g c r i t i c i s m now t h a t e s s e n t i a l individual c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are swallowed u p in t h e sameness of quantity. Indeed to a c e r t a i n e x t e n t a same- n e s s i s a s s e r t e d when applying measurment to human phenomena. However, t w o points should b e r e c a l l e d . F i r s t , measuring c e r t a i n p r o p e r t i e s c o n n e c t e d with human a c t i v i t i e s n e e d n o t imply t h a t t w o c a s e s , when t h e s e p r o p e r t i e s are identical, c a n n o t d i f f e r in many o t h e r r e s p e c t s . Indeed o n c e t h e s e similarities are known i t may b e e a s i e r to c o n c e n t r a t e on t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between individuals.

Second, some s c a l e s of measurement are more r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n o t h e r s . The identification of o b j e c t s by c a t e g o r i e s i n t o which t h e y f i t , or by r a n k s , c a p t u r e s some q u a l i t a t i v e similarities. A t t h e same time f e w e r presumptions are made a b o u t t h e i r s a m e n e s s , as i s t h e case when t h e y p o s s e s s i d e n t i c a l values on a m e t r i c s c a l e . Notwithstanding t h i s c r i t i c i s m pointing to the limitations of measurment, however, t h e r e i s a n i n c r e a s i n g recognition t h a t a qualitative a p p r o a c h need n o t eschew measurment.

In r e c e n t y e a r s s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s h a v e b e e n m o r e a n d more c o n c e r n e d with measuring q u a l i t i e s in o r d e r to g r a p p l e with complex c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a n d un- c e r t a i n t i e s i n h e r e n t in human p e r c e p t i o n a n d b e h a v i o u r . The difficulties assosi- a t e d with measuring a n d numerical a n a l y s i s of human a c t i v i t i e s remain im- mense. Techniques of q u a l i t a t i v e d a t a analysis are e s s e n t i a l in a n y e f f o r t to i n c o r p o r a t e non-numerical information e x t r a c t e d from humans. But i t i s n e c e s s a r y sometimes to a c h i e v e e v e n more: to g e t some numerical c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as t o hu- man estimations of some p r o c e s s e s or systems p e r f o r m a n c e .

A major f a c t o r which c a n a f f e c t t h e ease with which p e o p l e u s e a n e x p e r t system i s t h e a b i l i t y of t h e system to t a i l o r i t s b e h a v i o u r to t h e s p e c i f i c f e a t u r e s a n d needs of a n individual u s e r . This i s most d e s i r a b l e where o n e p a r t i c u l a r sys- tem i s to b e used by p e o p l e with s u b s t a n t i a l l y differing backgrounds. To b e effec- t i v e , s y s t e m s should know who t h e i r u s e r s are a n d t h e c o n t e x t in which t h e y are t r y i n g to work. T h e r e are s e v e r a l ways in which a system c a n t a i l o r i t s b e h a v i o u r towards d i f f e r e n t u s e r s . The most simple i s w h e r e t h e u s e r i s a s k e d t o classify himself at t h e beginning of i n t e r a c t i o n as belonging t o a c e r t a i n c a t e g o r y . In more s o p h i s t i c a t e d a p p r o a c h s a c l u s t e r a n a l y s i s i s used. T h e r e are v a r i o u s t y p e s of u s e r information which should b e included i n t o t h e system.

These g e n e r a l l y include knowledge a b o u t a u s e r ' s l e v e l of competence, h i s in- t e r e s t s , values, a p t i t u d e s , goals, e x p e c t a t i o n s a n d assumptions a n d e v e n knowledge a b o u t t h e u s e r ' s model of how t h e system works. In t h e r e a l decision p r o c e s s e a c h e x p e r t c e r t a i n l y h a s h i s own understanding of t h e s t r a t e g y

(7)

t h a t influences h i s assignments. Besides individual c a p a b i l i t i e s , e v e n h i s p r e s e n t motivations are of i m p o r t a n c e . To a c h i e v e positive r e s u l t s i t i s n e c e s s a r y n o t only to v e r i f y t h e initial assignments b u t a l s o to divide t h e e x p e r t s i n t o national, p r o f e s s i o n a l a n d o t h e r g r o u p s b e c a u s e t h e i r opinions could d i f f e r .

While a n a l p i n g s u c h a problem as technology assessements, i t becomes clear t h a t t h e main problem i s n o t only to c h o o s e c o r r e c t l y t h e set of a l t e r n a - t i v e s , c r i t e r i a a n d t h e measurement scale b u t also to a r r a n g e t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r a c c u r a t e v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e o u t p u t s of e x p e r t s a c t i v i t i e s t h a t could b e provided with mistakes. Moreover a n e x p e r t c a n c h a n g e h i s mind while analyzing t h e a n s w e r s of o t h e r e x p e r t s . The v e r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e should include possibilities to r e c o n s i d e r t h e initial assumptions c o n c e r n i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s , c r i t e r i a a n d cer- tainly numerical a n d q u a l i t a t i v e assignments t a k e n f r o m e x p e r t s .

The f i r s t problem t h a t a r i s e s i s how to c h o o s e t h e b e s t scale to g e t e x p e r t in- formation. I t i s well known

[I, 21

t h a t to r e c i e v e r e l i a b l e estimations, i t i s n e c e s s a r y to p r e s e n t t h e scale t h a t i s formulated i n a h a b i t u a l f o r e x p e r t s manner. Usually a n e x p e r t i s a s k e d to d e t e r m i n e quantitatively t h e l e v e l of quality of a l t e r n a t i v e s . And t h e e x p e r t should assign t h e a c c o r d a n c e between t h e q u a n t a t i v e estimation and t h i s level. I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h i s a c c o r d a n c e i s d e t e r - mined d i f f e r e n t l y by d i f f e r e n t e x p e r t s . Such r e s u l t s o b t a i n e d in t h i s manner c a n h a v e valuable mistakes. I t i s b e t t e r if t h e scale i s v e r b a l ( f o r example "good",

"fair", "bad") b u t a g a i n t h i s estimation c a n b e d i f f e r e n t l y c o n n e c t e d with t h e nu- m e r i c a l merits. The s c a l e should b e flexible enough to t r y t h e d i f f e r e n t accor- d a n c e between v e r b a l conclusions a n d t h e s e merits.

Another problem i s providing n o n c o n t r a d i c t o r y a n d t r a n s i t i v e assignments.

(Noncontradictory assignments give t h e same estimations in t h e same condi- tions. Transitive assignments are s u b j e c t e d to t h e condition: if a

>

b a n d b

>

c t h a n a

>

c ) . B e f o r e formulating t h e decision r u l e one must b e s u r e t h a t at least 80

-

90% of t h e assignments fulfill t h i s r e q u i r e m e n t s .

These preliminary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l a t e s t r o n g l y to t h e problems of deci- sion making in t h e framework of m u l t i c r i t e r i a i l l - s t r u c t u r e d problems. Human f a c t o r s influence s t r o n g l y t h e s u c c e s s of t h e assessment p r o c e d u r e of p r o b - lems, systems a n d s i t u a t i o n s . F o r t h e s e problems in which q u a l i t a t i v e , ill-defined f a c t o r s are dominant, t h e c h o s e n set of evaluation criteria i s o f t e n s u b j e c t i v e a n d r a t i n g s assigned by e x p e r t s to t h e given a l t e r n a t i v e s b y e a c h c r i t e r i o n c a n b e q u i t e d i f f e r e n t .

I t i s a l s o well known t h a t e x p e r t s c a n d e a l with n o more t h a n f i v e to s e v e n c r i t e r i a if we would like to h a v e r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s of t h e a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e . A t t h e same time t h e initial number of c r i t e r i a i s o f t e n much g r e a t e r . The possible

(8)

solution c a n b e to r e d u c e t h e i r number o n t h e b a s i s of t h e preliminary analysis o f t h e i r sameness a n d to g r o u p them.

Some human f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to t h e decision p r o c e s s are summerized in Table 1.

Methods of m u l t i c r i t e r i a decision making d i f f e r by t h e modes of forming t h e g e n e r a l i z e d e s t i m a t e s f o r e a c h a l t e r n a t i v e o n t h e b a s i s of d a t a e x t r a c t e d from e x - p e r t s . Let's d e s c r i b e some of them keeping in mind t h e i r potential usefulness f o r t h e problem of technology assessment.

Direct Methods

In t h e s e methods t h e r e l a t i o n between g e n e r a l i z e d e s t i m a t e s (utility func- tions) a n d e s t i m a t e s b y s e p a r a t e c r i t e r i a i s p r e d e f i n e d . In most cases gen- e r a l i z e d c r i t e r i o n p r e s e n t s a l i n e a r weighed combination of s e p a r a t e c r i t e r i a . These methods are d e s c r i b e d e l s e w h e r e (see, f o r example [4]. More so- phisticated methods u s e a s p i r a t i o n levels and t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t d i s a g r e e m e n t f a c t o r s [S].

Pairwise Comparison Methods

In t h e s e methods DM c h o o s e s between s e l e c t e d p a i r s of a l t e r n a t i v e s [6].

These methuds give as a r u l e r a t h e r r e l i a b l e solutions b u t are time consuming.

They are mostly used f o r t h e small-scale problems with few a l t e r n a t i v e s and c r i - t e r i a .

Compensation Methods

In t h e s e methods [7] e s t i m a t e s f o r o n e a l t e r n a t i v e are t r i e d to b e compen- s a t e d b y e s t i m a t e s f o r a n o t h e r o n e in o r d e r t o c h o o s e t h e b e t t e r one. These methods are c o n s i d e r e d to b e t h e m o s t user-friendly as at o n e time a n e x p e r t d e a l s only with p a i r s of a l t e r n a t i v e s . All shortcomings a n d a d v a n t a g e s f o r both a l t e r n a - tives are analysed and c r o s s e d o u t b y p a i r s to see what is l e f t at t h e e n d of t h i s p r o c e d u r e .

(9)

Table 1. Human factors r e l a t e d to t h e decision p r o c e s s . 1. Human c a p a c i t i e s in information processing are

r a t h e r limited b u t flexibility of humans, t h e i r adaptability and e x p e r i e n c e make i t possible t o r e l y on t h e i r e x p e r t estimations.

2. Human capabilities depend on t h e type of t h e

problem and on t h e way of obtaining t h e r e l e v a n t information from people.

3. Short-term memory c a p a c i t y is Limited. I t c a n p r o c e s s only s e v e r a l s t r u c t u r a l d a t a units.

4 . Man e i t h e r a d a p t s to a complex problem or tries to a d a p t i t t o h i s own capabilities.

Humans are usually a b l e to l e a r n f r o m previous a c t i o n s (mostly by try-and-see technique).

6. Solving unique problems often leads to conflicting

and differing a n s w e r s during t h e decision process.

i

?- Human c a p a c i t i e s during t h e decision p r o c e s s

depend strongly o n t h e way t h e problem is formulated.

8. More adequate are methods of eliciting information f r o m humans t h a t use habitual qualitative s c a l e s but not numerical ones.

9. The complexity of t h e decision problem i n c r e a s e s with t h e number of c r i t e r i a , quantity of estimates on t h e c r i t e r i o n s c a l e a n d with t h e number of t h e resulting quality c l a s s e s .

P e r s o n a l , professional, national a n d o t h e r individual motivations influence strongly t h e assignments of e x p e r t s . 11. Interinfluence of opinions of e x p e r t s engaged in one

problem c a n lead t o changes in t h e i r initial assignments.

12. Humans make errors during t h e decision p r o c e s s due to inadequate understanding of t h e p a r t i c u l a r problems.

c a r e l e s s n e s s or o t h e r f a c t o r s .

1

13. Human estimates c a n b e c o n t r a d i c t o r y and non-transitive.

1

14. Humans p r e f e r t h e information to b e r e p r e s e n t e d more in images, g r a p h s than by t a b l e s with numbers.

Axiomatic Yethoda

In t h e s e methods [4] some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c f e a t u r e s of t h e utility function are postulated reflecting t h e p r e f e r e n c e s of DM. During t h e assessment p r o c e d u r e t h e s e p r e f e r e n c e s a r e verified and adjusted.

(10)

Interactive Methods

They are used e f f e c t i v e l y if t h e p a r t i a l model of t h e system i s known a n d p r e f e r e n c e s a n d r e l a t i o n s between d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a are a n a l p e d a n d i n t e r a c t i v e - ly modified [B, 9, 10 ].

I t should be noted t h a t p r a c t i c a l application of most of t h e a b o v e d e s c r i b e d methods f o r i l l - s t r u c t u r e d problems h a s r a t h e r n o t b e e n hopeful. One of t h e r e a s o n i s t h a t e x p e r t s c a n n o t a s s i g n r e l i a b l e numerical e s t i m a t e s ( r a t i n g s ) f o r a l t e r n a - t i v e s b y a lot of c r i t e r i a at o n c e without analysing t h e opinions of o t h e r ex- p e r t s a n d without some discussions.

Summerizing t h e b r i e f overview of t h e existing methods, having i n mind t o c h o o s e t h e b e s t f o r t h e problem of technology assessments, i t i s c l e a r t h a t to ob- t a i n r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s f o r a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d of time i t i s n e c e s s a r y to combine a d v a n t a g e s of d i f f e r e n t methods i n t o one p r o c e d u r e .

In o u r a p p r o a c h w e combined some elements of t h e d i r e c t method of con- s t r u c t i n g t h e g e n e r a l i z e d utility function as a combination of weighed r a t i n g s b y e a c h c r i t e r i o n f o r a l l a l t e r n a t i v e s with i n t e r a c t i v e computerized v e r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e . During t h i s p r o c e d u r e , initial assignments of e x p e r t s are a v e r a g e d . A s p e c i a l m e a s u r e

-

Mean S q u a r e Deviation

-

i s i n s e r t e d t o c l a r i f y t h e d i s a g r e e - ments between e x p e r t s . Pairwise comparison i s used f o r t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n of t h e initial e x p e r t assignments.

In t h i s p a p e r w e p r e s e n t t h e initial p r i n c i p l e s (Section 2), a s s e s s m e n t pro- c e d u r e (Section 3) and s t r u c t u r e of t h e system (Section 4 ) . Some programming as- p e c t s are d e s c r i b e d in S e c t i o n 5. TAS now i s being implemented f o r t h e assessment of e n e r g y technologies. H e r e we p r e s e n t I n t e r a c t i v e Information System f o r Tech- nology Assessments as a t o o l f o r providing full-scale information to t h e policy mak- e r to analyze t h e i n t e r n a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e in e n e r g y systems. I t should b e pointed o u t t h a t t h i s f i r s t v e r s i o n of TAS d o e s n o t claim

to

p r o v i d e him with t h e decision r u l e to c h o o s e t h e p a r t i c u l a r technology f o r h i s p u r p o s e s b u t m o r e to stimulate h i s decision p r o c e s s o n t h e b a s i s of v a r y i n g opinions, including national a n d p e r s o n a l motivations, d i s a g r e e m e n t f e a t u r e s a n d some a v e r a g e s . I t i s u p to the policy mak- e r to make a decision a f t e r analyzing t h e full set of information s t o r e d i n TAS.

Based on t h e e x p e r i e n c e of t h e case s t u d y o n e n e r g y technology assessments, i t i s planned, as a s e c o n d s t e p , to t u r n to formulating decision algorithms.

R e f e r i n g

to

t h e a b o v e mentioned difficulties to formulate t h e decision r u l e b a s e d o n e x p e r t opinions c o n c e r n i n g t h e f i n a l c h o i c e of technologies f o r a p a r t i c u l a r u s e r , i t becomes clear t h a t t h e problem should b e divided at least i n t o two s t a g e s .

(11)

The f i r s t v e r s i o n of t h e technology assessments system c a n b e c o n s t r u c t e d taking i n t o a c c o u n t human f a c t o r s of decision making a n d some preliminary as- sumptions a b o u t t h e p r o c e s s of calculating t h e o u t p u t merits.

2. MAIN PRINClPLES

OF TAS

The main p r i n c i p l e s of TAS are p r e s e n t e d in Table 2.

Table 2. Main p r i n c i p l e s of TAS.

1. Openess

TAS i s c o n s t r u c t e d of s e v e r a l u n i v e r s a l modules with a s t a n d a r d i n t e r f a c e . I t allows to a d d a n d modify t h e system f o r o t h e r a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h e s a m e kind.

2. Flexibility

I t i s r a t h e r simple to r e f o r m u l a t e t h e main problem, l i s t of technologies a n d cri- t e r i a , to c h a n g e weights of c r i t e r i a a n d t h e i r s c a l e , to r e f o r m t h e o u t p u t cal- culations, forms of information r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , etc.

3. User-friendliness

After t h e preliminary professional adjustments t h e system c a n b e used by a non-professional programming u s e r . I t includes a n h i e r a r c h i c a l HELP-system.

4. D a t a p r o c e s s i n g

The d a t a p r o c e s s o r c o n s i s t s of a number of small BASIC p r o g r a m s t h a t c a n b e e a s i l y e d i t e d f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r u s e r .

5. G r a p h i c s

A s p e c i a l g r a p h i c s subsystem i s provided to show a n y kind of d a t a s t o r e d in In- t r o d u c t o r y , R e s u l t a n t a n d Verification Data Bases.

6. Modes of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e o u t p u t f i g u r e s

The c r i t e r i a s c a l e c o n s i s t s of s e v e r a l a n s w e r s l e v e l s (L): 0 - none, 1

-

b a d , 2

-

p o o r , 3

-

f a i r , 4

-

good, 5

-

e x c e l l e n t . They c a n b e i n t e r p r e t e d in t w o modes.

A) Numerical in which e a c h l e v e l i s assigned a r a t i n g (R): R

=

N

*

L, where

N

i s a

s c a l e c o e f f i c i e n t which c a n b e v a r i e d during t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e r e s u l t s .

B) Non-numerical in which p e r c e n t a g e of a l l answer levels in t h e o u t p u t d a t a i s c a l c u l a t e d .

7. Verification of assignments

A s p e c i a l susbsystem i s developed to v e r i f y t h e assignments of e x p e r t s by t h e pairwise comparison of t h o s e of a given e x p e r t , o t h e r e x p e r t s a n d a v e r a g e s . 8. Disagreements analysis

A d i s a g r e e m e n t f a c t o r i s i n t r o d u c e d as a mean s q u a r e deviation of assign- ments from a v e r a g e s to c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n opinions.

9. Modification of c r i t e r i a

A s p e c i a l p r o c e d u r e i s s u g g e s t e d to r e c o n s i d e r t h e l i s t of c r i t e r i a a n d to r e d u c e t h e i r number o n t h e b a s i s of t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e initial assignments a n d r e s u l t a n t

(12)

d a t a analysis.

10. E x p e r t s g r o u p analysis

In o r d e r to t a k e i n t o account t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between motivations of various ex- p e r t g r o u p s a s p e c i a l filtering subsystem c a n s e l e c t and show t h e asignments of d i f f e r e n t e x p e r t groups (country, specialization, etc .).

11. C r i t e r i a g r o u p analysis

A l l c r i t e r i a are grouped and a v e r a g e d output p a r a m e t e r s are calculated f o r e a c h g r o u p relying more on t h e enlarged estimates t h a n on detailed analysis of a l a r g e number of c r i t e r i a .

3. ASSESSMENT

PROCEDURE

Taking into account t h e above said, t h e assessment p r o c e d u r e c a n b e divided i n t o d i f f e r e n t stages.

Choice of Alternutivea

In m o s t cases altenatives t o b e assessed are specified by t h e g r o u p of cus- t o m e r s and DM who initiate t h e assessment p r o c e d u r e . Alternatives

-

e n e r g y technologies to b e assessed are listed in Table 3. Their illustrative definition i s p r e s e n t e d in Appendix 2.

Table 3. List of technologies

1. Lurgi P r e s s u r e Coal Gasification 2. Hydropymlysis f o r coal conversion

3. Coal conversion by s u p e r c r i t i c a l e x t r a c t i o n

4 . Combined c y c l e power s t a t i o n with integrated coal gasification 5. High t e m p e r a t u r e g a s cooled reactors

6. Gas t u r b i n e s

7 . 'SASOL1'-type coal lfquifaction plant

8. Low p r e s s u r e n a t u r a l g a s to methanol conversion 9. Geothermal e n e r g y

10. E l e c t r o t h e r m a l hydrogen

11. High efficiency membrane complex methane production 12. S u p e r h e a t pump e n e r g y accumulation

13. Fuel cell power plant

1 4 . Gasification in molten i r o n bath

(13)

I t should b e pointed o u t t h a t t h e a b o v e mentioned technologies a n d e n e r g y systems based o n t h e i r use h a v e a l r e a d y showed good o p e r a t i n g q u a l i t i e s (like t h e SASOL p l a n t , Lurgi P r e s s u r e Coal Gasification). So t h e i r main c a p a b i l i t i e s a n d f e a t u r e s are r a t h e r to b e a s s e s s e d by e x p e r t s . A t t h e same time some of t h e i r p e r f o r m a n c e i m p a c t s c a n n o t b e e a s i l y estimated by q u a n t a t i v e methods. Another f a c t o r t h a t influences t h e i r c h o i c e f o r t h e assessment i s t h e i r i n c r e a s i n g usage in d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s , e a c h having i t s own e x p e r i e n c e , t r a d i t i o n s a n d conditions.

And t h e main aim of t h e assessment p r o c e d u r e i s to c l a r i f y t h e potential p r e f e r e n c e s f o r e a c h of t h e teachnologies in d i f f e r e n t c o u n t r i e s . IIASA seems t h e p r o p e r p l a c e f o r s u c h an i n t e r n a t i o n a l analysis of e n e r g y technologies.

C h o i c e o f the Set of C r i t e r i a

A s a r u l e t h e set of c r i t e r i a f o r t h e e x p e r t analysis i s c h o o s e n o n t h e b a s i s of t h e e x p e r i a n c e of DM engaged in t h i s a c t i v i t i e s a n d works of s c i e n t i s t s in t h e field. I t is n a t u r a l t h a t DM who Launched t h e assessment p r o c e d u r e f i r s t would l i k e to h a v e much more c r i t e r i a t h a n n e c e s s a r y

-

not to f o r g e t a n y of t h e a s p e c t s of t h e problem. I t o f t e n l e a d s to a r a t h e r big set of c r i t e r i a which c a n n o t b e handled p r o p e r l y by human e x p e r t s . S p e c i a l p r o c e d u r e s are a r r a n g e d to de- crease t h e initial number of c r i t e r i a to make t h e r e s u l t s m o r e r e l i a b l e a n d useful.

In o u r case 23 c r i t e r i a w e r e initially c h o s e n ( s e e Table 4).

Table 4. List of c r i t e r i a .

1. R&D Time Requirement 2. Costs of R&D

3. P r o b a b i l i t y of R&D S u c c e s s

4. Capability of I n d u s t r i a l M a n u f a c t u r e r 5. Availability of Material a n d R e s o u r c e s 6. Institutional B a r r i e r s

7. S o c i a l Acceptability 8. Level of Pollution 9. Flexibility of Siting

10. Waste Handling a n d Disposal 11. Availability of Cleaning 12. Consequences of Accident 13. S a f e t y C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s

14. Adaptability t o Types a n d S o u r c e s of Fuel 15. Outage R a t e

16. Risk of High Damage 17. Capital Cost

18. Construction P e r i o d

19. Efficiency of E n e r g y a n d R e s o u r c e s Utilization 20. Multiproducts Availability

(14)

21. 0 &

M

Requirements

22. Commercial Acceptability of P r o d u c t

23. Availability a n d P r i c e s of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s

These c r i t e r i a c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e possibilities f o r t h e s u c c e s s f u l develop- ment of e n e r g y technologies, i t s economic p r o p e r t i e s a n d f a c t o r s r e l a t e d to s a f e t y , flexibility a n d environmental consequences. T h e i r l i s t claims on comprising a l l sorts of p a r a m e t e r s n e c e s s a r y

to

e s t i m a t e t h e i r development.

The q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o n s i s t s of a number of t a b l e s , e a c h of them having dif- f e r e n t questions c o n c e r n i n g v a r i o u s a s p e c t s of a l l technologies u n d e r c o n s i d e r a - tion, weights of t h e e v a l u a t i o n c r i t e r i a , a n d r a t i n g s f o r e a c h technology a n d c r i t e r i o n .

As mentioned a b o v e , t h e t r a d i t i o n a l economic a p p r o a c h i s useful f o r well- developed technologies, where t h e quality of input d a t a i s good. F o r new technolo- g i e s , especially at t h e s t a g e of r e s e a r c h development, t h e r e are many i s s u e s beyond t h e question of c a p i t a l a n d o p e r a t i n g c o s t s . Among them are s o c i a l a c c e p - tability, level of pollution, availability of n e c e s s a r y m a t e r i a l s a n d r e s o u r c e s , cost a n d time r e q u i r e d f o r R&D, a n d many o t h e r s .

In o r d e r to h a v e b e t t e r measurements f o r t h e a s s e s s m e n t of new e n e r g y tech- nologies a t IIASA, a method, b a s e d o n t h e e x p e r t ' s a n a l y s i s of t h e many c r i t e r i a , w a s developed by many a u t h o r s of v a r i o u s c o u n t r i e s . Two v e r y similar a p p r o a c h e s w e r e developed by t h e Western IES Consortium [ll] a n d by Russian s c i e n t i s t s [lZ, 131. A set of evaluation c r i t e r i a w a s p r o p o s e d , including 2 3 v a r i a b l e s c o n c e r n e d with major f a c t o r s of technology development a n d implementation. All c r i t e r i a are divided i n t o f o u r g r o u p s (Figure 1 ) :

G r o u p I c o n t a i n s c r i t e r i a to assess possibilities of t h e s u c c e s s f u l develop- ment of a technology up to t h e s t a g e of a pilot i n d u s t r i a l plant.

Among t h e c r i t e r i a are two more g e n e r a l t h a n t h e o t h e r s in t h e g r o u p . They a p p l y to a p p l i c a t i o n s of t h e technology of s c a l e . G r o u p I1 includes environmental consequences of t h e technology a s s e s s e d

and possibilities of management of t h e environmental e f f e c t .

G r o u p I11 is dealing with m a t t e r s of s a f e t y , r e l i a b i l i t y a n d technological flexibility of a technology.

Group IV includes c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are needed to assess economic p r o - p e r t i e s of a technology a n d t h e e x p e c t e d economical s i t u a t i o n when t h e technology i s implemented.

(15)

Assignment of C r i t e r i a Weighb

The weights f o r t h e given c r i t e r i a c a n b e o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e e x p e r t s or b y means of s p e c i a l mathematical p r o c e d u r e s [1,2]. W e c o n s i d e r t h e weights f o r t h e c r i t e r i a e q u a l f o r a l l technologies b e c a u s e t h e y are d e p e n d e n t mainly o n political, s o c i a l , economic, a n d o t h e r conditions a n d not on t h e p a r t i c u l a r t y p e of technolo- BY-

M g n m e n t of R a t i n g s

S e v e r a l technologies are usually s e l e c t e d a n d b r i e f e d i n t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e to- g e t h e r with t h e c r i t e r i a c h o s e n . F i r s t , e a c h e x p e r t must e s t i m a t e t h e weights of t h e c r i t e r i a a n d t h e n p u t down t h e r a t i n g s f o r e a c h technology b y e a c h c r i t e r i o n . These r a t i n g s are divided i n t o five levels. E a c h l e v e l c a n b e r e p r e s e n t e d in t w o d i f f e r e n t forms: v e r b a l conclusions ( f o r example, e x c e l l e n t , good, f a i r , p o o r , b a d ) a n d numerical v a l u e s ( f o r example: 5, 4 , 3, 2, 1

-

f i v e being t h e h i g h e s t r a n k i n g ) . All t h e r a t i n g s are multiplied by c o r r e s p o n d i n g v a l u e s of weighing c o e f f i c i e n t s to form a score f o r e a c h technology b y e a c h c r i t e r i o n a n d t h e total (sum) score of e a c h technology. F o r d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s t h e decision m a k e r c a n h a v e e i . t h e r t h e r e s u l t a n t p e r c e n t a g e of v a r i o u s l e v e l s of v e r b a l conclusions or numerical estima- tions of means a n d o t h e r s t a t i s t i c a l v a l u e s of r e s u l t a n t p a r a m e t e r s f o r e a c h tech- nolog y

.

O u t p u t Figures

E a c h technology j is e v a l u a t e d by e x p e r t k with c r i t e r i o n

C,,

w h e r e j

=

1 ,... m, k = 1,

...

L , i = 1

,...

n. E a c h c r i t e r i o n h a s i t s own weight c o e f f i c i e n t W1 as- signed by e a c h e x p e r t . On t h e b a s i s of t h e s e estimations some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o u t p u t v a l u e s are c a l c u l a t e d .

Score SIJk i s c a l c u l a t e d as

w h e r e Rllk i s t h e r a t i n g f o r jth technology a n d ith c r i t e r i o n a s s i g n e d by kth e x p e r t

Average weight c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r c r i t e r i o n : C w , k k

AW,

= -

L

a n d mean s q u a r e d e v i a t i o n s of weight coefficients:

(16)

MSDA, =

L

The a v e r a g e score a n d mean s q u a r e deviation are c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h t e c h - nology a n d e a c h c r i t e r i o n :

A s e p a r a t e t a b l e p r e s e n t s t h e t o t a l scores f o r e a c h technology e v a l u a t e d by e a c h e x p e r t :

A final t a b l e c o n t a i n s i n t e g r a t e d e s t i m a t e s of a l l t h e technologies 1, by a v e r a g i n g t h e t o t a l s c o r e s f o r e a c h technology assigned by e a c h e x p e r t :

Deviation of e x p e r t s opinions are estimated by :

Denote r

-

t h e index of a c r i t e r i a g r o u p : r

=

l,..s, where s

-

number of g r o u p s (in o u r case s

=

4).

The a v e r a g e s c o r e a n d MSD are c a l c u l a t e d f o r e a c h e x p e r t a n d e a c h technolo- g y f o r e a c h c r i t e r i a g r o u p

w h e r e i,is a number of c r i t e r i a i n e a c h g r o u p (xi,=i).

(17)

All t h e o u t p u t p a r a m e t e r s d e s c r i b e d a b o v e form t h e Numerical Data Base as a number of t a b l e s .

V e r i f i c a t i o n P r o c e d u r e

Based on t h e r e s u l t s of initial e x p e r t assignments t h i s p r o c e d u r e includes t h e d e t a i l e d analy-sis of a l l c r i t e r i a divided i n t o d i f f e r e n t g r o u p s - to c l e r i f y t h e i r c o n t r a d i c t i v e n e s s a n d sameness. This will make i t possible to d e c r e a s e t h e i r number a n d to l e a v e t h o s e t h a t are most i m p o r t a n t f o r W e c o n c r e t e assess- ment p r o c e d u r e . Afterwards a l l e x p e r t s c a n o b s e r v e t h e obtained r e s u l t s a n d c o m p a r e t h e i r e s t i m a t e s with a v e r a g e values taking i n t o a c c o u n t t h e d i s a g r e e m e n t f a c t o r s (MSD). I t will a l l o w to modify t h e i r initial assignments or

-

if t h e y d o not a g r e e with o t h e r opinions

-

to comment t h e i r decisions.

A t t h e final s t a g e a l l information beginning with t h e initial o u t p u t d a t a to t h e v e r i f i e d o n e i s p r e s e n t e d f o r a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s with a l l comments a n d g r a p h i c a l im- a g e s . I t will allow n o t only to h a v e a v a r a g e d a b s t r a c t i v e r e s u l t s b u t to d e s c r i b e d i f f e r e n c e s in opinions b a s e d on national, p r o f e s s i o n a l and o t h e r f a c t o r s . In t h i s case t h e r e s u l t s of t h e a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e c a n b e used by d i f f e r e n t national and s o c i a l g r o u p s a n d a l l f o r e c a s t s will b e more r e l i a b l e .

C r i t e r i a Modification

I t i s well known t h a t if a n e x p e r t i s t o d e a l with a lot of c r i t e r i a h i s estima- tions are n o t r e l i a b l e ( s e e Table 1 ) . That's why a s p e c i a l p r o c e d u r e i s implemented to r e d u c e t h e i r initial number by grouping them.

F o r t h i s p u r p o s e a l l c a l c u l a t e d scores f o r c r i t e r i a g r o u p s (based o n assign- ments f o r t h e full set of c r i t e r i a ) are compared with t h e assignments made f o r t h e c r i t e r i a g r o u p s ( s e e Appendix 1 ) . Verifying t h e s e t w o r e s u l t s will make i t possible to u s e only g r o u p c r i t e r i a assignments in t h e f u t u r e .

4.

GENERAL

STRUCTURE OF

TAS

The g e n e r a l s t r u c t u r e of TAS is shown in F i g u r e 2. I t c o n s i s t s of t h e In- t r o d u c t o r y Data B a s e , which stores a l l t h e information t a k e n by t h e question- n a i r e f r o m t h e e x p e r t s , t h e I m p o r t p r o g r a m , which b r i n g s t h i s information to t h e Data P r o c e s s o r , The Data P r o c e s s o r , including d i f f e r e n t f i l t e r s a n d a n a l y z e r s to make a l l d a t a t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s r e p r e s e n t i n g i t in t h e most convenient way, a n d t h e E z p o r t p r o g r a m , which p u t s t h e p r o c e s s e d d a t a i n t o t h e R e s u L t a n t D a t a Base.

(18)

TAS h a s a h i e r a r c h i c a l menu system. When t h e u s e r e n t e r s TAS h e watches t h e Main Menu o n the s c r e e n (Figure 3) with a l l n e c e s s a r y positions beginning with t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n of e x p e r t s a n d t h e c h o i c e of t h e c r i t e r i a u p to some editing positions

-

to a d j u s t TAS p a c k a g e s f o r t h e n e e d s of t h e p a r t i c u l a r u s e r .

F i r s t position of t h e Main Menu is to e n t e r E x p e r t s D a t a Base (Figure 4 )

-

to i n t r o d u c e or c h a n g e a l l t h e information a b o u t t h e e x p e r t s of t h e a s s e s s m e n t p r o c e d u r e . The n e x t s t e p i s to assign weights f o r t h e given c r i t e r i a . When o n e e n t e r s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e position of t h e Main Menu h e finds t h e Submenu t h a t al- lows to formulate t h e l i s t of c r i t e r i a . Afterwards a s p e c i a l window a p p e a r s i n which e a c h e x p e r t c a n manipulate t h e values of t h e c r i t e r i a weights while t h e i r normalization (by t h e r u l e t h a t t h e i r sum i s equal to 1 0 0 ) i s being done au- tomatically.

S p e c i a l e x p o r t p r o c e d u r e i n t r o d u c e s information a b o u t e x p e r t s a n d c h o s e n values of t h e c r i t e r i a weightv to t h e I n t r o d u c t o r y Data Base (IDB) (Figure 5). A f t e r t h e a n a l y s i s of t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e r a t i n g s f o r e a c h e x p e r t , technol- ogy a n d c r i t e r i o n are i n t r o d u c e d to IDB to s e r v e as a b a s i s f o r f u r t h e r calcula- tions. Or i t c a n b e done d i r e c t l y i n IDB.

The n e x t t w o positions of t h e Main Menu allow to p r o c e s s a l l i n t r o d u c t o r y d a t a a n d to e x p o r t t h e o u t p u t d a t a to t h e Resultant Data Bases (Numerical and Non- numerical).

When t h e u s e r e n t e r s t h e Numerical R e s u l t a n t Data Base h e c a n see t h e NRDB Submenu a n d c a n o b s e r v e a l l t h e o u t p u t f i g u r e s o n t h e s c r e e n as t a b l e s or g r a p h s of d i f f e r e n t kinds a n d c a n h a v e them p r i n t e d o u t (Figures 6-13). This b a s e includes a s e p a r a t e f r a m e f o r Averages a n d MSD of weights a n d scores f o r e a c h technology, a f r a m e with c a l c u l a t e d scores f o r g r o u p s of c r i t e r i a a n d a f r a m e with i n t e g r a t e d r e s u l t s f o r e a c h of t h e e x p e r t s a n d technologies i n t e g r a t e d euti- mates a v e r a g e d by a l l e x p e r t s .

The Non-numerical Resultant Data Base c o n s i s t s of a number of f r a m e s . E a c h f r a m e r e p r e s e n t s t h e p e r c e n t a g e of d i f f e r e n t a n s w e r l e v e l s f o r e a c h technology (Figure 14).

E n t e r i n g t h e 'Verification' position of t h e Main Menu a f t e r pointing t h e technology-number a n d e x p e r t - n u m b e r f o r t h e comparison of a v e r a g e d o u t p u t m e r i t s , a l l t h e a p p r o p r i a t e information i s t a k e n from IDB a n d NRDB a n d i n t r o d u c e d to t h e Verification D a t a Base 1 (VDB1) (Figure 1 5 ) .

(19)

Taking i n t o a c c o u n t t h e problems of t h e use of a big ammount c r i t e r i a t h a t c o n t r a d i c t s sometimes with human e x p e r t f a c t o r s a n o t h e r v e r i f i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e w a s s u g g e s t e d to d e a l with t h e o u t p u t s connected with t h e c r i t e r i a g r o u p s . To c h e c k t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e initial. assignments with e a c h of 23 c r i t e r i a , a s e p a r a t e position i s provided in t h e q u e s t i o n n a i r e in which t h e e x p e r t s are to as- sign weights a n d r a t i n g s f o r e a c h technology by t h e f o u r mentioned c r i t e r i a g r o u p s . This information i s c o m p a r e d with o u t p u t g r o u p scores c a l c u l a t e d o n t h e b a s i s of initial scores f o r t h e 23 c r i t e r i a (in VDB2).

5.

SOME

PROG-G ASPECTS

TAS i s based o n d i f f e r e n t main modules t h a t were i n t e g r a t e d to s o l v e tech- nology a s s e s s m e n t problems. Some of t h e modules w e r e worked o u t i n t h e Com- puting C e n t r e of t h e USSR Academy of Sciences. They include SPECTR

-

a d a t a o r i e n t e d b a s e system by which a l l mentioned d a t a b a s e s w e r e built; SPOUT a n d SPIN

-

p r o g r a m s f o r importing a n d e x p o r t i n g f i l e s f r o m / t o d a t a b a s e s to/from calculation a n d analysing p r o g r a m s ; p r o g r a m s t h a t are i n t e g r a t e d in Data Processor and s e r v e as means f o r t h e a p p r o p r i a t e d a t a transforma- tion; FILTERS

-

to make national a n d p r o f e s s i o n a l samples from a l l f r a m e s of t h e Resultant Data Base; a n d LEXICON

-

f i l e s e d i t o r . Some additional p a c k a g e s (DG a n d CHART) are used to r e p r e s e n t information o n t h e s c r e e n (as g r a p h i c s and plots) a n d to h a v e i t p r i n t e d . All menus of TAS w e r e built using module DLG t h a t p r o v i d e s e a s y modification of menu positions a n d i s b a s e d o n t h e c a l l of DOS e x e c u t a b l e p a c k a g e s (position Dialogue S c e n a r i o in t h e Main Menu c a l l s e d i t o r in which a l l menus c a n b e changed if n e c e s s a r y ) . File TAS.DOC c o n t a i n s t h e full d e s c r i p t i o n of TAS. One c a n a l s o g e t some i n s t r u c t i o n s f o r using TAS by means of HELP f a c i l i t i e s a n d file TAS.CTL.

P r o g r a m s f o r Data Processor are w r i t t e n o n BASIC. T h e r e f o r e , t h e y c a n b e e a s i l y modified by t h e u s e r f o r h i s own p u r p o s e s a n d f o r t h e given s t r u c t u r e s of t h e R e s u l t a n t Data Bases. S e p a r a t e position of t h e Main Menu allows to e n t e r GWBASIC e d i t o r .

TAS i s b a s e d on t h e use of IBM-type p e r s o n a l c o m p u t e r s with t h e h a r d disk c o l o u r display a n d RAM n o l e s s t h a n 512k. I t i s provided with developed HELP fa- c i l i t i e s a n d c a n b e used e v e n by non-specialists in c o m p u t e r programming.

In case of n e c e s s a r y modifications of t h e forms of d a t a b a s e s , f i l t e r s , o r some o t h e r s u p p l e m e n t a r y p r o g r a m s i n TAS, consultations of professional p r o - g r a m m e r s will p r o b a b l y be neadad to h e l p t h e u s e r while t h e normal o p e r a t i o n of TAS i s a r a t h e r simple p r o c e d u r e .

(20)

Supplied with the installation procedure TAS requires no l e s s than 3Mbt of the hard disk space.

(21)

REFERENCES

1. L a r i c h e v O.I., Zuev Y .A., Gnedenko L.S. Method Z a p r o s to s o l v e i l l - s t r u c t u r e d c h o i c e problems upon many c r i t e r i a . M o s c o w , VNIISI, 1979.

2. V.Yadov. Sociological r e s e a r c h . Moscow, Nauka, 1972.

3. B e r r y D.C, B r o a d b e n t D.E. E x p e r t systems a n d t h e man-machine i n t e r f a c e . Part 2: The u s e r i n t e r f a c e . E x p e r t systems 1987, v.4, No.1.

4. Keeney R., Raiffa H. Decision with multiple objectives: p r e f e r e n c e s a n d t r a d e - offs. N.Y., Wiley, 1976.

5. Lewandowski A., Johnson S., Wierzbicki A. A p r o t o t y p e s e l e c t i o n committee de- cision a n a l y s i s a n d s u p p o r t system, SCDAS: T h e o r e t i c a l b a c k g r o u n d a n d com- p u t e r implementation. P r e p r i n t s of 7-th I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o n Multicri- t e r i a Decision Making. Kyoto, J a p a n , August 18-22, 1986.

6 . Zionts S., Wallenius J . R e c e n t developments i n our a p p r o a c h to multicri- t e r i a decision making. In; I n t e r a c t i v e Decision A n a l p i s . Springer-Verlag , 1984.

7. Mac Crimon

K.R.,

Sin I.K. Making trade-off. Decision S c i e n c e s , 1974, n.5.

8. A.K.Alabyan, V.M. Afanasiev. Feasible Domain method a n d i n t e r a c t i v e system f o r t h e design a n d c o n t r o l of dynamic m u l t i c r i t e r i a systems. P r e p r i n t s of 7-th I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e o n Multicriteria Decision Making. Kyoto, J a p a n , August 18

-

22, 1986.

9 . H.Nakayama, Y .Sawaragi

.

Satisficing trade-off method f o r multiob jective pro- gramming. Jn : " I n t e r a c t i v e Decision Analysis.

"

Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.

1 0 . M.Grauer. A.Lewandowski, A. Wierzbicki. DIDASS

-

t h e o r y , implementation a n d e x p e r i e n c e . In : "Interactive Decision Analysis". S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g , Berlin, 1984.

1.1. k r s e s s m e n t s a n d measurements f o r e n e r g y c o n v e r s i o n systemr. IES Consor- tium P a p e r , Sweden, S e p t e m b e r 1986.

1 2 . Okorokov V.R. Management of t h e e l e c t r i c a l power Systems, Leningrad State Univ., 1976.

1 3 . Okorokov V.R., Shavelev, e d s . Complex a n a l y s i s of t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s of techn- i c a l decisions i n e n e r g e t i c s . Leningrad, E n e r g y , 1985.

(22)

EVALUATION CRITERIA

F i g u r e 1. Groups o f C r i t e r i a .

I M E R A C T M SYSTEM FOR TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS GROUP 1

Succe8dul development

1

TECHNOLOGIES SPECIFICATION GROUP 2

Environmental contequances

F i g u r e

2.

S t r u c t u r e o f TAS.

-

E X E M S CRITERIA FORMULATION GROUP 3

Wdy, rellablllty and flexlblllty

,

GROUP 4 Economlc

propertlet

I 1

RATINGS ASSIGNMENT WEIGHTS ASSIGNMENT

4

-

INTRODUCTORY DATA BASE

A

I

DATA PROCESSING

CRITERIA MODIFICATION

1,

-

VERIFICATION

b

DATA BASE

I

RESULTANT DATA BASES

1 1'

(23)

I I

I E X P E R T S I N T R O D U C T I O N I

I W E I G H T S ASSIGNMENT I

I

INTRODUCTORY D A T A BASE ( I D B ) 1 I N U M E R I C A L D A T A PROCESSING

I

INON-NUMEHICRL DATA PROCESSING I

l R E S U L T A N T DATA B A S E ( N u m e r i c a l ) I l R E S U L T A N T D A T A B A S E ( N o n - n u m e r i c a l ) I

I V E R I F I C A T I O N I

I D I A L O G U E SCENAR I

O

I

I D A T A PROCESSOR E D I T I N G I

I I

F i g u r e 3. Main Menu.

(24)
(25)

. - - -

t..j r.4 1.3

* *

I..:# e M t.:!

*

I..: P"j !..:I M pi P<I t..:~ I..:!

. - - -

b-l e ti3 ti3 e

*

e P.7 iJ3 b3 e ti3 ti3 e e L3 ti? ti3

. - - -

e e e Pi I.? I..> Pi ct ct P:I

*

Pi

*

P I ct I.-:! I..? e

. - - -

e

ti3

*

ti3 e

*

b3 ti3 b3 e ti3 e e e I.? ti3 ti3

*

. - - -

p:1 e ?..I

*

e -I

* *

e p:1

*

1p: I.? Xl r.i

* *

I..:!

. - - -

Kl r.1 t..:i I.:l

*

pi

* * * * *

:1 t. t..:1

*

!..:I I..:! I..? 1::r

(26)

- - -

b I::! 4 b [E [E Q . - I O

. . .

.-I 8 1.7

- - -

[E +

*

b b

[ E b - +

. . .

.-I 4 Fl

- - -

ti3 li3 Li3

. .

r.4

.

Q r4 '3

.-I .-I

- - -

L3 M

b b

00 b3 M

;c-';

.-I

- - -

in L 8 Z

. 4 4 L .4 f L - C rn . 4 .4

m n c l

It 3

4J

-

. ~t a-

c a r 0 0 U i L

.4 U

< c

Y

J 0

4J A .4 6 4

. 4 (U

c U >

C 0 (U

u m - l

- - -

4 b 00

- - -

. 4 i- G

L E

a i o It

$ 4

a

L!

. Z f

L 4 J

.

.4 4 ill .4 Oi f

-

6 1

U ic:

n Y

Z . ill 0 in

ill

9 /

U L

i

i~

H I

(27)
(28)
(29)

t..:1 P4

-

iD il3 t:i

-

!?

I' I

t..:1

- g

'J I.':!

-

b3 I3 N

-

b3

r.4

I..?

-

t..:1 t-.:1 t..:1

-

'-' a

9 *:-I

8 .

-

&

:

; J

-

0' d- 1:)

-

i..; d- 1.q

-

d- l..?

M I

# ..

-

a 'L'

t::i

!i?

-

z

W

- a

LC LC 3

-

>

>

0 4'

0 L C

4'

0

-

4

-

o L >

L O O

o n 4

- G O 0

+

0

(30)
(31)
(32)

a=, 4 r.4 I.?!

*

+ ~ 4 t - ? e 1 1 ? ~ b m @ + + 4 + +

I l l l l l l i l l t i l l

I-!-!-!-!-!-!-+!-!-!-!-!-!-

(33)

. . .

-

8-8 ,=, '2 ,2; *=a :2 '='

,>

,=, 2, :=, 2, sz. ,=, '3

:>

c.4 .A;! :'.i r.4 T.4 7.; r.4 i'.; .Fi 7.: t:;1

r.4

r.71 r., t:;1 r.4 4

+ *3 a c r a

. m M .,+ &j U)

5 C L L Us.d C 0 U in

+'

m

n

E 2

> c a

I t . d . 6 a!

(34)

- - -

n I J ~ 93 r-4 e ~3 KI e A ~3 r.4 m i13 pi ti;

b b 4 i e b b e "3 b r.1

* q

C.4 b3 N r.4

ICI t..:~

. . .

-Ir.4

*

m KI M

*

b I J ~ 9 H. ~4 e IJT N 4

@ N e @ 6 0 P f f i b 7 4 P 0 m b a b + @ 0

A 4 A pi 4 -I r.4 -I

.-I

1.3 ;.'>

- - -

1.7 I;,I::# r.4 i.3 p:{

*

b 9 a N ,=, q r.: '.! 4 : f: 4

A A

m D

O O f 4 c a c c ~ i '

Referenzen

ÄHNLICHE DOKUMENTE

• Artificial constraints induce also capital market disequilibrium. • Either capital market dis-equilibrium

A double flash geothermal power plant is build to provide electricity and district heating?. A schematic of the plant is shown in

Using electricity produced from fossil fuels, it depends on the efficiency of the plant, the COP of the heat pump and whether the power plant is connected to a district heating

1) The achieved renewables increase is about 387EJ in the world by subsidy scheme between the years 2000 and 2050, and its ratio to the total primary energy consumption for 50 years

 The total generated heat for space heating and domestic hot water preparation in kilowatt- hours (kWh), divided into the different heat sources for the heat pump:

d) Netzwerkinfrastrukturen nach den geltenden Vor- schriften, Normen und betrieblichen Vorgaben aufbauen, installieren, in Betrieb nehmen und prüfen, insbesondere durch

The residual load curve is defined as the difference between the system load and the intermittent electricity generation by wind and photovoltaic power plants (Load increase

CAD representation of the ro- tor of a radial compressor: The bladed impeller is at the front , which radially deflects the heat pump's gaseous working fluid (flowing in from