This dissertation contributes a framework for analysts and engineering managers to investigate and choose alternative analysis and selection methods based upon their problem and its context. It began as an investigation into the alternative analysis and selection methods used in military planning. The existing military methods were inconsistent, violated the decision science body of knowledge, and provided no guidance to the practitioner on matching methods to problems. These challenges made it necessary to conduct this investigation.
This research used a three-phase mixed methods approach. The first phase applied the general inductive method to the decision making body of knowledge to elicit an evaluation theme. The second phase used content analysis to identify evaluation criteria and satisficing to choose an evaluation framework structure. The completed framework is applied to the case of U.S. Army planning in phase three as a validation case study.
This investigation's results suggest that the proposed evaluation framework methodology is valid based upon the member checks and expert feedback on the case study. The research also contributes an expert-tested scalable collaborative online tool for alternative analysis and selection method research and selection. Finally, this dissertation recommends improvements for decision making in U.S. Army planning that have been validated by military planning and operations research experts.
","abstract_html":"<p>This dissertation contributes a framework for analysts and engineering managers to investigate and choose alternative analysis and selection methods based upon their problem and its context. It began as an investigation into the alternative analysis and selection methods used in military planning. The existing military methods were inconsistent, violated the decision science body of knowledge, and provided no guidance to the practitioner on matching methods to problems. These challenges made it necessary to conduct this investigation.</p> <p>This research used a three-phase mixed methods approach. The first phase applied the general inductive method to the decision making body of knowledge to elicit an evaluation theme. The second phase used content analysis to identify evaluation criteria and satisficing to choose an evaluation framework structure. The completed framework is applied to the case of U.S. Army planning in phase three as a validation case study.</p> <p>This investigation's results suggest that the proposed evaluation framework methodology is valid based upon the member checks and expert feedback on the case study. The research also contributes an expert-tested scalable collaborative online tool for alternative analysis and selection method research and selection. Finally, this dissertation recommends improvements for decision making in U.S. Army planning that have been validated by military planning and operations research experts.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Holzgrefe, James Paul Lewis"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Engineering Management & Systems Engineering","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Patrick T. Hester","Adrian Gheorghe","C. Ariel Pinto","Robert F. Larsen"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-07-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2015-07-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:25Z","subjects":["Alternative analysis","Army","Decision making","MADM","MDMP","Military planning","Business Administration, Management, and Operations","Military and Veterans Studies","Operational Research"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781339126838"],"render_values":[{"text":"9781339126838","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/emse_etds/88","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Patrick T. Hester","Adrian Gheorghe","C. Ariel Pinto","Robert F. Larsen"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Holzgrefe, James Paul Lewis"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-03-15T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Engineering Management & Systems Engineering"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Alternative analysis","Army","Decision making","MADM","MDMP","Military planning","Business Administration, Management, and Operations","Military and Veterans Studies","Operational Research"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781339126838","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/emse_etds/88"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This dissertation contributes a framework for analysts and engineering managers to investigate and choose alternative analysis and selection methods based upon their problem and its context. It began as an investigation into the alternative analysis and selection methods used in military planning. The existing military methods were inconsistent, violated the decision science body of knowledge, and provided no guidance to the practitioner on matching methods to problems. These challenges made it necessary to conduct this investigation.
This research used a three-phase mixed methods approach. The first phase applied the general inductive method to the decision making body of knowledge to elicit an evaluation theme. The second phase used content analysis to identify evaluation criteria and satisficing to choose an evaluation framework structure. The completed framework is applied to the case of U.S. Army planning in phase three as a validation case study.
This investigation's results suggest that the proposed evaluation framework methodology is valid based upon the member checks and expert feedback on the case study. The research also contributes an expert-tested scalable collaborative online tool for alternative analysis and selection method research and selection. Finally, this dissertation recommends improvements for decision making in U.S. Army planning that have been validated by military planning and operations research experts.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["A Framework to Simplify the Choice of Alternative Analysis and Selection Methods"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Patrick T. Hester","Adrian Gheorghe","C. Ariel Pinto","Robert F. Larsen"],"dc:creator":["Holzgrefe, James Paul Lewis"],"dc:date.available":["2019-03-15T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["This dissertation contributes a framework for analysts and engineering managers to investigate and choose alternative analysis and selection methods based upon their problem and its context. It began as an investigation into the alternative analysis and selection methods used in military planning. The existing military methods were inconsistent, violated the decision science body of knowledge, and provided no guidance to the practitioner on matching methods to problems. These challenges made it necessary to conduct this investigation.
This research used a three-phase mixed methods approach. The first phase applied the general inductive method to the decision making body of knowledge to elicit an evaluation theme. The second phase used content analysis to identify evaluation criteria and satisficing to choose an evaluation framework structure. The completed framework is applied to the case of U.S. Army planning in phase three as a validation case study.
This investigation's results suggest that the proposed evaluation framework methodology is valid based upon the member checks and expert feedback on the case study. The research also contributes an expert-tested scalable collaborative online tool for alternative analysis and selection method research and selection. Finally, this dissertation recommends improvements for decision making in U.S. Army planning that have been validated by military planning and operations research experts.
"],"dc:identifier":["9781339126838","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/emse_etds/88"],"dc:subject":["Alternative analysis","Army","Decision making","MADM","MDMP","Military planning","Business Administration, Management, and Operations","Military and Veterans Studies","Operational Research"],"dc:title":["A Framework to Simplify the Choice of Alternative Analysis and Selection Methods"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Engineering Management & Systems Engineering"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:25Z"}