©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making Chapter 6 Value and Risk Management: Multi-Attribute...
-
Upload
evelyn-whitehead -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
2
Transcript of ©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making Chapter 6 Value and Risk Management: Multi-Attribute...
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Chapter 6 Value and Risk Management:Multi-Attribute Utility Theory
Comparison of strengths and weaknessesEnhance Value to increase scoreManage Risk
Most of the chapter’s figures are included in the file.Instructor must decide how many and which examples to use.
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1: MAUT process - Analysis
2
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Steps in Analysis
Check for data errors Inputs Ranges and preferences
Analysis of uncertainty, strengths, and weaknesses
Robustness of optimal - weights change Value Added and Hybrid
Improve values of highly weighted objective Reduce risk
3
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.2: Objectives Hierarchy – High Ceiling Kitchen Fixtures
Amount of Light
0.274
Dimmable
0.055
Type of Light
0.205
Max Light Quality
0.534
Operating
0.219
Purchase
0.137
Min Cost
0.356
Change Bulbs
0.110
Min Hassle
0.110
Best Lighting System
1.000
4
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
High Ceiling Data: 20 bulbs
5
Bulb :
Amount of Light (Lumens
)Replace Bulbs
Dimmable Operating
Purchase Type of Light
65 Watt basic 620
10 or
more No 270 50
Incandescen
t
75 Watt basic 900 6 to 9 No 315 76
Incandescen
t
65 Fluorescent 750
5 or
fewer No 70 90 Fluorescent
75 Fluorescent
Dim 900
5 or
fewer Yes 80 160 Fluorescent
75 Halogen Dim 1020 6 to 9 Yes 315 150 Halogen
Replace Bulbs Type of Light
Category Utility Category Utility
10 or more 0 Fluorescent 0
6 to 9 0.5
Incandescen
t
.75
5 or fewer 1 Halogen 1
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Errors in Input – Check Ranking Results Graph
Symptom 1 – One line goes above 1 or below 0 Data input error in that alternative – too large or
too small added a zero or left off a zero Set range too narrow to include all values
Symptom 2 – All lines on one measure outside range Forgot to reset range on that measure. LDW uses
default range of 0 to 1. Symptom 3 – Ranking of all alternatives on a
measure seems upside down Most preferred and least preferred settings are
reversed.
6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.3: Ranking results graph for lighting system example – data input error (figure corrected from text)
Utility
1.000
0.000
Best Lighting System
Amount of
light
Operating
Type of light
Purchase
Change bulbs
Dimmable
65 watt basic75 watt basic
75 Halogen Dim65 Fluorescent
75 Fluorescent Dim
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.4: Wrong direction on operating cost measure – reversed Fluorescents should have best operating costs and not worst (near 0)
Utility
1.000
0.000Best Lighting SystemAmount of Light Operating Type of Light Purchase Change Bulbs Dimmable
75 Halogen Dim75 Fluorescent Dim
75 watt basic65 Fluorescent
65 watt basic
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
8
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.5: Results graph for lighting system example (figure corrected from text)
Utility
1.000
0.000Best lighting Max. quality Min. cost Min. hassle
75 Halogen Dim65 Fluorescent
75 Fluorescent Dim65 watt basic
75 watt basic
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.5: Results graph for lighting system example – ERROR in GRAPH - Replace
Utility
1.000
0.000Best Lighting Max. Quality Min. Cost Min. Hassle
75 Watt Fluoro Dim75 Watt Basic
65 Watt Fluoro65 Watt Basic
75 Halogen Dim
10
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.6: Objective (3) stacked bar results for lighting system example
Ranking for Best Lighting System Goal
Alternative
75 Halogen Dim
75 Fluorescent Dim
75 watt basic
65 Fluorescent
65 watt basic
Utility
0.618
0.584
0.542
0.526
0.359
Max Light Quality Min Cost Min Hassle
11
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.7: Measure (6) stacked bar results for lighting system
Ranking for Best Lighting System Goal
Alternative
75 Halogen Dim
75 Fluorescent Dim
75 watt basic
65 Fluorescent
65 watt basic
Utility
0.618
0.584
0.542
0.526
0.359
Amount of Light
Purchase
Operating
Change Bulbs
Type of Light
Dimmable
12
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.8: Pairwise comparison between the 75-watt halogen and equivalent fluorescent
Overall Utility for 75 Halogen Dim75 Fluorescent DimDifference
0.618 0.584 0.034
T otal DifferenceT ype of LightOperatingChange Bulbs Amount of LightPurchase
75 Fluorescent Dim 75 Halogen Dim
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
13
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.9: Sensitivity analysis for weight placed on Amount of Light => NOT sensitive
Utility
Percent of Weight on Amount of Light Measure
Best
Worst
0 100
75 Halogen Dim
75 Fluorescent Dim75 watt basic
65 Fluorescent65 watt basic
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
14
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.10: Sensitivity to weight placed on Type of Light Sensitive to decrease
Utility
Percent of Weight on Type of Light Measure
Best
Worst
0 100
75 Halogen Dim
75 Fluorescent Dim
75 watt basic65 Fluorescent
65 watt basic
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET 15
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.11: Sensitivity to weight placed on Operating Cost Sensitive to increase
Utility
Percent of Weight on Operating Measure
Best
Worst
0 100
75 Halogen Dim
75 Fluorescent Dim
75 watt basic
65 Fluorescent
65 watt basic
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
16
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
The Best Alternative So Far May NOT Be The Final Answer: Values
Enhance best alternative(s) or create better Hybrids through: Value Analysis & Management Enhance Best or 2nd beat Alternative
Identify a highly weighted but weak measure level in the best alternative(s).
Creatively identify a way to improve the alternative’s measure level and specify associated changes in other measure levels such as added cost.
Hybrid: combine two alternatives in a way that builds on the strengths of the best alternatives.
Evaluate the newly formed alternatives. 17
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Create a Lighting Hybrid
In best solution identify a weak measure with significant weight Operating cost - weight 0.22
Creative alternative: 50-50 High quality light where needed – half of
kitchen Fluorescent with lower cost where true
color quality does not matter
18
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.12: Ranking – Hybrid Lighting System: 50-50 split in kitchen – Reduce operating cost
Rankin for Best Lighting System Goal
Alternative
75 Halogen Hybrid75 Halogen Dim75 Fluorescent Dim75 Watt basic65 Fluorescent65 Watt basic
Utility
0.640 0.618 0.584 0.542 0.526 0.359
Max Light Quality Min Cost Min Hassle
19
Bulb Amount of Light
Change Bulbs
Dimmable
Operating Purchase
Type of Light
75 Fluorescent Dim 900
5 or fewer Yes 80 160 Fluorescent
75 Halogen Dim 1020 6 to 9 Yes 315 150 HalogenHybrid – 50-50 split 960 6 to 9 Yes 200 160
Halogen - Fl
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
The Best Alternative So Far May NOT Be The Final Answer: Values
Enhance best alternative(s) or create better Hybrids through: Value Analysis & Management Enhance Best or 2nd beat Alternative
Identify a highly weighted but weak measure level in the best alternative(s).
Creatively identify a way to improve the alternative’s measure level and specify associated changes in other measure levels such as added cost.
Hybrid: combine two alternatives in a way that builds on the strengths of the best alternatives.
Evaluate the newly formed alternatives. 20
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.13: Stacked bar ranking for kitchen remodeling example
Alternative
Build Rite
Quality Build
Cost Conscious
Utility
0.651
0.630
0.462
Max. Quality Min. Cost Min. Hassle
21
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Kitchen remodeler - weights
22
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Kitchen remodeler - Data
23Chapter 5
MeasureBuild Rite Quality Build Cost
ConsciousTotal labor cost $34,000 $26,000 $25,000Total material cost $20,000 $12,000 $10,000
Cost overrun history0% (p=0.33) 2% (p=0.34)7% (p=0.33)
2% (p=0.33) 5% (p=0.34)9% (p=0.33)
6% (p=0.33) 9% (p=0.34)15% (p=0.33)
Duration kitchen unavailable
13 weeks 10 weeks 9 weeks
Weeks of delay
On time (p=0.33),1 week late (p=0.34)2 weeks late (p=0.33)
1 week late(p=0.33)2 weeks late(p=0.34)3 weeks late (p=0.33)
2 weeks late (p=0.33)3 weeks late (p=0.34)4 weeks late (p=0.33)
Cleanliness scale Clean Messy DirtyFollow-up and resolution scale
Adequate Highly responsive
Adequate
Creativity scale Highly creative Creative MundaneBrand & store reputation scale
Top of line 2nd Best Brand 2nd Best Brand
Percent use of subcontractors
25% 40% 65%
Fit and finish scale Excellent Good GoodYears in business 12 (Good) 8 (OK) 22 (Excellent)Quality of references scale
Excellent Good OK
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.14: Comparison of top two kitchen remodelers
24
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Enhance 2nd best – Best on CostSpend a little more money and improve In 2nd best solution identify a weak
measure with significant weight that can be improved Fit and finish (0.12 weight) Cleanliness and percent use of
contractors (minor) Creativity and References can NOT be
improved Creative alternative: Spend money to
improve fit and finish (and other benefits) Less subcontracting Cleaner
25
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Improve Quality Build on Fit-Finish & add cost
26
MeasureQuality Build Quality Build +
Value EnhancementTotal Labor Cost $26,000 $29,000Total Material Cost $12,000 $12,000
Cost Overrun History2% (p=0.33), 5% (p=0.34),9% (p=0.33)
2% (p=0.33), 5% (p=0.34),9% (p=0.33)
Kitchen Unavailable 10 weeks 10 weeks
Weeks of Delay1 week late (p=0.33),2 weeks late (p=0.34),3 weeks late (p=0.33)
1 week late (p=0.33),2 weeks late (p=0.34),3 weeks late (p=0.33)
Cleanliness Created Scale Messy CleanFollow-up and Resolution Scale
Highly responsive Highly responsive
Creativity Scale Creative CreativeBrand & Store Reputation scale
Moderate price Moderate price
Percent Use of Subcontractors 40% 20%Fit and Finish Scale Good ExcellentYears in Business but Grouped Good GoodQuality of References Scale Good Good
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.15: Stacked bar results after value enhancement: kitchen remodeler
Alternative
Quality Build + Value Enhancement
Build Rite
Quality Build
Utility
0.678
0.651
0.630
Max. Quality Min. Cost Min. Hassle
27
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
The Best Alternative So Far May NOT Be The Final Answer: Risks
Enhance best alternative(s) through: Risk Analysis & Management Identify a highly weighted measure with significant
uncertainty in the best alternative(s). Assess the impact on the MUF of reducing downside
risk on that measure. Develop a strategy for reducing the downside risk
even if it changes other measure levels. Evaluate any newly formed alternatives.
28
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Value Analysis & Risk Management Conformal Coating Process – Printed Boards
Global Electronic will install a new conformal coating process because the upcoming Powertrain Control Module (PCM) design requirements are incompatible with the existing coating process at the plant. These coatings are applied to the printed wiring boards to protect circuitry from environmental exposure after the installation of all surface mount devices, but before final assembly of the module. The process should ideally be capable of selectively applying the coating to various areas of the circuit board, coating some areas while avoiding others. Pre-screening of a wide variety of available processes has reduced the number of viable candidates to three. The team realized that these processes vary widely in ability to accommodate design changes (flexibility), weight, initial investment costs, material costs, etc.
29
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Goals Hierarchy & Weights: Coating Process Selection
Select Best Coating Process
(1.000)
Performance
(0. 213)
Cost(0.324)
Time(0.14
8)
Reliability(0.315)
Flexib
ilit
y
(0.1
57
)
Weig
ht
(0.0
56
)
Coati
ng C
ontr
ol
(0.1
30
)
Mate
rial
(0.1
67
)
Labor
(0.0
37
)
Faci
litie
s &
To
olin
g
(0.0
93
)
Develo
pm
ent
Tim
e
(0.1
48
)
Scr
ap
(0.0
28
)
Fore
ign
M
ate
rial
(0.1
85
)
30
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Coating Process: Development Time Uncertainty (Risk)
Selective Spray Sil-Gel Potting Coat and Extract
DT Pr DT Pr DT Pr
28 0.15 16 0.40 28 0.10
32 0.45 20 0.50 30 0.20
36 0.35 24 0.10 34 0.60
48 0.05 40 0.10
31Chapter 6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Measure Selective Spray
Sil-Gel Potting
Coat and Extract
Flexibility High Medium Low
Weight (Gr) 6 230 20
Coating Control 0 1 1
Foreign Material Superior Excellent Good
Facilities & Tooling C. 300000 25000 110000
Labor Cost ($) 40000 10000 20000
Material C. ($) 17000 615000 63000
Scrap C. ($) 95000 0 11000
Development Time (W) 34.19 18.99 33.48
Alternatives & Data: Coating ProcessRed cells illustrate expected value of probabilistic
data
32Chapter 6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Results: Coating Process Selection
Selective Spray: most preferred alternative Best alternative affected by uncertainty.
Sil-Gel a close second: 7% less At the extreme it may be better than the best.
Development time involves significantly more uncertainty in the best alternative (Selective Spray) than for the 2nd best
Ranking for Select the Best Coating Process Goal
AlternativeSelective SpraySil-Gel PottingCoat and Extract
Utility 0.702 0.650 0.596
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
Utility uncertainty summary for Select the Best Coating Process Goal
Alternative
Coat and ExtractSelective SpraySil-Gel Potting
Mean Std. Dev. Median Min. 5%P 95%P Max.
0.598 0.012 0.594 0.566 0.566 0.614 0.614 0.703 0.018 0.710 0.619 0.694 0.722 0.722 0.651 0.004 0.649 0.641 0.641 0.655 0.655
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
33Chapter 6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
FOCUSHybrids: Both Risk and Value Management
Risk Management Significant uncertainty in development time of best
alternative Invest $40,000 to eliminate risk of unusually long PD
time Value Management
Coating Control is a weakness of the highest ranked alternative
Invest $60,000 to improve coating control reduce scrap
Risk and Value Management Create hybrid that combines both risk and value
management Slightly improved overall score Dramatically reduce chance of lower performance.
34
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Risk Management: Coating Process Selection
Global Electronic contacted the Selective Spray supplier to reduce uncertainty in development time. The supplier asked $40000 more for tooling premium to work overtime and reduce development time to a range of 28 weeks to 32 weeks.
Development Time (Weeks)
Probability
28 0.15
32 0.45
36 0.35
48 0.05
Development Time (Weeks)
Probability
28 0.40
30 0.40
32 0.20
OLD NEW
35Chapter 6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Risk Management Coating Process Selection (Cont.)
$40000 more investment reduces uncertainty significantly Amount added to the Facilities and Tooling Cost of new
alternative. Overall average score only slightly improved but less
downside risk Selective Spray + Risk Mng. is the best alternative
Ranking for Select the Best Coating Process Goal
AlternativeSelective Spray+Risk Mng.Selective SpraySil-Gel PottingCoat and Extract
Utility 0.705 0.702 0.650 0.596
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
36Chapter 6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Hybrid Alternative Through Value & Risk Management
The Selective Spray supplier can not reduce facilities and tooling cost, or labor cost
The supplier asks $60000 to upgrade coating application nozzles that Improve coating control from 0 to 1
Coating control provides an assessment of the process’ ability to apply coating where it is needed, as well as preventing coating bleed into undesirable areas of the printed wiring boards.
0: Problem areas may affect function 1: Problem areas don’t affect function
Reduce scrap cost from $95,000 to $10,000 per year Asks $40000 to reduce development time to a
range of 28 weeks to 32 weeks
37
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Create Hybrid AlternativeThrough Value Analysis & Risk Management
Generate a new alternative that is a hybrid of the Selective Spray and the supplier’s new offer
Improve coating control, reduce scrap cost and development time Pays $100000 (=$40,000+
$60,000) that increases facilities and tooling cost to $400,000
Measure Selective Spray
Selective Spray + Value Mng.
Flexibility High High
Weight 5.6 5.6
Coating Control 0 1
Foreign Material Superior Superior
Facilities & Tool 300000 400000
Labor Cost 40500 40500
Material Cost 17780 17780
Scrap Cost 95000 10000
Development T. 34.19 29.66
38Chapter 6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making
Enhanced Alternative: Higher Value and Less Risk
Selective Spray+Value&Risk Mng. is the most preferred alternative
Ranking for Select the Best Coating Process Goal
AlternativeSelective Spray+Value&Risk Mng.Selective Spray+Value Mng.Selective Spray+Risk Mng.Selective SpraySil-Gel PottingCoat and Extract
Utility 0.850 0.839 0.705 0.702 0.650 0.596
Foreign MaterialDevelopment TimeWeight
Material CostCoating ControlLabor Cost
FlexibilityFacilities&Tooling CostScrap Cost
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
Ranking for Select the Best Coating Process Goal
AlternativeSelective Spray+Value&Risk Mng.Selective Spray+Value Mng.Selective Spray+Risk Mng.Selective SpraySil-Gel PottingCoat and Extract
Utility 0.850 0.839 0.705 0.702 0.650 0.596
Preference Set = NEW PREF. SET
39Chapter 6
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.28: MAUT SME/Decision makers meeting agenda
40
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
More Examples from text
Warehouse location selection Coating – Value management figures Disposition of weapons grade
plutonium
41
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.16: Objectives hierarchy for warehouse selection example
Select Warehouse
Max. Space
Min. Distance to Key Facilities
Min. Loss of Employees
Min. Total Cost
Max. Operational Design
Distance to Headquarters
Distance to Niles Facility
% Loss of Employees
Lease and Maintenance Cost
Number of Parking Spaces
Number of Truck Docks
Truck Traffic Handling
Office and Lab Space
Warehouse Fl. Space
Material Handling Cost
Max. Building Appearance Appearance
42
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.17: Non-linear utility functions for parking spaces
43
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.18: Stacked bar ranking for warehouse site selection example
Alternative
FedCo PropertiesCenter DriveProspect ParkNorthbrook Business Center
Utility
0.600 0.579 0.421 0.377
Max. Operational Design
Min. Loss of Current Employees
Min. Total Cost
Min. Distance to Key Facilities
Max. Space
Max. Building Appearance
44
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.19: Comparison of Center Drive and FedCo Properties facilities
Overall Utility for
FedCo Properties
Center Drive
Difference
0.600
0.579
0.020
Total Difference
Number of Truck Docks
Lease and Maintenance Cost
Office and Lab Space
Warehouse Floor Space
Appearance
Material Handling Cost
Number of Parking Spaces
Distance to Niles Facility
Center Drive FedCo Properties
45
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.20: Stacked bar ranking after value management for warehouse site selection
46
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.21: Stacked bar ranking for the coating processes
47
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.22: Comparison of selective spray and sil-gel potting
Overall Utility for
Selective SpraySil-Gel Potting Difference
0.702 0.650 0.051
Total DifferenceMaterial CostCoating ControlFacilities&Tooling CostFlexibilityForeign MaterialWeight
Development TimeLabor CostScrap Cost
Sil-Gel Potting Selective Spray
48
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.23: Stacked bar results after value management
49
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.25: Ranking alternatives after value and risk management
50
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.26: Ranking results including cutoff value in Logical Decisions
Alternative75 Halogen Dim
75 Fluorescent Dim
75 watt basic
65 Fluorescent
65 watt basic
Utility 0.618
0.584
0.542
0.526
0.359
Alternative failed at least one cutoff
51
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.29: High-level objectives hierarchy for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium
Pu Disposition
Operational Effect
Non-proliferation
Theft
ES&H
Diversion
Human H&S
Irreversibility
Int’l Cooperation
Timelines
Cost
Natural Environment
Soci-economic
52
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.29: Overall ranking for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium
53
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.31: Sensitivity analysis for Reactor alternatives for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
Exist LWR, Exist Fac
CANDU
Exist LWR, New Fac
Past Comp LWR
Evolutionary LWR
54
©Chelst & Canbolat Value-Added Decision Making9/19/201
1
Chapter 6
Figure 6.32: Sensitivity analysis for Reactor alternatives for disposition of surplus weapons-grade plutonium
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
0.55
0.6
0.65
0.7
0.75
0.8Ceramic Can-in-CanVitrif. Can-in-CanBorehole (Direct)Borehole (Immob)Vitrif. Adj. MelterElectrometallurgical TreatmentCeramic GreenfieldVitrif. Greenfield
55