A Value-Focused Approach to Energy Transformation in the United States Department of Defense

References

• Air Force Policy Directive 90-16 (2011) Accessed March 17, 2014, http://static.e-publishing.af.mil/production/1/af_a9/publication/afpd90-16/afpd90-16.pdf.Google Scholar
• Army Senior Energy Council and Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnerships (2009) Army energy security implementation strategy. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Energy and Partnerships, Washington, DC. Accessed March 17, 2014, http://lgdata.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/docs/1494/869865/Arm_Energy_Strategy_13JAN09_Approved_4-03-09.pdf.Google Scholar
• Bond SD, Carlson KA, Keeney RL (2008) Generating objectives: Can decision makers articulate what they want? Management Sci. 54(1):56–70.Link, Google Scholar
• Bordley RF, Kirkwood CW (2004) Multiattribute preference analysis with performance targets. Oper. Res. 52(6):823–835.Link, Google Scholar
• Casey W, Peck W, Webb NJ, Quast P (2008) Are we driving strategic results or metric mania? Evaluating performance in the public sector. Internat. Public Management Rev. 9(2):90–106.Google Scholar
• Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) (2009) Powering America's defense: Energy and the risks to national security. Accessed August 8, 2013, http://www.cna.org/sites/default/files/Powering%20Americas%20Defense.pdf.Google Scholar
• Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) (2010) A Navy energy vision for the 21st century. Report, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC. Accessed March 17, 2014, http://greenfleet.dodlive.mil/files/2010/10/Navy-Energy-Vision-Oct-2010.pdf.Google Scholar
• Costanza R, d'Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M, Hannon B, Limburg Ket al. (1997) The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387(6630):253–260.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davis CC, Deckro RF, Jackson JA (2000) A value focused model for a C4 network. J. Multi-Criteria Decision Anal. 9(4):138–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Defense Science Board (DSB) Task Force on DoD Energy Strategy (2008) More fight—Less fuel. Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Defense Science Board Task Force on Improving the Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms (2001) More capable warfighting through reduced fuel burden. Office of the Under Secretary for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Department of Defense (2001) Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Department of Defense, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• Department of Defense (2010) Quadrennial Defense Review Report (Department of Defense, Washington, DC).Crossref, Google Scholar
• Department of Defense (2011) Joint Capability Areas, JCA 2010 refinement. Accessed October 23, 2013, http://www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare/strategic/jca_framework_defs.doc.Google Scholar
• Department of Defense (2012) Strategic sustainability performance plan. Accessed November 6, 2013, http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/green_energy/dod_sustainability/2012/DoD%20-SSPP%20FY12-FINAL.PDF.Google Scholar
• Department of Defense (2013) About the Department of Defense. Accessed August 14, 2013, http://www.defense.gov/about.Google Scholar
• Department of the Navy (2012) Shore energy management. OPNAV Instruction 4100.5E, Department of the Navy, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Doyle MP, Deckro RF, Kloeber JM, Jackson JA (2000) Measures of merit for offensive information operations courses of action. Military Oper. Res. 5(2):5–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Eady DS, Siegel SB, Bell RS, Dicke SH (2009) Sustain the Mission Project: Casualty factors for fuel and water resupply convoys. AEPI Report CTC-CR-2009-163, Army Environmental Policy Institute, Arlington, VA.Google Scholar
• Executive Order 13514 (2009) 3 C.F.R. 74(194):52117–52127.Google Scholar
• Feng T, Keller LR (2006) A multiple-objective decision analysis for terrorism protection: Potassium iodide distribution in nuclear incidents. Decision Anal. 3(2):76–93.Link, Google Scholar
• Goudreau J (2013) Remarks. 7th Annual Military Energy Alternatives Conf., Falls Church, VA.Google Scholar
• Keefer DL, Kirkwood CW, Corner JL (2004) Perspectives on decision analysis applications, 1990–2001. Decision Anal. 1(1):4–22.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1988) Structuring objectives for problems of public interest. Oper. Res. 36(3):396–405.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (1992) Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Keeney RL (2002) Common mistakes in making value trade-offs. Oper. Res. 50(6):935–945.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, Sicherman A (1983) Illustrative comparison of one utility's coal and nuclear choices. Oper. Res. 31(1):50–83.Link, Google Scholar
• Keeney RL, von Winterfeldt D (2011) A value model for evaluating homeland security decisions. Risk Anal. 31(9):1470–1487.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kerchner PM, Deckro RF, Kloeber JM (2001) Valuing psychological operations. Military Oper. Res. 6(2):45–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Merrick JRW, Parnell GS, Barnett J, Garcia M (2005) A multiple-objective decision analysis of stakeholder values to identify watershed improvement needs. Decision Anal. 2(1):44–57.Link, Google Scholar
• National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (2009) H.R. 2647, 111 Cong.Google Scholar
• Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) (2012) What the Navy is doing about energy. Presentation, E-Week Technical Training Conference, Armstrong Atlantic State University, Savannah, GA. Accessed November 6, 2013, http://www.samesavannahpost.org/EventDocs/NAVFAC_-_What_the_Navy_is_Doing_about_Energy.pdf.Google Scholar
• Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs (2011) Energy for the warfighter: Operational energy strategy. Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational Energy Plans and Programs, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Paarlberg LE, Perry JL (2007) Values management: Aligning employee values and organizational goals. Amer. Rev. Public Admin. 37(4):387–408.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Parnell GS (2007) Value-focused thinking using multiple objective decision analysis. Loerch A, Rainey L, eds. Methods for Conducting Military Operational Analysis: Best Practices in Use Throughout the Department of Defense (Military Operations Research Society, Alexandria, VA), 619–656.Google Scholar
• Parnell GS, Conley HW, Jackson JA, Lehmkuhl LJ, Andrew JM (1998) Foundations 2025: A value model for evaluating future air and space forces. Management Sci. 44(10):1336–1350.Link, Google Scholar
• Pirnie B, Gardiner SB (1996) An Objectives-Based Approach to Military Campaign Analysis (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• Roughead G, Carl J, Hernández M (2012) Powering the Armed Forces: Meeting the Military's Energy Challenges (Hoover Institution Press, Stanford, CA).Google Scholar
• Samaras C, Willis HH (2013) Capabilities-Based Planning for Energy Security at Department of Defense Installations (RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA).Google Scholar
• Schwartz M, Blakely K, O'Rourke R (2012) Department of Defense energy initiatives: Background and issues for Congress. Report, Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Secretary of the Navy (SECNAV) (2009) Remarks. Presentation, Naval Energy Forum, October 14, McLean, VA. Accessed July 10, 2013, http://www.navy.mil/navydata/people/secnav/Mabus/Speech/SECNAV%20Energy%20Forum%2014%20Oct%2009%20Rel1.pdf.Google Scholar
• United States Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office (2011) United States Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Strategy and Implementation Plan: Bases to Battlefield (Marine Corps Expeditionary Energy Office, Washington, DC).Google Scholar
• von Winterfeldt D (1987) Value tree analysis: An introduction and an application to offshore oil drilling. Kleindorfere P, Kunreuther H, eds. Insuring and Managing Hazardous Risks: From Seveso to Bhopal and Beyond (Springer, New York), 349–377.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Whitney L, Regnier E, Simon J, Nussbaum D (2013) Energy Objectives for the United States Department of Defense. NPS technical report, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.Google Scholar
• Yergin D (1991) The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power (Simon & Schuster, New York).Google Scholar