Precise Decision Language: (Comment on Howard 2004)

Like Howard (2004), I believe it is important to use precise language in our field and that our language should be “plain speaking,” familiar, and fundamental. Precise language makes it easier for us to communicate with each other and easier for students, clients, and others to grasp the ideas of decision analysis. Howard proposes some “modest” changes to our language that he suggests “will make thinking and, therefore, teaching and consulting easier.” While I agree that our language should be plain speaking, familiar, and fundamental, there is another desired feature of a language that Howard pays relatively little attention to: It is important for a language to be shared. If we, as decision analysts, are to communicate effectively with each other, it is important that we use a common language. Moreover, because decision analysis draws on and interacts with so many other fields—including economics, statistics, and engineering—that share many of the same concepts, it would be a mistake for us to use different terminology for these shared concepts. Students or clients exposed to teachers and/or consultants using different words for the same ideas are likely to be confused. As researchers, if we use unusual language for standard concepts, we are likely to isolate ourselves and reduce the impact of our ideas. As one of Howard’s former students, I have watched his language develop and evolve over the last 18 years and I have tried elements of his language in the classroom from time to time. I must say that I do not find that Howard’s proposed changes to be modest. When reading a paper written by Howard or one of his recent students, I find the language quite distinctive and hard to follow without mentally translating to terms that are more familiar to me. I imagine that others in decision analysis or related fields who have followed these developments less closely would have an even harder time making the translation. I will now turn to comments on some of Howard’s specific proposals; these comments are listed in order of appearance of the terms in Howard’s article. A few general concluding comments appear at the end.