Spreadsheet Decision Modeling

‫المملكة العربية السعودية‬
‫وزارة التعليم‬
‫الجامعة السعودية اإللكترونية‬

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University

College of Administrative and Financial Sciences

Assignment-3
MGT425-Spreadsheet Decision Modeling
Due Date: 26/04/2025 @ 23:59 (End of Week 12)
Course Name: Spreadsheet Decision
Modeling
Course Code: MGT425

Student’s Name:

Semester: Second

CRN:

Student’s ID Number:

Academic Year: 2024-2025 (1446 H)

For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name:
Students’ Grade: Marks Obtained / Out of 10 Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
General Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

The Assignment must be submitted on Blackboard (WORD format only) via
allocated folder.
Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented; marks may be
reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover
page.
Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students
or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No
exceptions.
All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced)
font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered
plagiarism).
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.

Course Learning Outcomes-Covered
Course Learning Outcomes (CLOs)

Question

Find some structured ways of dealing with complex managerial
decision problems.
Explain simple decision models and management science ideas
that provide powerful and (often surprising) qualitative insight
about large spectrum of managerial problems.
Demonstrate the tools for deciding when and which decision
models to use for specific problems.
Build an understanding of the kind of problems that is tackled
using Spreadsheet Modeling and decision analysis.

Question-1

Aligned (PLOs)
MGT.K.1
(1.1)
MGT.K.3
(1.2)
MGT.S.1
(2.1)
MGT.V.1
(3.1)

Question-4

Question-2
Question-3

Assignment Instructions:
Assignment Questions: (Marks 10)
PART-A:
Data Exploration and Visualization (Critical Thinking)
Question 1: “Business analysts must know how to use data to derive business insights and
improve decisions” In context of this statement explain the vital reasons to use data by
analysts in business organizations. (250-300 Words) (2.5-Marks)

PART-B: Case Study
• Log in to Saudi Digital Library (SDL) via University’s website
• On first page of SDL, choose “English Databases”
• From the list find and click on EBSCO database.
• In the Search Bar of EBSCO find the following article:
Title: “Modeling Autonomous Decision-Making on Energy and Environmental
Management Using Petri-Net: Case Study”.
Author: Niken Prilandita, Benjamin McLellan, Tetsuo Tezuka.

Read the above case study and answer the following Questions:
Question 2: Explain the autonomous decision-making process, its advantages and
disadvantages (250-300 words) (2.5-Marks).

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

Question 3: Discuss the Centralized and De-centralized Decision-Making Approaches with
suitable examples (250-300 words). (2.5-Marks).

Question 4: Why are the most decisions made on energy and environmental management
known as the decisions of community interest. (250-300 words) (2.5-Marks).

Answers:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Restricted – ‫مقيد‬

challenges
Article

Modeling Autonomous Decision-Making on
Energy and Environmental Management Using
Petri-Net: The Case Study of a Community in
Bandung, Indonesia
Niken Prilandita *, Benjamin McLellan and Tetsuo Tezuka
Graduate School of Energy Science, Kyoto University, Yoshida-Honmachi, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan; [email protected] (B.M.); [email protected] (T.T.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +81-75-753-4739; Fax: +81-75-753-9189
Academic Editor: Palmiro Poltronieri
Received: 28 December 2015; Accepted: 5 April 2016; Published: 14 April 2016

Abstract: Autonomous decision-making in this study is defined as the process where decision-makers have
the freedom and ability to find problems, select goals, and make decisions for achieving the selected
problems/goals by themselves. Autonomous behavior is considered significant for achieving decision
implementation, especially in the context of energy and environmental management, where multiple
stakeholders are involved and each stakeholder holds valuable local information for making decisions. This
paper aims to build a structured process in modeling the autonomous decision-making. A practical decisionmaking process in waste-to-energy conversion activities in a community in Bandung, Indonesia, is selected as
a case study. The decision-making process here is considered as a discrete event system, which is then
represented as a Petri-net model. First, the decision-making process in the case study is decomposed into
discrete events or decision-making stages, and the stakeholders’ properties in each stage are extracted from
the case study. Second, several stakeholder properties that indicate autonomous behavior are identified as
autonomous properties. Third, presented is a method to develop the decision-making process as a Petri-net
model. The model is utilized for identifying the critical points for verifying the performance of the derived
Petri-net.
Keywords: autonomy; decision-making; Petri-net; energy; environmental; community; Indonesia

1. Introduction
The recent global agenda and technological challenges for creating a more sustainable environment have
encouraged countries around the world to gradually shift towards sustainable energy transitions. Upon the
new global agreement of Sustainable Development Goals, every country is now highly anticipated to direct
their efforts towards realizing a more sustainable energy system and environment [1]. From the technology
side, the emergence of new technologies, such as smart grids and source-centered renewable energies, have
expanded the potential and requirements of energy generation and management in ways that have not been
available previously. These facts suggest that the energy system is likely to become more distributed and
localized, thus the decision-making and policy-making process in the energy sector should be adjusted to follow
this future tendency [2].
Most decisions made on energy and environmental management affect a large number of people and,
thus, are of public interest. Decision-making in this sector usually becomes complicated since various interests
need to be accommodated in the process. Moreover, once a consensus has been successfully reached, it does
not guarantee successful implementation. Various decision-making approaches for reaching an easy

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

2 of 26

consensus, as well as for achieving successful implementation, have been proposed. Two common approaches
in decision-making are with the centralized and the
Challenges 2016, 7, 9; doi:10.3390/challe7010009

www.mdpi.com/journal/challenges

decentralized approaches [3,4]. The quest of balancing between the centralized and the decentralized systems
for decision-making is often an issue in organizational management. Easy access to information with the
advancement of information technology, the internet, and other means today, have made the decision-making
style in organizations lean towards a more decentralized style [5,6]. However, this approach may not be entirely
applicable for cases in energy and environmental management that occur in the public domain.
This study puts more focus on autonomy in decision-making processes regardless of whether they are
conducted under a centralized or a decentralized system. Two ways of understanding the concept of autonomy
are considered here. Firstly, autonomy in the political or public administration field,
which is often seen as one of the traits of a more decentralized system [4]. Secondly, as understood in the
current study, autonomy can be considered as a property of persons regardless of the systemic context [7–9].
Therefore, we argue that autonomy can exist in both centralized and decentralized approaches because
autonomy is the property of each decision-maker.
The hypothesis of this study is that decisions made autonomously are more likely to achieve successful
outcomes. Autonomy in making decisions is believed to be related to an increase in quality of life. Research
from neuroscience has found that actively making decisions can boost pleasure and increase the decisionmakers’ happiness, satisfaction, and perceived control [10]. Furthermore, high levels of happiness and
satisfaction are causal influences on success and achievement, not the other way around [11]. Simply stated,
if a decision-maker has made an autonomous decision, without being coerced or forced, it is considered more
likely that the decision-maker will achieve the decision goal and benefit from that.
Normatively, stakeholders’ autonomy in making decisions is important, though its important role in
decision-making may not been objectively examined [7]. The fact that we have not found studies that
objectively examined the role of autonomy in decision-making in energy-environmental management showed
that this theme has to date been insufficiently examined. We argue that the recent global agenda and
technological advances in the energy-environmental sector (e.g., smart-grid technologies, decentralized
energy, and market liberalization) expect decision-makers to become more autonomous. This situation has
created the necessity to develop a framework that can represent and identify the role of stakeholders’
autonomy in the decision-making process. Such a framework would consist of several elements employed for
specific tasks, and is the purpose of the current research. This paper discusses one of the important elements
of the framework, a model that aims to represent, analyze, and simulate the autonomous decision-making
process.
The autonomous decision-making model in this paper is developed as a discrete event system, and this
paper presents the method to build such a model. The decision-making process is decomposed into discrete
events that we call decision-making stages. Afterwards, the properties of stakeholders involved in each stage
are identified; thus, the concept of a discrete event system for autonomous decision-making is established.
Petri-net is utilized to represent the discrete event system of the autonomous decision-making process. Each
decision-making stage, the stakeholders’ properties, and the state after decisions are made; corresponding to
a small Petri-net model consisting of a few transitions and places. The autonomous decision-making model is
constructed by combining all of these small Petri-net models of each event/stage. As an addition, we conducted
analysis of the Petri-net model’s behavior for identifying the stages which are indispensable for an autonomous
decision-making system. These stages are called the critical points in the autonomous decision-making process.
2. The Definition of Autonomous Decision-Making
This section explains the definition of autonomous decision-making. The term, autonomous decisionmaking is defined by dissecting it into the root words comprising it, which are “autonomy” and “decisionmaking”. The development of the concept of autonomy as a political and personal property is historically
explained, followed by a brief explanation on various scopes of the decision-making process, and various types
of energy decision-making. Based on this information, we construct the definition of autonomous decisionmaking used in this study.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

3 of 26

2.1. The Concept of Autonomy
The definition of autonomy has been through several changes throughout the course of history. As
mentioned above, there are at least two different concepts of autonomy explained in this paper. Autonomy
originated from the Greek words “auto” which means self, and “nomos” which means law. This concept was
firstly coined referring to the city states in ancient Greece that were self-governing. Originally, autonomy was
defined in a political manner, which was the right of the states (or city-states, in that instance) to administer
their own affairs [9]. In the context of public administration management, territorial or local autonomy is the
result of a decentralization process [12]. In the Indonesian context for example, the Law of Decentralization
number 22/1999, was the beginning of the country’s journey towards a more decentralized political structure.
This law has since become the legal basis for providing more autonomy to local governments in making
decisions regarding their own territory and environment. The spirit of the law has had a side effect, however,
in that it caused the Indonesian people to gain greater awareness of autonomy, knowing that they had more
freedom in choosing among options. This has promoted decision-making processes to be performed more
autonomously in various levels of society’s hierarchical structure, including at the lower authority levels, such
as villages and sub-districts [13]. Looking at this fact, the term autonomy in Indonesia has gradually become
understood not only as the property of a state or territory, but also as a personal trait.
One of the most important moments in the history of the concept of autonomy was when the definition
of autonomy was transformed from the property of a state in the ancient Greek era, into a property of persons
during the Renaissance era [7,8]. Since then, the concept of autonomy has been understood in both ways.
However, autonomy in the majority of contemporary works is seen as a property of persons, or personal
autonomy [7]. Although the concept of autonomy mainly revolves around these two definitions, the
dimensions of autonomy are understood in many different ways, depending on which field of study is viewing
it. Mackenzie, for example, defined three dimensions of autonomy, namely self-determination, selfgovernance, and self-authorization [14]. Other studies focus on the self-directedness and resoluteness
dimensions of autonomy [9]. Meanwhile, the computer science and information technology fields view the
ability to continuously learn or self-learning traits in the emergence of autonomous machines or artificial
intelligence as one of the most important characteristics of autonomy [15].
2.2. Decision-Making Process
The definition of decision-making has been long established, and since decision-making is understood as
a process of making decisions, then the definitions mostly evolved on the scope of the process. There are two
predominately different views in decision theory regarding the extent of the decision-making scope. Firstly,
decision-making is defined as a process started by identifying problems or goals, and ended after a decision
has been made. One of the main supporters of this concept was Herbert Simon (1960) [16]. Later, Huber (1980)
expanded the concept of decision-making by defining it as “the process through which a course of action is
taken” [17], and the process by
which the decision is implemented is considered as part of the problem-solving process. Most of the studies
that defined the decision-making process came from the field of organizational management. Meanwhile
when decisions need to be made in the public domain, the decision-making process is often regarded as the
whole cycle from problem identification up to decision implementation and evaluation, and then feedingback to problem identification. This is known as a generic decision cycle [18], or a planning process [19]. An
example of a decision-making cycle is presented in Figure 1. In this study, we investigate the decision-making
process extended to the implementation stages.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

4 of 26

Figure 1. Example of a decision-making cycle [18,19].

2.3. Energy-Environmental Decision-Making at Various Stakeholder Levels
The following section explains decision-making in energy and environment by various stakeholders, such
as national government, local government (provincial/city/regency governments, and formal agencies/bodies
within these local governments), community, household and individual (households and individuals are
considered as a single decision-maker), and non-governmental institutions (i.e., international and local NGOs,
business or private sector stakeholders, media, experts and academicians). As mentioned earlier, decisionmaking in energy and environmental management often becomes complex because it occurs in the public
domain and, therefore, various stakeholders are involved in it. According to Sexton, et al. [20], the main
stakeholders that are usually involved in environment-related decision-making are national governments,
regional or local government bodies, business associations, environmental advocacy groups, community or
neighborhood groups, and affected or interested individuals. The relationships between these stakeholders
can be classified into two types of relationship, which are vertical (hierarchical) and horizontal (parallel)
relationships with each other [21,22]. Decision-making for individual stakeholders and groups of stakeholders
is influenced both by the structure of relationships and the characteristics of the individual stakeholders.
Energy related decision-making and policy-making (We use the phrase “energy (and environmental)
decision-making and policy-making” or “decision-making in energy sector” interchangeably in this paper
because the research object is related with both energy and environmental sector.) at the national level tends
to occur in a top-down manner, following the hierarchical structure of the country’s institutions. In the UK, for
example, energy decision-making functions have historically been performed mainly by the central government
and large corporations in the private sector. This situation began to change after the Localism Bill was stipulated
in 2010 aiming to shift decision-making power from central governments to individuals, communities, and local
government [23,24]. Another example is from a developing country,
Indonesia, where for more than two decades since the first national energy policy was introduced in 1981, the
key strategic energy decisions and policies are made centrally by the national government [25]. The role of
local government in the energy sector was recognized after the promulgation of the Energy Act in 2007. The
act mandates each local government to formulate its own local energy masterplan, based on the targets
outlined by the national energy masterplan.
Recent experiences from both countries have shown that the local authorities are mandated and
expected to have more capacity in energy decision-making functions. The long period of centralized energy
decision-making experience in both countries has created a great challenge for the local authorities to pick up
the task. Lack of capacity of the local government with regards to energy planning, and limited guidelines on
how to formulate the masterplan itself, are some of the challenges faced by the locals. Despite the limited
capacity and experience, local governments around the world have developed various energy-environmental
measures and local action plans, as a form of participation in global initiatives such as the International Council
for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) and the Climate Alliance [26]. Aside from having a mandate to
implement energy-environmental measures at the local level, local authorities are also expected to involve and
nurture the community or grassroots levels in local energy initiatives [27].
Energy decision-making functions at the community level have been empirically observed in

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

5 of 26

North America [28–30]. Most of the decisions and measures taken are on climate change mitigation planning,
considered as the re-emergence of the energy planning efforts which increased after the oil crisis in the 1970s,
but later declined in the 1980s due to lower energy prices [28]. Although the number of local actions for energy
measures in USA were increased after 2006, all of the decision-making processes identified were initially
developed at the municipality level first [28]. The municipalities then involved the community in their plans to
reduce community-wide energy use and GHG emissions. Although similar, the Canadian experience with its
community energy management or community energy planning program is slightly different from what
happened in the USA. Observations of the Community Energy Plans (CEPs) that emerged during 2003–2007
[29,30] have shown the potential of community roles in formulating action plans specifically related to energy
efficiency, energy conservation, and application of renewable energies [30]. However, since CEP is part of a
broader commitment of the municipalities on forming local action plans for GHG reduction, the content of the
CEP is often written in accordance to what the municipality or municipal council needs [29]. These practices
are somewhat different from what was conceived by Jaccard, et al. [31] as community energy management.
The practices of energy related decision-making at the community level is also evident in European
countries, such as in the UK and Germany [27,32,33]. Often referred to as grassroots initiatives [27,34] or
community (renewable) energy [33,35], it is defined as projects where communities exhibit a high degree of
ownership and control, and collectively benefit from the outcomes [35]. The term community in this literature
is relatively broad, referring to a group of people who share the same geographical location (neighborhood
communities) or the same interest (non-governmental organizations) [33]. The recent practices of community
energy in Europe are gradually shifting as part of socio-political movements from the grassroots level [27] and,
thus, they are more likely to be considered as bottom-up initiatives when compared to the CEPs in North
America.
Energy decision-making at the individual level is traditionally studied as a part of consumer behavior
studies which view the individual as the energy customer or end-user [36,37]. Individuals as consumers make
everyday decisions related to energy; therefore, they are becoming the target of various energy measures [37],
such as the behavior change programs in energy consumption and energy technology adoption [38]. The high
potential of new energy systems and technologies such as renewable energy systems and smart grids have
shifted the focus of individual energy decision-making. In the light of these technologies, individuals’ energy
decisions are not only shaped by the energy system and policy, but can also shape the system [39]. The social
foundation of smart grids consists of “decentralized socio-technical networks that underpin the electricity
consumption of groups of consumers who are increasingly becoming autonomous” [40]. However, for effective
technology adoption, it is suggested to no longer view the individual solely as a consumer of energy, but also
as a citizen, part of a community or society [37].
From the research related with energy decision-making above, it is found that energy decision-making
functions occur at various stakeholder levels, and the decisions made by one stakeholder may affect others in
the total energy system. The challenge of shifting towards a more localized and distributed energy system
creates a need for every stakeholder not only to actively participate in energy decision-making, but also to
become more autonomous.
2.4. Definition of Autonomous Decision-Making
In this research, we put more focus on autonomy as the property of persons, not as a property of the
system or environment. This study considers that each decision-maker is seen as an autonomous system, or in
other words, autonomy is a property of each stakeholder who participates in the decision-making process. This
means that every decision-maker or stakeholder has their own goal to achieve and has the autonomy to decide
by themselves. Thus, as mentioned earlier, this study views that autonomy can exist in both centralized and
decentralized approaches.
In light of this, we define the autonomous decision-making as the process where decision-makers have
the freedom and ability to find problems, select goals, and make decisions for achieving the selected
problems/goals by themselves in a responsible manner based on available information. It follows that persons
having the ability to self-determine, self-govern, show self-control, and self-learning are persons who exhibit
autonomous behavior. The definition for each autonomous behavior used in this paper is presented in Table
A1 in the Appendix.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

6 of 26

3. Methodology for Modeling an Autonomous Decision-Making Process
The aim of this study is to develop the autonomous decision-making model for the energy and
environmental management process by using Petri-net. For this aim, an energy-environmental management
project in Indonesian community (Rukun Warga) is selected as a case study. The steps performed for modeling
in this paper are: (1) case selection and data collection; (2) decomposing the decision-making process and
extraction of the stakeholders’ properties; (3) identification of stakeholders’ autonomous properties; and (4)
modeling the decision-making process from the observed case using Petri-net and analysis of the model.
3.1. Case Study Selection and Data Collection
This paper undertook one decision-making process as a case study to be modeled, and there is a strong
indication to select this particular case. The selected case study was included and investigated along with other
five community decision-making processes in our previous work [41]. These cases were, in turn, selected from
a broader set of around 20 case studies. The five cases were selected due to their success in project
implementation and the availability of detailed documentation and information. Among the five cases, the
community presented in this study was considered to have utilized both centralized (top-down) and
decentralized (bottom-up) decision-making approaches. Since we argued that autonomous decision-making
can occur under both approaches, by selecting this case we can investigate and model autonomous decisionmaking under both approaches using the same case. In addition to that, by using the same case study which
exhibits two different decision-making approaches over a period of time, the behavior change and improved
capability of the community in making decision were observed.
The model developed here is based on a case study of a practical decision-making process for a waste
management system project in a community in Bandung City, Indonesia. The waste management technique
utilized in the community project is a bio-digester installation to transform household waste to energy (biogas).
This case was selected because a considerable number of stakeholders were involved in the activities with
relatively even inputs to the project. Various stakeholders’ involvement in a project is a rare occasion, especially
when almost all stakeholders can contribute relatively evenly in the project. This situation occurred because
the project developed in two phases. The first phase started as one project and then changed to another
project after the first went through a stagnant phase. The second phase achieved quite a successful outcome
and is still in operation at the time of writing. The stakeholders that were involved in each phase are different,
which is one reason why there were various stakeholder contributions. This unique situation is considered
useful for understanding the possible outcomes from various stakeholders’ engagement when the project
changed course.
A thorough data collection is necessary for understanding the case study well. Information about the
community activities and decision-making process were collected using secondary and primary sources.
Various secondary records used were project reports, academic reports, journal articles, newspaper articles,
and web-based articles. Interviews, informal discussions, observation, and demonstration of the biogas
installation were also undertaken during site visits. The primary sources interviewed are the chief of the
community, the former community chief, bio-digester operators, and the recycling center operator.
3.2. Decomposing the Decision-Making Process and Extraction of the Stakeholders’ Properties
The decomposition of the case study is important for constructing the autonomous decision-making
model as a discrete event system. There are two steps involved in this decomposition,
which yield two major results that become the foundation of the discrete event system for modeling
autonomous decision-making. Firstly, the community decision-making process is decomposed into decisionmaking stages. Secondly, the properties of each stakeholder involved in each stage are identified. Utilizing the
framework developed in our previous work [41], the decision-making process is decomposed. Modified from
Simon [16], Huber [17], and Petrie [18], the framework consists of four important phases, namely: (1) problem
finding; (2) knowledge and information; (3) consensus building; and (4) decision and implementation (see
Figure 2). The points or questions in each phase function as guidance in decomposing decision-making stages
and identifying the stakeholders’ involvement.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

7 of 26

Figure 2. The decision-making decomposition framework [41].

The procedure for extraction of stakeholders’ general properties was performed based on our previous
work which utilized five case studies of community energy-environmental projects, of which the present case
study was one [41]. The five different cases of community projects selected (from a set of around 20) exhibit
various types of decision-making processes, ranging from centralized to decentralized approaches. All of the
five cases were considered as successful in reaching the project goals. From analysis of these successful cases,
the role and properties of the stakeholders’ are extracted by utilizing the framework in Figure 2, with the
properties and the framework development itself based on the decision-making literature.
3.3. Identifying the Stakeholders’ Autonomous Properties
The structured method for identifying the stakeholders’ autonomous properties from the stakeholders’
general properties is explained here. The list of stakeholders’ general properties which contributed to the
success of the community project was derived from a thorough literature review into decision-making
processes, cross-checked with successful case studies. In order to determine which of these properties are
aligned with autonomy in decision-making, a further analysis was undertaken. The decision-making process,
as a whole, is considered to be autonomous decision-making if the stakeholders in the system are making
decisions autonomously. In other words, the stakeholders need to exhibit an autonomous behavior. Therefore,
the stakeholders’ autonomous properties are identified by cross-comparing the stakeholders’ general
properties with elements of autonomous behavior.
The cross-comparison process was performed qualitatively using content analysis of the autonomous
behaviors and stakeholders’ properties definitions. The stakeholders’ general properties are identified in the
previous step, while the elements of autonomous behavior are identified in Section 2, namely: (1) selfgovernance; (2) self-control; (3) self-learning; and (4) self-determination. Upon defining each stakeholders’
property and autonomous behavior, each property is examined.
Those which comply with at least one definition of autonomous behavior are identified as stakeholders’
autonomous properties. Utilizing this method, the stakeholders’ autonomous properties can be objectively
identified.
3.4. Developing and Analyzing the Autonomous Decision-Making Model Using Petri-Net
The method for constructing the autonomous decision-making process using Petri-net is presented in this
section. The justification of Petri-net utilization is explained, followed by the Petri-net history and its utilization.
Afterwards, a brief explanation of a standard Petri-net model. The autonomous decision-making model

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

8 of 26

developed in this paper is built as a discrete event system by compiling the results from previous steps, which
are the decision stages and the stakeholders’ properties. The method to represents the discrete events into a
Petri-net model is also explained in this section.
In this paper, we consider the decision-making process as a system built upon discrete events which
perform and interact with each other sequentially and in parallel. Energy-environmental decision-making is of
public interest, therefore the decision-making involves many and various stakeholders. In our research, the
stakeholders are autonomous. They are being shaped by, and can also shape, the system. Therefore, an
interrelated bi-directional connection between stakeholders and the decision-making process is expected.
Petri-net has an advantage of representing the model in two-ways: graphically and mathematically. Therefore,
we consider that Petri-net is a suitable tool to represent the complexity of multiple autonomous stakeholders
in energy-environmental decision-making. Moreover, the utilization of Petri-net enables a simple simulation of
autonomous decision-making model to be performed further.
Petri-net is one of the tools often utilized for modeling a discrete event system, and nowadays its
application has been employed on a very broad field of study, including decision-making. The history of Petrinet is established by its development by Carl Adam Petri in 1962. Petri-net is useful for modeling the flow of
information and control in systems, especially those which exhibit asynchronous and concurrent events [42–
44]. Petri-net is commonly applied to model various kinds of dynamic discrete-event systems such as computer
networks, manufacturing plants, communication systems, logistic networks, and command and control systems
[45]. In recent years, the utilization of Petri-net has reached far beyond computer science and manufacturing
studies. For example, Petri-net has been used to model decision-making processes in a legal case [46] and
modeling the story plot for games [47,48]. In the energy-environmental field, several studies have employed
Petri-net in modeling: a more energy efficient machine tool [49], multisource energy conversion systems [50],
energy management system for autonomous micro-grids [51], municipal waste management [52], and
environmental effects of biofuel utilization [53]. The advantage of utilizing Petri-net in this study is that it can
describe objectively a decision-making process with multi-stakeholder involvement.
A standard Petri-net consists of P, T, I, O, µ (places, transitions, inputs, outputs, marking/token). In detail,
P is a finite set of places, which are represented by circles; T is a finite set of transitions, which are
represented by rectangles/bars; I is an input function which represents connection from P to T; O is an output
function which represents a connection from T to P; and µ is the initial marking which is represented by a
small dot called a token [54].
In order to transform the discrete events of autonomous decision-making into Petri-net accordingly, the
results from previous steps are compiled. First, the result from decomposing the decision-making process are
the decision stages. These decision-making stages, which are considered as discrete events, are transformed
into “transitions” in the Petri-net model, whereas the result from the autonomous properties extraction is the
stakeholders’ properties. The state or the combinations of the stakeholders’ properties, are represented as
“places”. Likewise, the results or outputs from each event/stage are also represented as “places”. The
relationship between the state and the stages are represented with inbound and outbound arcs. In short, the
decision-making stages can be transformed into the Petri-net by:
1.

Describing the state of affairs or a condition experienced by the stakeholder as a Place (P).

2.

Describing the decision-making process, or event, or action conducted by the stakeholder as a Transition
(T).

3.

Describing the relationship of Place(s) and Transition(s) and the movement of the token (µ) with inbound
and outbound arcs.

The token moves from one place to another by “firing” through a transition. A place has a token if a
particular stakeholders’ condition or property is satisfied, thus firing the transition. The existence or the
absence of the condition is the key factor that determines whether a transition in the Petri-net is enabled or
not.
The decision-making model is constructed by combining all of the transitions and places representing the
decision-making stages into one Petri-net model. For simplification purposes, several decision stages are
represented as simple Petri-net models, which are drawn hierarchically in another layer under the main model.
These lower layers of Petri-net models do not affect the purpose of the whole model, which tries to show the

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

9 of 26

relationship between stakeholders’ autonomous properties in each decision-making stage and decision
outcomes.
The utilization of Petri-net to describe the decision-making process made the autonomous part of the
decision-making more prominent and easier to be identified. Therefore, we can identify the critical points in
the decision-making process, where the existence or absence of autonomous properties will lead to a
different decision or achieve different outcomes. The performance of autonomous properties in the success
of the decision-making is going to be evaluated by analyzing the combinations of the conditions resulting
from the simulation.
4. Results
This section presents the results obtained from each method aforementioned. A brief description of the
selected case study is presented prior to the results from decomposing the case study decision-making process
into stages. The stakeholders’ autonomous properties are identified afterwards. Later on, the development and
analysis of the decision-making model using Petri-net are explained.
4.1. Overview of the Case Study
As described earlier, the case study project had two phases, and each phases is briefly explained here.
The initial project was called a Community-based Basic Infrastructure Improvement Program (CBIIP), with the
final goal to improve the sanitation situation in the community. The case study consists of two related projects,
which are a composting center and bio-digester installation. The bio-digester installation project was an
improvement to an existing composting project in the RW 11 community (RW are often identified by number.
RW 11 means it is the 11th community to exist in the particular village). This community, inhabited by 3000
people, or roughly 800 households, is one of the low-income slum areas in Bandung. It is one of the densest
districts in the city. Recognizing the need for improvement of community life, CBIIP was initiated by the Ministry
of Public Works in the Bandung Branch with assistance from the Bandung City government in 1996. Focusing
on economic, social, and environmental aspects, one of the projects conducted was the construction of a
composting center located in RW 11 to improve the poor sanitation and waste situation [55]. After the project
term was finished and the budget terminated, the composting center operation became stagnant, and was
then replaced by a bio-digester installation.
The second project, a biogas production project in the form of a bio-methane digester installation, was
initiated by the community in collaboration with academicians, the private sector, and community-based
organizations (CBO). After the composting system was not as successful as planned, especially in terms of profit,
it was terminated around 2009–2010. However, views on waste and garbage in the RW 11 community had
changed. They maintained the waste segregation activities, and the women’s organization (My Darling) began
selling plastic waste and tried to reuse it for handicrafts. Moreover, the existing CBO tried to seek financial
support by submitting proposals to international and national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) [56].
Eventually, with assistance and consultation from academic scholars, the Environmental Agency and a local
NGO, and financial help from the local bank, the composting system was changed to the bio-methane system,
which produces biogas for households and liquid fertilizer.
One recent study about the biogas production in this community has been conducted thoroughly [57].
The outcomes from the biogas production project were studied from socio-economic perspectives. It was found
that the biogas production at RW 11 is currently not economically feasible due to limited market reach for the
bio-slurry products. Meanwhile from the social point of view, the study identified that the community was
relatively accepting of the project despite a mix of responses found among RW 11 community members. It can
be concluded that this pilot project in biogas production is still operating because of the social acceptance
factors rather than economic factors.
4.2. The Decision-Making Stages and Stakeholders’ Properties
The decomposition of the decision-making process resulted into two major outputs. The first output are
the decision-making stages, and the second are the stakeholders’ general properties. These outputs are the
foundation in establishing an autonomous decision-making model as a discrete event system. The case history
and other related information obtained from various sources are analyzed qualitatively to decompose the
decision-making process of the case study into decision stages. Utilizing the framework in Figure 2, we
decomposed the decision-making process of the biogas production project in RW 11 into six stages, which are:

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

10 of 26

1.

Find or define the problem

2.

Design the solution alternatives

3.

Agreement/consensus building

4.

Implementation and construction of the Waste Management System (WMS)

5.

Management (O and M)

6.

Termination of the project

Even though the framework suggested four major phases, the number of stages drawn in the Petri-net
model may vary and, thereby, be more than four. The biogas production project in RW 11 has been
established for a long time, therefore, it has been gone through the stages of “management” and “project
termination”. Moreover, the project has been regenerated into another project, which is still running.
Depending on the case study, the decomposition of the decision-making process may result in various
numbers of stages. These stages are represented in the Petri-net model as transitions. The relationships
between each transition are drawn by combining it with the stakeholders’ properties.
As mentioned in Section 3.2, the stakeholders’ properties are extracted from the successful case studies
by applying the same framework (Figure 2) and based on literature on various decision-making processes.
These properties were taken from various energy-environmental decision-making studies, as presented in
Table A2 in the Appendix. This process resulted in the stakeholders’ general properties, listed in Table 1. These
extracted properties are considered to be those which contributed to successful community decision-making
implementation. The stakeholders’ general properties are further examined using autonomous behavior
elements in Section 2 to identify the stakeholders’ autonomous properties.
Table 1. Stakeholders’ general properties.
Stakeholders’ General Properties
1

Self-control

11

Trust

2
3
4
5
6
7

Initiative
Self-learning
Motivation
Ability to organize
Leadership
Self-governance
Ability to collect and

12
13
14
15
16
17

Interaction
Collaboration
Openness
Commitment
Local culture
Networking ability

18

Creativity

19
20

Innovativeness
Proximity

8
9
10

understand information
Communication ability
Responsibility

4.3. The Stakeholders’ Autonomous Properties
Identification of the stakeholders’ autonomous properties is one of the important process conducted in
this paper. The properties extracted in previous step are general stakeholder properties that contributed to the
success of the project goal. These properties are cross-compared with the autonomous behaviors mentioned
in Section 2. Among the 20 general properties listed above, three of them are already included as autonomous
behaviors (self-control, self-learning, and self-governance).
The remaining 17 properties were cross-checked with the autonomous behaviors.
The method for identifying stakeholders’ autonomous properties explained in Section 3.3 requires each
autonomous behavior and the general properties listed in Table 1 to be clearly defined. From these definitions
(see Appendix, Tables A1 and A2), the stakeholders’ general properties are objectively identified as to which
autonomous behavior they exhibit (if any). The results of this cross-comparison are presented in Table 2.
From Table 2, eleven out of seventeen properties are considered as exhibiting stakeholders’ autonomous
behavior. The other six are not marked as autonomous behavior of the stakeholder, for at least two reasons.
First, they are not a property of persons or individuals. The properties, such as local culture, trust, and proximity
are categorized as a system or environment property. Therefore, even though they exhibit some traits of
autonomy, they are not included as stakeholder properties. Second, the properties of creativity and
innovativeness, by definition, are not regarded as corresponding with the autonomy definition or dimensions.
Table 2. Extraction of Stakeholders’ autonomous properties.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

11 of 26

General
Decision-Making Property

Autonomous Behavior

No
Self-Governance

Self-Control

Self-Learning

Self-Determination

1

Initiative

X

X

X

O

2

Motivation

X

X

X

O

3

Ability to organize

O

O

X

X

4

Leadership

O

O

X

X

5

Ability to collect and
understand information

X

X

O

X

6

Communication ability

O

X

X

X

7

Responsibility

X

O

X

O

8

Trust

X

X

X

X

9

Interaction

X

X

O

X

10

Collaboration

X

X

O

X

11

Openness

X

X

X

X

12

Commitment

X

O

X

O

13

Local culture

X

X

X

X

14

Networking ability

X

X

O

X

15

Creativity

X

X

X

X

16

Innovativeness

X

X

X

X

17

Proximity

X

X

X

X

After correlating these properties with the autonomy dimensions, selected properties are further
classified into seven points based on definitional similarity, and they are as follows:
1.

Motivation, initiative; selected because the decision-makers need to have motivation or initiative, or
ability to think by themselves in order to be considered as autonomous.

2.

Leadership, ability to organize; selected because autonomy also requires self-governance and selfcontrol. In order to have the ability to govern or organize themselves, the decision-makers need to have
some level of leadership and ability to coordinate and communicate their goal with their subordinates or
members.

3.

Self-learning, ability to manage information; selected because an autonomous decision-maker needs to
have the willingness and ability to learn, to manage and collect information, and to understand the
information necessary to make decisions.

4.

Interaction between the community members; one of the results of the analysis conducted on the five
cases was that the interaction among community leaders and members has an important role in reaching
a consensus or decision, as well as in decision implementation, and sustaining the operation and
maintenance of the project. A decision that is reached through group interaction performs better when
compared to a decision reached by a group of people that does not interact at all [58].

5.

Networking and collaboration between stakeholders; this property is linked with the previous property.
We differentiate it because, in this property, the community (leaders and members) is considered as one
stakeholder. The networking and collaboration between the community and other stakeholders outside
the community, such as government agencies, officials, local NGOs, private sectors, and others, was seen
in the five cases and contributed to the success of the project.

6.

Persuasion and negotiation ability; this property is closely related with the leadership level of the
stakeholder. This property was also very useful in reaching a consensus or decision, especially when the
project involved multiple stakeholders. This property is found predominantly in the cases where the
initiative does not come from governments.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

7.

12 of 26

Responsibility and commitment; this property is especially important when the decision is ready to be
implemented. In order for the project to be constructed, each stakeholder involved needs to be
responsible for their duty and commit to the decision that has been made.

4.4. The Petri-Net Model
The autonomous decision-making model, which in this paper is regarded as a discrete event system, is
represented using Petri-net. The principal process of modeling the decision-making into Petri-net can be
described as follows. Each stage of the decision-making in Section 4.2 is transformed into transition for the
Petri-net model. For graphical purpose, we provide two version of Petri-net graphs. The simplified Petri-net
diagram for this case study is presented in Figure 3, meanwhile the complete Petri-net graph using Yasper is
presented in Figure A1 in the Appendix.
The conditions for each stakeholder involved are given at the beginning of the net, and are not changed
during the course of the process. There are three subnets added (for detail see Appendix, Figure A2–A4). Each
subnet is designed for one autonomous property, namely the Motivation Subnet
(T1), the Leadership Subnet (T2), and the ability to manage information, shortened as the Information Subnet
(T3). The reason behind the subnets’ creation is because the model will be simulated by changing the number
of stakeholders involved and changing the combination of their properties. Therefore, it is important to show
the process of how each stakeholder becomes autonomous or non-autonomous in detail. However, we realized
that this process can make the whole decision-making process model more visually complex. Therefore, we
added several subnets in the Petri-net model, hence, making it a hierarchical model. The subnets show the
process of every stakeholder in becoming autonomous or non-autonomous. Autonomous stakeholders will
have a token in the corresponding places, whereas those who do not have autonomous properties will have
no token. The other reason is because the content of these hierarchical transitions are fluid, depending on how
many stakeholders are involved. This makes it inefficient to draw directly on the primary layer.
The results from these hierarchical transitions from the subnets are shown on the primary layer as one
single place, which is a simplification of the number of places corresponding to each stakeholder involved (in
Figure 3, these are designated by blue coloring, hereafter they are called “blue” places). If the number of
stakeholders is more than one, then each blue place consists of a combination of stakeholders’ conditions. This
simplification is purely for graphical purposes. These blue places are drawn as several single places in the
complete version of the Petri-net model. The example given in Figure A1 of the Appendix shows that if there
are five autonomous stakeholders involved in the decision-making process, this would result in each of the
hierarchical transitions (T1, T2, and T3) producing five tokens in each of the corresponding places. Therefore,
each blue place in primary layer (P2, P3, and P4) actually consists of five single places with a token in it. For
simulation purposes, it is not possible to simply put five tokens in each of P2, P3, and P4. This is because at
later transitions (T6 and T8), the rules are specifically differentiated based on the stakeholder types. Decisionmaking processes may require certain specific stakeholders to make an autonomous decision—in this case a
token from these stakeholders will be compulsory. In addition to this, the specific direction that a decision takes
may be designated by which, or how many, other stakeholders have autonomous properties (a token, in this
case).
In Figure 3, there are three variations of transition. First, is the standard transition, which is marked by a
black box. Second, the orange diamond-shape transition, which represents an XOR transition. An XOR transition
consumes one token from one of its input places and produces a token in one of its output places. This means
that this transition can be fired if there is at least one token in one of its input places. The third transition is a
hierarchical transition (T1–T3). As mentioned before, the Petri-net model in this paper is a hierarchical one,
meaning there is another process or another set of Petri-net models under the primary layer. A detail
explanation on the variations of transitions with the corresponding decision type used in this paper is
presented in Table 3.
There are three other important elements of the Petri-net model shown in Figure 3, namely the inbound
arcs, outbound arcs, and tokens. The inbound and outbound arcs between places and transitions show the
direction of token movement. In addition, they also show the relationship between places and transitions.
Since places represent the conditions needing to be fulfilled for firing the transitions, it is easy to identify what
kind of conditions are required for an action or event to occur. The bidirectional arc represents a simplification
of a situation in which whenever a transition is fired, then the transition will produce a token in the output

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

13 of 26

place and also put the token back in the input place. The legend for the Petri-net in Figure 3 is presented in
Table 4.
The Petri-net developed in this paper shows that the discrete event system consists of decision-making
stages and the role of stakeholders involved in a decision-making process can be objectively and logically
modeled. Utilizing the procedures explained above, other decision-making cases can also be represented using
Petri-net. Although the model might be different in detail, the decision-making stages are relatively similar.
Table 3. Type of transitions with its corresponding decisions type.
Type of Transition

Type of Decision

Standard transition

Used if the condition(s) to reach a particular action/decision is unnegotiable, or if the number
of states resulted from a particular action/decision are definite.

XOR transition

Used if there are two or more states that possible as inputs or outputs of the particular
action/decision. This type of transition is usually applied to decisions that branches subject to
certain conditions.

Hierarchical transition

Used as a representative of a sub-layer in the Petri-net. The sub-layer contains another set of
transitions-places which is deliberately hidden to simplify the main Petri-net model.

Table 4. Legend for places and transitions in the Petri-net model.
Place

Description

Transition

Description

P1:

Waste and sanitation problem situation

T1:

Motivation subnet

P2:

Set of stakeholders’ motivation level

T2:

Information subnet

P3:

Set of stakeholders’ ability to manage
information level

T3:

Leadership subnet

P4:

Set of stakeholders’ leadership level

T4:

Problem finding process

P5:

Problem is defined

T5:

Designing alternatives process

P6:

Alternatives are designed

T6:

Decision-making

P7:

WMS technique is selected (decision is
made)

T7:

Construction of WMS

P8:

WMS is constructed (decision
is implemented)

T8:

Operation & Maintenance

T9:

Termination of the project

P9:

Waste is reduced

P10:

Project stopped

P11:

Project continued

Challenges 2016, 7, 9
15 of 26

Figure 3. Hierarchical Petri-net (simplified) describing the decision-making process of a WMS case study.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

15 of 26

5. Analysis and Discussions
Two main steps were performed through the methods explained in this paper. First is the method to
decompose the community decision-making process into discrete events. This process resulted into two
outputs, which are the decision-making stages (Section 4.2) and the stakeholders’ autonomous properties
(Section 4.3). The second step is the method to build the discrete event system in the form of the Petri-net
model, which generalizes the decision-making in a case of energy and environmental management (Section
4.4).
The decomposition process produces decision-making stages and the stakeholders’ autonomous
properties. The decision-making stages are performed utilizing the framework in Figure 2. As a result, six
decision-making stages are obtained; namely, problem definition, alternatives design, agreement or consensus
building, implementation and construction, management, and project termination, whereas the stakeholders’
properties are identified by qualitatively cross-comparing the stakeholders’ general properties with the
autonomous behaviors. There are seven autonomous properties identified here; namely, (1) motivation and
initiative; (2) leadership and ability to organize; (3) self-learning or the ability to manage information, (4)
interaction; (5) networking and collaboration; (6) persuasion and negotiation ability; and (7) responsibility and
commitment. Among these, properties (4) and (5) are considered as more a property of groups of people,
meaning they exist if there are at least two types of stakeholders involved in the decision-making, whereas the
other properties belong to an individual stakeholder.
The results from the decomposition process are then represented by Petri-net. The model is constructed
by combining the decision-making stages that already converted into transitions and places. Analysis of the
Petri-net provide a further understanding that there are several transitions that would yield different outcomes
if the conditions at the blue places are changed. These transitions are identified as critical points, which are
identified from Petri-net graph in Figure 3.
As discussed in Section 4.4, a blue place contains the result from the hierarchical transitions and each blue
place can represent more than one “standard” place. A token in one of the sub-places contained in a blue place
represents the particular stakeholders’ autonomous properties and it will not be changed during the course of
the simulation. For example, if a stakeholder is set since the beginning as not having motivation properties,
then it will continue to lack motivation until the end of the model or the termination of the model. A critical
point in this study refers to a certain transition in the Petri-net model that is influenced by the conditions set in
the blue places, which have particular influence on autonomy. From the model, the critical points identified in
this decision-making process are:
1.

Problem finding process (T4). At this critical point, there are two determining properties, which resulted
from motivation subnet (T1) and information management capability (T2). T4 fires if there is at least one
token in one of its input places (P2 and P3). This means that at this stage, any stakeholder, regardless the
type, can contribute in finding the problem as long they have high motivation or strong leadership.

2.

Designing alternatives (T5), fires depending on the property of information management capability (T2).
T5 fires if there is a token in P5 and there is at least one token in P3. This means that in order to design
decision alternatives, at least one stakeholder must have the capability to manage information.

3.

Decision-making process or consensus-building process (T6), which is determined by the property of
leadership level (T3). T6 fires if there is a token in P6 and at least one token in P4. This means that in order
to reach a decision or a consensus together, at least one stakeholder needs to have strong leadership. The
output of this transition is differentiated by the specific stakeholders’ conditions.
Operation and maintenance phase (T8), is determined by all three properties of: leadership level (P4),
motivation level (P2), and information management capability (P3). Basically, T8 fires if there is a
combination between the properties of several stakeholders together. This means that collaboration,
networking, and interaction between stakeholders plays an important role in this Operation and
Maintenance stage. However, since the leadership property (P4) is already given in T6, therefore there is

4.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

16 of 26

no need to connect T8 with the inbound arc from P4. The result of T8 will be differentiated based on the
properties from blue places based on types and properties of stakeholders.
5.

Termination of the project (T9), determining property: result from the O and M phase (T8). The outputs
from the previous transition (T8) are differentiated based on the stakeholder types and properties. In the
simulation, the rule will be imposed on T9 as to whether to produce a token for P10 or P11, based on the
token condition in P9. For example, if the token produced from T8 shows a condition of autonomous local
people (community leaders or interested individuals), then the project will be more likely to go beyond
project termination, and therefore T9 will produce a token in P11. Since T9 is an XOR transition, the firing
of T9 can only be produced in one of P10 or P11.

Among these critical points, the first two points (T4 and T5) determine whether the process will reach a
decision or fail to reach a decision. The latter three points (T6, T8, and T9) determine the variety of success
levels in achieving the project goal. Meanwhile T7 is not identified as a critical point because the transition
only depends on one input place.
The Petri-net model in this paper represents the decision-making process as it occurred in community
case studies. The common traits of community decision-making should not be neglected. For example, in a
community, if a certain problem exists and a stakeholder proposes some solution alternatives but the remaining
stakeholders are not able to reach a consensus or decision, then the whole decision-making process
fails/stagnates and the problem will persist. This means that, for solving the same problem, the decision-making
process needs to be started from the beginning again. In the simulation, this trait will be represented by the
instant termination of the model simulation every time a transition is not fired.
The critical points in this paper are identified by developing the Petri-net model which resulted from
carefully decomposing the case study. Therefore, the most important part is decomposing the case’s story into
decision-making stages, which can only be performed if the case study or project history is well understood.
This made the data collection procedure holds an important role in understanding the context under which the
decision was taken. Although complete information might be available in the form of reports and secondary
records, direct field visits and observations are highly recommended to obtain a thorough understanding of the
targeted community, and also to avoid bias from previous researchers. Another important point is the selection
of principal informants to be interviewed. It is best to interview stakeholders that are involved directly at the
beginning of the project even though they might already be very old or have already stepped down from their
position if the project has been conducted for a number of years.
The method explained throughout this paper comprises of decomposing the community decision-making
process, extraction of the stakeholders’ autonomous properties, and modeling the autonomous decisionmaking process. The results of these steps are complemented by the results obtained from various literature
and data collection. The structured method utilized in this paper can be summarized in Figure 4 below.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

17 of 26

Figure 4. General method for developing autonomous decision-making model.

6. Conclusions
This paper presents a method to build an autonomous decision-making model, which is considered to be
important within the development of decentralized generation and demand-centered projects in energy and
environmental beneficiation. However, the approach is generalizable to other fields and case studies beyond
that presented here. The specific Petri-net must be designed given the understanding of the stakeholders and
project elements involved in decision making, which is performed by decomposing a decision-making process
into discrete events or decision-making stages as shown in Figure 4. Using Petri-net as a tool, the decisionmaking stages are transformed into a set of place-transitions or simple Petri-net models, and these small
models are compiled to construct the autonomous decision-making model. The utilization of Petri-net to
represent decision-making models helps the decision-making process to be analyzed objectively and important
stages of autonomous decision-making are prominently shown. These important stages are identified as critical
points of autonomous decision-making. A critical point is influenced by the stakeholders’ properties and
determines the output of the model, or whether the model can reach the end of the network or not.
The results of this paper are going to be further employed for simulations based on the Petri-net model.
The utilization of Petri-net in building the autonomous decision-making model is considered as one of the
effective ways to perform the model simulation in the future study. Some of the stakeholders’ autonomous
properties identified above such as motivation, leadership, and ability to manage information, are going to be
assigned deterministically to each stakeholder involved in the decision-making process and various outcomes
from the simulations will be observed in order to identify the key conditions suitable for successfully achieving
goals.
Acknowledgments: The authors are grateful for the comments and suggestions from three anonymous reviewers. The first
author would like to extend her gratitude to the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT),
Japan, for supporting this study.
Author Contributions: The manuscript is prepared by Niken Prilandita, under the supervision of Tetsuo Tezuka and
Benjamin McLellan, who assisted in co-authoring and improving paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

18 of 26

Appendix
Table A1 below listed the behaviors or characteristics that commonly associated with autonomous
individual, or even used to define the concept of autonomy. The second column shows that these behaviors
appeared or even mentioned as a prerequisite for succeeding a decision implementation based on various
literature in decision-making, especially in the energy and environmental sector. The third column contain
general definition of each behavior, which are useful for the cross-comparing process in Section 4.3.
Table A1. Definition of elements of autonomous behavior.
Autonomous Behavior

Definition

Mentioned in

Self-governance

Governance refers to the processes of interaction and decisionmaking among the actors involved in a collective
problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or
reproduction of social norms and institutions [59]. Therefore, selfgovernance defined as the capability of an individual or group to
develop their own way to establish the governance and running it
without intervention.

[40]

Refers to a set of processes that enable individuals to guide their
goal directed activities over time and across changing contexts
[60]. Often used interchangeably with self-regulation [61].

Self-control

The capability to perform the act of learning by oneself. Learning
here defined as the acquisition of knowledge and/or skills that
serve as an enduring platform for adaptive development and to
comprehend and navigate novel problems [61].

Self-learning

Self-determination

The capacity to choose and to have those choices, rather than
reinforcement contingencies, drives, or any other forces or
pressures, be the determinants of one’s actions. Self-determination
often involves controlling one’s environment or one’s outcomes, but
it may also involve choosing to give up control [64].

[61–63]

[15]

[2,65]

Table A2 below are the observed stakeholders’ properties existed in the successful cases of community
project in energy-environmental management. The second column shows that these properties appeared or
even mentioned as a prerequisite for succeeding a decision implementation based on various literature in
decision-making, especially in the energy and environmental sector. The third column contain general definition
of each properties, which are useful for the cross-comparing process in Section 4.3.
Table A2. Definition of stakeholders’ general properties.
Properties

Mentioned in

Definition

Initiative

[4]

Behavior characterized by self-starting nature, proactive approach, and by
being persistent in overcoming difficulties that arise in the pursuit of a goal
[61].

[3,4]

Refers to the set of psychological processes governing the direction,
intensity, and persistence of actions that are not due solely to overwhelming
environmental demands that coerce or force action [61].

Motivation

Table A2. Cont.
Properties

Mentioned in

Definition

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

19 of 26

Initiative

[4]

Behavior characterized by self-starting nature, proactive approach, and by
being persistent in overcoming difficulties that arise in the pursuit of a goal
[61].

Motivation

[3,4]

Refers to the set of psychological processes governing the direction,
intensity, and persistence of actions that are not due solely to overwhelming
environmental demands that coerce or force action [61].

Ability to
organize

[4]

Capacity to coordinate, manage, facilitate, a particular object/tasks among
group of people to reach a certain goal [61].
A set of role behaviors by individuals in the context of the group or Leadership

[66,67]

organization to which they belong.
The exercise of influence over others by utilizing various bases of social
power, tactics, and so on in order to elicit the group members’ compliance
with certain norms and their commitment to achieve the group’s objectives
[61].

Ability to collect
and
understand
information

Communication
ability

[3]

Capacity to collect and understand information without help from other
parties.

[4]

Capacity to exchange in exchange information, form understandings,
coordinate activities, exercise influence, socialize, and generate and maintain
systems of beliefs, symbols, and values among members of
institution/organizations [61].
An attribute that an adult person is duty-bound to undertake [70]. In
environmental behavior, it defined as an individual sense of obligation or
duty to take measures against environmental degradation [71].

Responsibility

[68,69]

Trust

[3]

A generalized expectancy held by an individual or group that the word,
promise, verbal, or written statement of another individual or group can be
relied on [61].

Interaction

[72–74]

A particular kinds of social relationship that are different from, but
constitutive of, groups, organizations, and networks. Interaction occurs when
two or more participants are in each other’s perceptual range and orient to
each other through their action and activity [75].

Collaboration

[76,77]

Collective action or effort performed by a group of people to solve problem
or adjust environments in order to discover new mutually beneficial options
[77].

Openness

[4]

Commitment

[79,80]

Referred as the level of identification with, and attachment and loyalty to, an
organization, an occupation, or some other feature of work [61].

Local culture

[61]

Some shared set of characteristics in common to a particular group of
people [61].

Networking
ability

[73,81]

Capacity to perform a process of contacting and being contacted by people
in one’s social or technical/professional world and maintaining these
linkages and relationships [61].

Creativity

[4,82,83]

The generation of ideas or products that are both novel and appropriate
(correct, useful, valuable, or meaningful) [61].

Referred as transparency to access information within organization,
institution, or society [78]

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

20 of 26

Innovativeness

[83,84]

The degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas
than the other members of a system [85].

Proximity

[86,87]

Referred to the spatial distance or familiarity of a certain object or problem
to a person or group of person.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

21 of 26

Figure A1. The Petri-net model drawn using Yasper (no simplification).

Figure A2. The “Motivation” Subnet.

Figure A3. The “Leadership” Subnet.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

22 of 26

Figure A4. The “Information” Subnet.

References
1.

International Council for Science (ICSU) and International Social Science Council (ISSC). Review of Targets for the
Sustainable Development Goals: The Science Perspective; ICSU: Paris, France, 2015.

2.

Scheer, H. Energy Autonomy: The Economic, Social and Technological Case for Renewable Energy, 2nd ed.; Earthscan:
London, UK, 2007; Volume 41.

3.

Malone, T.W. Is Empowerment Just a Fad? Control, Decision Making, and IT. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 1997, 38, 22–35.

4.

Malone, T.W. The Future of Work: How the New Order of Business Will Shape Your Organizations, Your Management
Style, and Your Life; Harvard Business School Press: Boston, MA, USA, 2004.

5.

Malone, T.W.; Laubacher, R.; Scott Morton, M.S. Inventing the Organizations of the 21st Century; MIT Press:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003.

6.

Kralewski, D. Bottom-up decentralized approach to innovation strategy. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on New
Generation Enterprise and Business Innovation Systems (NGEBIS-2012), Gdansk, Poland, 26 June 2012; Missikoff, M.,
Smith, F., Eds.; CEUR-WS: Gdansk, Poland, 2012; Volume 864, pp. 55–61.

7.

Piper, M. Autonomy: Normative. Available online: (accessed on 20 November
2015).

8.

Dryden, J. Autonomy. Available online: (accessed on 21 November 2015).

9.

Prause-Stamm, J. Self-Directedness and Resoluteness: The Two Dimensions of Autonomy; The Humboldt University of
Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2013.

10.

Korb, A. The Upward Spiral: Using Neuroscience to Reverse the Course of Depression, One Small Change at a Time;
New Harbinger Publications, Inc.: Oakland, CA, USA, 2015.

11.

Achor, S. The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology that Fuel Success and Performance at
Work; Crown Business: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

12.

Zaharia, P. Autonomy and decentralization: Current priorities in the local public administration management.
USV Ann. Econ. Public Admin. 2011, 11, 288–292.

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

23 of 26

13.

Beard, V.A.; Miraftab, F.; Silver, C. Planning and Decentralization: Contested Spaces for Public Action in the Global
South; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2008.

14.

Mackenzie, C. Three dimensions of autonomy: A relational analysis. In Autonomy, Oppression, and Gender; Veltman,
A., Piper, M., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 15–41.

15.

Di Paolo, E.A.; Iizuka, H. How (not) to model autonomous behaviour. Biosystems 2008, 91, 409–423. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]

16.

Simon, H.A. The New Science of Management Decision; Harper and Brothers: New York, NY, USA, 1960.

17.

Braunstein, D.N. Review of managerial decision making/model building for decision analysis. Acad. Manag.
Rev. 1981, 6, 515–517.

18.

Petrie, J.; Cohen, B.; Stewart, M. Decision support frameworks and metrics for sustainable development of minerals
and metals. Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 2007, 9, 133–145. [CrossRef]

19.

Montana, P.J.; Charnov, B.H. Management; Barron’s Educational Series, Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2000.

20.

Sexton, K.; Marcus, A.F.; Easter, K.W.; Burkhardt, T.D. Better Environmental Decisions: Strategies for Governments,
Businesses and Communities; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.

21.

Jollands, N.; Gasc, E.; Pasquier, S.B. Innovations in Multi-Level Governance for Energy Efficiency; IEA: Paris, France,
2009.

22.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Cities, Climate Change and Multilevel Governance; OECD:
Paris, France, 2009.

23.

Bale, C.S.E.; Foxon, T.J.; Hannon, M.J.; Gale, W.F. Strategic energy planning within local authorities in the UK: A study
of the city of Leeds. Energy Policy 2012, 48, 242–251. [CrossRef]

24.

Bale, C.S.E.; Abuhussein, A.M.; Foxon, T.J.; Hannon, M.J.; Gale, W.F. Delivering national policy at the local level: The
role for local authorities in the implementation of the UKs flagship Green Deal policy. In Proceedings of the
International Sustainable Development Research Conference, Hull, UK, 24–26 June 2012.

25.

Indonesia Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources (Kementrian ESDM). Blueprint Pengelolaan Energi Nasional
2006–2025; Kementrian ESDM: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2006.

26.

Bulkeley, H.; Kern, K. Local Government and the Governing of Climate Change in Germany and the UK. Urban Stud.
2006, 43, 2237–2259. [CrossRef]

27.

Blanchet, T. Struggle over energy transition in Berlin: How do grassroots initiatives affect local energy policy-making?
Energy Policy 2014, 78, 246–254. [CrossRef]

28.

Pitt, D. Harnessing community energy: The keys to climate mitigation policy adoption in US municipalities. Local
Environ. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 2010, 15, 717–729. [CrossRef]

29.

St Denis, G.; Parker, P. Community energy planning in Canada: The role of renewable energy. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2009, 13, 2088–2095. [CrossRef]

30.

Tozer, L. Community energy plans in Canadian cities: Success and barriers in implementation. Local Environ. Int. J.
Justice Sustain. 2013, 18, 20–35. [CrossRef]

31.

Jaccard, M.; Failing, L.; Berry, T. From equipment to infrastructure: Community energy management and greenhouse
gas emission reduction. Energy Policy 1997, 25, 1065–1074. [CrossRef]

32.

Walker, G.; Hunter, S.; Devine-Wright, P.; Evans, B.; Fay, H. Harnessing Community Energies: Explaining and Evaluating
Community-Based Localism in Renewable Energy Policy in the UK. Glob. Environ. Polit. 2007, 7, 64–82. [CrossRef]

33.

Seyfang, G.; Park, J.J.; Smith, A. A thousand flowers blooming? An examination of community energy in the UK. Energy
Policy 2013, 61, 977–989. [CrossRef]

34.

Seyfang, G.; Haxeltine, A. Growing grassroots innovations: Exploring the role of community-based initiatives in
governing sustainable energy transitions. Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2012, 30, 381–400. [CrossRef]

35.

Walker, G.; Devine-Wright, P. Community renewable energy: What should it mean? Energy Policy 2008, 36, 497–500.
[CrossRef]

36.

Axsen, J.; Kurani, K.S. Social Influence, Consumer Behavior, and Low-Carbon Energy Transitions. Annu. Rev. Environ.
Resour. 2012, 37, 311–340. [CrossRef]

37.

Heiskanen, E.; Johnson, M.; Robinson, S.; Vadovics, E.; Saastamoinen, M. Low-carbon communities as a context for
individual behavioural change. Energy Policy 2010, 38, 7586–7595. [CrossRef]

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

38.

24 of 26

Moloney, S.; Strengers, Y. “Going Green”? The Limitations of Behaviour Change Programmes as a Policy
Response to Escalating Resource Consumption. Environ. Policy Gov. 2014, 24, 94–107. [CrossRef]

39.

Naus, J.; Spaargaren, G.; van Vliet, B.J.M.; van der Horst, H.M. Smart grids, information flows and emerging domestic
energy practices. Energy Policy 2014, 68, 436–446. [CrossRef]

40.

Wolsink, M. The research agenda on social acceptance of distributed generation in smart grids: Renewable as
common pool resources. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 822–835. [CrossRef]

41.

Prilandita, N.; McLellan, B.C.; Tezuka, T. The Framework for Identifying Autonomous Decision-Making Process on
Energy and Environmental Issues: The Case Studies in Indonesian Communities (Rukun Warga). Available online:
(accessed on 4 January 2016).

42.

Hillion, H.P. Performance Evaluation of Decision-Making Organizations Using Timed Petri Nets; Massachusetts
Institute of Technology: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986.

43.

Shukla, A.; Robbi, A.D. A Petri net simulation tool. In Proceedings of the 1991 IEEE International Conference on
Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, “Decision Aiding for Complex System”, Charlottesville, VA, USA, 13–16 October 1991;
pp. 361–366.

44.

Bullers, W.I. A Tripartite Approach to Information Systems Development. Decis. Sci. 1991, 22, 120–135. [CrossRef]

45.

Wang, J. Petri nets for dynamic event-driven system modeling. In Handbook of Dynamic System Modeling; Fishwick,
P., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 1–17.

46.

Sileno, G.; Boer, A. Legal knowledge conveyed by narratives: Towards a representational model. In Proceedings of the
Workshop on Computational Models of Narrative (CMN 2014), Quebec City, QC, Canada, 31 July–2 August 2014; pp.
182–191.

47.

Balas, D.; Brom, C.; Abonyi, A.; Gemrot, J. Hierarchical petri nets for story plots featuring virtual humans.
In Proceedings of the 4th Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment Conference, Palo Alto, CA, USA,
22–24 October 2008; Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence: Stanford, CA, USA, 2008; pp. 2–9.

48.

Araújo, M.; Roque, L. Modeling games with petri nets. In Breaking New Ground: Innovation in Games, Play, Practice
and Theory; Digital Games Research Association (DiGRA): London, UK, 2009.

49.

Xie, N.; Duan, M.; Chinnam, R.B.; Li, A.; Xue, W. An energy modeling and evaluation approach for machine tools using
generalized stochastic Petri Nets. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 113, 523–531. [CrossRef]

50.

Sava, A.; Adjallah, K.H.; Lagaza, H. Hybrid Petri nets for modeling and control of multi-source energy conversion
systems. In Proceedings of the 2014 International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies
(CoDIT), Metz, France, 3–5 November 2014; pp. 516–521.

51.

Kyriakarakos, G.; Dounis, A.I.; Arvanitis, K.G.; Papadakis, G. A fuzzy cognitive maps–petri nets energy management
system for autonomous polygeneration microgrids. Appl. Soft Comput. 2012, 12, 3785–3797. [CrossRef]

52.

Bat’a, R.; Obršálová, I.; Volek, J.; Jordão, T.C. Petri nets application for management of biodegradable components of
municipal waste. WSEAS Trans. Environ. Dev. 2008, 4, 1057–1066.

53.

Bat’a, R.; Kárník, J. Modeling of environmental effect of biofuels by Petri Nets. In Advances in Environment,
Biotechnology and Biomedicine; WSEAS Press: Zlin, Czech Republic, 2012; pp. 69–74.

54.

Zhou, M. Petri Nets in Flexible and Agile Automation; Kluwer Academic Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 1995. 55.
Indonesia Ministry of Public Works. Best Practices of Solid Waste Management in Indonesia (in Bahasa Indonesia);
Departemen Pekerjaan Umum: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2007.

56.

Hidayat, M.; Tanuwidjaja, G. Proposal Revitalisasi Permukiman dan Sistem Lingkungan Kelurahan Cibangkong
Bertumpu kepada Masyarakat; Green Impact Indonesia: Bandung, Indonesia, 2009.

57.

Amir, E.; Hophmayer-Tokich, S.; Kurnani, T. Socio-Economic Considerations of Converting Food Waste into Biogas on
a Household Level in Indonesia: The Case of the City of Bandung. Recycling 2015, 1, 61–88. [CrossRef]

58.

Plous, S. The Psychology of Judgment and Decision Making; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1993.

59.

Hufty, M. Investigating policy processes: The Governance Analytical Framework (GAF). In Research for Sustainable
Development: Foundations, Experiences, and Perspectives; Wiesmann, U., Hurni, H., Eds.; Geographica Bernensia:
Bern, Switzerland, 2011; pp. 403–424.

60.

Ameriks, J.; Caplin, A.; Leahy, J.; Tyler, T. Measuring Self-Control Problems. Am. Econ. Rev. 2007, 97, 966–972.
[CrossRef]

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

61.

25 of 26

Nicholson, N.; Audia, P.G.; Pillutla, M.M. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Management: Organizational Behavior, 2nd
ed.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005.

62.

Schweizer-Ries, P. Energy sustainable communities: Environmental psychological investigations. Energy Policy 2008,
36, 4126–4135. [CrossRef]

63.

Barr, S.; Gilg, A.; Shaw, G. Citizens, consumers and sustainability: (Re)Framing environmental practice in an age of
climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2011, 21, 1224–1233. [CrossRef]

64.

Deci, E.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, 1st ed.; Springer Science &
Business Media: New York, NY, USA, 1985.

65.

Wittayapak, C.; Dearden, P. Decision-Making Arrangements in Community-Based Watershed Management in
Northern Thailand. Soc. Nat. Resour. 1999, 12, 673–691.

66.

Getimis, P.; Heinelt, H. Leadership and Community Involvement in the European Cities: Conditions of Success and/or
Failure. Available online: dsresourcefaad.pdf?objectid=148461
(accessed on 14 May 2015).

67.

Fahmi, F.Z.; Prawira, M.I.; Hudalah, D.; Firman, T. Leadership and collaborative planning: The case of Surakarta,
Indonesia. Plan. Theory 2015. [CrossRef]

68.

Wenshun, W.; Xiaohua, L.; Hualong, L. Empirical Research of the Environmental Responsibility Affected on the Urban
Residential Housing Energy Saving Investment Behavior. Energy Procedia 2011, 5, 991–997. [CrossRef]

69.

Barr, S.; Gilg, A.; Shaw, G. “Helping People Make Better Choices”: Exploring the behaviour change agenda for
environmental sustainability. Appl. Geogr. 2011, 31, 712–720. [CrossRef]

70.

Williams, G. Responsibility. Available online: (accessed on 30 January 2016).

71.

Fransson, N.; Gärling, T. Environmental concern: Conceptual definitions, measurement methods, and research
findings. J. Environ. Psychol. 1999, 19, 369–382. [CrossRef]

72.

Bale, C.; McCullen, N.; Foxon, T.; Rucklidge, A.; Gale, W. Local Authority Interventions in the Domestic Sector and the
Role of Social Networks: A Case Study from the City of Leeds. Available online:
(accessed on 21 January 2016).

73.

Bale, C.S.E.; McCullen, N.J.; Foxon, T.J.; Rucklidge, A.M.; Gale, W.F. Harnessing social networks for promoting adoption
of energy technologies in the domestic sector. Energy Policy 2013, 63, 833–844. [CrossRef]

74.

Seyfang, G.; Smith, A. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards a new research and policy
agenda. Environ. Polit. 2007, 16, 584–603. [CrossRef]

75.

Ritzer, G. The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Socology, 4th ed.; Blackwell Publishing Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2009.

76.

Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1999, 65, 412–423.
[CrossRef]

77.

Innes, J.E.; Booher, D.E. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy, 1st
ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2010.

78.

Peters, M.A. The Idea of Openness: Open Education and Education for Openness. Available online:
(accessed on 30 January 2016).

79.

Abrahamse, W.; Steg, L.; Vlek, C.; Rothengatter, T. A review of intervention studies aimed at household energy
conservation. J. Environ. Psychol. 2005, 25, 273–291. [CrossRef]

80.

Spaargaren, G.; Oosterveer, P. Citizen-Consumers as Agents of Change in Globalizing Modernity: The Case of
Sustainable Consumption. Sustainability 2010, 2, 1887–1908. [CrossRef]

81.

Booher, D.E.; Innes, J.E. Network Power in Collaborative Planning. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2002, 21, 221–236. [CrossRef]

82.

Amabile, T.M. Creativity in Context; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1996.

83.

De Vries, M.S. The rise and fall of decentralization: A comparative analysis of arguments and practices in European
countries. Eur. J. Polit. Res. 2000, 38, 193–224. [CrossRef]

84.

Monger, R.F. Managerial Decision Making with Technology, 1st ed.; Pergamon Press: New York, NY, USA, 1987.

85.

Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed.; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 2003.

86.

Devine-Wright, P. Renewable Energy and the Public: From NIMBY to Participation; Earthscan: London, UK, 2011;
Volume 32.

87.

Hodson, M.; Marvin, S. Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were?

Challenges 2016, 7, 9

26 of 26

Res. Policy 2010, 39, 477–485. [CrossRef]
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license
(

Purchase answer to see full
attachment