Interactive Computer Support in Decision Conferencing

1. Interactive Computer Support in Decision Conferencing Two Cases on Off-Site Nuclear Emergency Management Jyri Mustajoki Raimo P. Hämäläinen Kari Sinkko Systems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology www.sal.hut.fi

2. New Methods for Group Problem Solving • Portable web-based group decision support system • Interactive multiattribute modeling • Hands-on use of the system • Group models • Multiattribute modeling in radiation emergency management is a new approach • Health risk is not the only issue affecting policy decisions

3. Cases: Nuclear Emergency • Simulated nuclear accident • Milk case: Planning of countermeasures for the milk pathway in a nuclear accident • Urban case: Planning of clean-up actions in inhabitated areas • Part of the EU’s EVATECH project: similar workshops arranged in seven European countries • A day-long decision conference exercise held to consider the problem from different perspectives

4. Portable Group Decision Support System Server Projector Internet Stakeholders

5. Software used • Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi) • Multiattribute value tree approach • Individual models aggregated into a group model • Opinions-Online (www.opinions.hut.fi) • Approval voting on the alternatives • WINPRE (www.sal.hut.fi/ Downloadables) • Tested in the Milk case • Global sensitivity analysis with intervals • All available at www.decisionarium.hut.fi

6. Participants • All stakeholders from the institutions and organizations that would be involved in the decision making process also in a real accident • Used the systems by themselves • Most of them had no prior experience about decision analysis or DSS software  Strong requirements to the usability of the methods and the software

7. Progress of the Conferences • Introduction to the decision conference and the case • Identification of the problem and structuring of the model • Evaluation of the model • Hands-on use of the supporting software • Analysis of the results and conclusions All in one day  High intensity

8. Support Stuff • Independent facilitator • Experts in radiation • Three technical assistants for helping the use of the software • Decision analyst

9. Structuring the Model • First set of attributes in preparatory meetings representing early administrative preparation • Experiences of the earlier decision conferences used • Attributes discussed and refined in the conferences • Value tree created simultaneously with an analyst operating with the software

10. Generation of Decision Alternatives • Feasible countermeasures in preparatory meetings: • Milk case, e.g. • provision of uncontaminated fodder • banning of the milk • Urban case, e.g. • continuation of evacuation • sweeping streets • Actual strategy alternatives combinations of these countermeasures

11. Value Tree (Milk Case)

12. Evaluation of the Model • SWING weighting • Six groups of two to three people • Each group evaluated independently the jointly structured model • As a result, six instances of the same value tree • Reflect the preferences of each group

13. Analysis of the Results • Individual results shown for discussion • Understanding of the other participants' preferences • Sensitivity analyses

14. Overall Group Results • Individual results aggregated with the Weighted Arithmetic Mean Method

15. Global Sensitivity Analysis by Intervals Two analyses: • Uncertainties given by participants with interval SMART/ SWING • Uncertainties estimated from the Opinions-Online survey (with PAIRS)

16. Final Strategy Recommendations • Milk Case: Approval voting of the alternatives with Opinions-Online • Two alternatives approved by all but one participants • Either of these could be recommended as a final strategy • Urban Case: One clearly the best alternative • The participants were able to still improve this with some minor modifications on actions

17. Experiences from the Conferences • Very positive feedback • One-day time frame applicable • Careful planning in advance needed • Not much room for improvisation • Experiences emphasize the use of simple models • A comprehensive view of the problem can still be provided

18. Feedback from the Participants

19. Feedback Much Better in the Urban Case Major differences between the conferences that are likely to have affected the feedback: • Three different software used in the Milk case • Much time spent for the explaining the software • Framing of the alternatives • Urban case took a broader view to protect the whole inhabited environment • In the Urban case most participants were local inhabitants  Increased commitment

20. Suitability of the Approach in Nuclear Emergency Management • The approach seen more suitable in planning of protective actions in advance and in excercises than in real cases • The majority of participants saw the approach applicable also in real cases • Some issues caused conversation • Including alternative do nothing • Difference between attributes reassurance and anxiety

21. Independent Use of the Software • In general, the participants were able to independently use the systems • Some misunderstandings in the use of the interval method in WINPRE • More time would be needed to describe the use of the software  The use of the software should be kept simple

22. Arranging the Conference on the Web? • Technically possible • Impacts and other information available on the web • Web-based multiattribute software available • Role of the facilitator? • Behavioral issues need to be kept in mind • How to assure the proper use of the MCDA methods?

23. Conclusions • The participants • considered the conferences useful • reached a consensus on countermeasure policies • were able to use the systems by themselves  Strong support to the MCDA based decision conference with interactive software • With the ’right’ participation and intensive workshop much better choices can be found • Approach applicable also in other environmental problems

24. Conclusions Main prerequisites: • Simple models and software • Transparency and accountability of the process • All the key players’ values incorporated into decisions • The participants have a feel of control • Competent neutral facilitator and analyst

25. References Ammann, M., Sinkko, K., Kostiainen, E., Salo, A., Liskola, K., Hämäläinen, R.P., Mustajoki J. (2001): Decision analysis of countermeasures for the milk pathway after an accidental release of radionuclides, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, STUK-A186, (Downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/ramm01.pdf). Hämäläinen, R.P. (2003), Decisionarium - Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12(2-3), 101-110. Hämäläinen, R.P., Kettunen, E., Marttunen, M., Ehtamo, H. (2001), Evaluating a framework for multi-stakeholder decision support in water resources management, Group Decision and Negotiation, 10, 331-353. Hämäläinen, R.P., Leikola, O. (1996), Spontaneous decision conferencing with top-level politicians, OR Insight, 9(1), 24-28. Hämäläinen, R.P., Lindstedt, M., Sinkko, K. (2000a), Multiattribute Risk Analysis in Nuclear Emergency Management, Risk Analysis, 20(4), 455-467. Hämäläinen, R.P., Sinkko, K., Lindstedt, M., Ammann, M., Salo, A. (1998), RODOS and decision conferencing on early phase protective actions in Finland, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, STUK-A159. (Downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/rham98.pdf)

26. References Hämäläinen, R.P., Sinkko, K., Lindstedt, M., Ammann, M., Salo, A. (2000b), Decision analysis interviews on protective actions in Finland supported by the RODOS system, Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority, STUK-A173. (Downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/rham00.pdf) Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. (2000), Web-HIPRE: Global Decision Support by Value Tree and AHP Analysis, INFOR, 38(3), 208-220. Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Lindstedt, M.R.K. (2005): Using intervals for Global Sensitivity and Worst Case Analyses in Multiattribute Value Trees, European Journal of Operational Research. (to appear) Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P., Sinkko, K. (2005), Interactive Computer Support in Decision Conferencing: Two Cases on Off-site Nuclear Emergency Management, Manuscript. (Downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/mmus05.pdf) Salo, A., Hämäläinen, R.P. (1992), Preference assessment by imprecise ratio statements, Operations Research, 40(6), 1053-1061.