1 / 21

NATO Guide for Judgement-Based Operational Analysis in Defence Decision Making

This guide, presented by Neville J. Curtis, offers insight into conducting judgement-based operational analysis for defense decision making. It provides rules for analysts, clarity for clients, and management of expectations. The guide aims to ensure quality criteria such as validity, credibility, and acceptance are met, enhancing the decision-making process. The analyst-oriented volume includes topics like puzzles, problems, messes, roles and responsibilities, the process, and methodology. The client-oriented volume answers key questions and emphasizes the importance of judgement-based OA in complex decision situations.

jmartell
Download Presentation

NATO Guide for Judgement-Based Operational Analysis in Defence Decision Making

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NATO Guide for Judgement-Based Operational Analysis in Defence Decision Making NATO SAS-087 presented by Neville J Curtis Research Leader, Operations Research Defence Science and Technology Organisation OR 54 (2012)

  2. Dramatis personae • Australia – NJ Curtis • Canada – M Halbrohr • France – O de Baysier (until Autumn 2010) • Germany – G Mihelcic, C Wittmann • Netherlands – ICL Bastings, DJD Wijnmalen (Chair) • Sweden – J Frelin • United Kingdom – SM Lord, GA Pickburn • United States – YH Wong (from December 2010) • NATO/ACT – S Collins, A Smethurst • Workshop participants at ISMOR 2010 and OR52 • Academic consultants: LA Franco and EAJA Rouwette • Defence consultants: RA Forder, J-H Pay, FS Ordean and I Psomas

  3. The products • NATO Guide for Judgement-based Operational Analysis in Defence Decision Making: • Analyst-oriented volume (142p. A4)theCode of Best Practice for ‘Soft’ Operational Analysis • Client-oriented volume (56p. A5) • Executive-oriented volume (4p. A4)

  4. Aim of the Guide • Guidance as to how to set up & conduct a judgement-based (‘soft’) OA/OR study that meets quality criteria including client expectations: validity, credibility, acceptance • Rules of the road for analysts, creating clarity & focus • Clarification and expectation management for clients • This presentation will describe the contents of the guide

  5. Analyst-oriented volume (Code of Best Practice)

  6. Ch 2 (12p) - Puzzles, Problems, Messes and soft OA/OR

  7. Increasing opportunity for use of judgement-based (‘soft’) OA Relating ‘p’, ‘p’, ‘m’ to ‘hard’, ‘soft’ OA/OR (1)

  8. Relating ‘p’, ‘p’, ‘m’ to ‘hard’, ‘soft’ OA/OR (2)

  9. Ch 3 (10p) - The model – how to do the right thing right

  10. skills and caveats(Ch 4) analysis of(Ch 4, 6) how to cope with(Ch 4, 7) Ch 4 (21p) - Roles and responsibilities

  11. Ch 5 (15p) – The process

  12. Ch 6 (21p) – Methodology - how to recognise a mess? (1) • Not much is initially known about the nature of the problematic situation and its boundaries (what matters and what does not). • Not much is initially known about defining the elements of the problematic situation and how they may be interrelated. • Not much is initially known about who the stakeholders are and in what manner they may be directly or indirectly affected, their viewpoints and what they are worried about. • Not much is initially known about the goals, objectives and measures of effectiveness or merit that may be relevant. • Not much is initially known about what can and should be changed towards improvement of the problematic situation, and under what conditions or according to what criteria a change will be regarded as an improvement. • Not much is initially known about the data needed, its relevance, availability and reliability. • Not much is initially known about the way in which changes in context will affect the problematic situation, its improvement and the study design to achieve it. • Power, emotion, politics and ethics will most likely come into play, but not much is initially known about how and to what effect. • Different people tell different things (or express different views) about the same issue. • Grand-scale issues are at stake that have no clear end-points (e.g. terrorism) and/or where any possible resolution will most likely have side-effects attached to them that are undesirable by stakeholders.

  13. Ch 6 - How to recognise a mess? (2) • None ticked: puzzle • A few ticked: • problem • Most ticked: • mess Anonymous client quotation: “I want to exclude unforeseen outcomes”

  14. CH 7 (13p) – Data collection eg Subject Matter Experts

  15. Ch 8 (9p) - Using the outcomes

  16. Analyst-oriented volume (Code of Best Practice)

  17. Client-oriented volume (1) • Addresses 7 key questions: • What is judgement-based OA? • Which problematic situations require judgement-based OA? • How does judgement-based OA add value? • What does a judgement-based OA study look like? • What is expected of me, the client? • What does the analyst bring to achieve validity, credibility and acceptance? • How can a CoBP protect the client from threats to the study?

  18. Client-oriented volume (2) • In answering the key questions it stresses 3 key aspects of judgement-based OA: • It enables progress to be made for some otherwise intractable and complex decisions. • It involves a creative journey of discovery and learning that can be used to the advantage of decision makers. • The inherent uncertainty of complicated decision situations that the defence sector faces, leads the client for judgement-based OA to what are perhaps his most pressing concerns – its validity, credibility and acceptance. Study methods must therefore be well documented to withstand scrutiny.

  19. disagreement with a specific part of the study leading to a dismissal of the rest of the material. scenarios treating judgement-based OA study results with too much certainty (e.g. as a prediction). too rapid a progression from an ill-formed concern to a rigid plan for change (e.g. an acquisition). biased preference of some forms of evidence (e.g. from more quantitative sources). selective interpretation to support a specific argument. an improved shared understanding, through a recognition to consider all sides of the issue. an enhanced sense of common purpose. greater commitment to a general way forward. the discovery and consideration of alternative options. the development of acceptable solutions or ways forward to improve the problematic situation. the systematic gathering and analysis of information. use of an approach that recognises people’s different cognitive viewpoints and belief systems. Threats (Ch 7) and benefits (Ch 3)

  20. Executive-oriented leaflet • Addresses: • What is judgement-based OA? • How can defence decision makers be supported? • When should judgement-based OA be used? • What can you do with facilitated workshops? • What are the value and the benefitsof judgement-based OA?

  21. Downloads • www.cso.nato.int/abstracts.aspx • Goes to “Search STO Scientific Publications” • Enter “SAS-087” in top box • The three files are then listed in order of: • 1. client-oriented volume • 2. analyst-oriented volume • 3. executive volume

More Related