SAS-087 TG-034 on Code of Best Practice for Judgement-based OA Background information for ISMOR 2010 Syndicate Session Diederik Wijnmalen Strategic Choices Dept.; TNO Defence, Security and Safety Organisation for Applied Research, The Netherlands

2 About ‘Soft’ Operational Analysis Soft OA = methodology that is ‘not hard’, i.e. not seeking to abstract mathematically expressed relationships between (physical) variables using quantitative data with the aim of e.g. quantifying (best) resource allocation Soft OA = methodology that uses judgement and interpretive information, i.e. rather aimed at understanding (complex) problem situations, expert prediction of system behaviour, designing courses of action, coping with time pressure & lack of data & intangibles / uncertainties / unknowns / conflicts of interest / risk / interdependencies, etc.  appropriate framework for predominantly subjective, qualitative, participatory situations  promising use due to changing nature of problems faced by (Defence) policy and decision makers at both strategic and operational level  note: even hard OA has soft elements (e.g. modelling & interpretation issues)  But: Soft OA still met with reluctance to apply / accept in some OA quarters despite successful applications

3 Why reluctance towards the use of Soft OR? Analysts are trained in ‘hard’ disciplines (Military) clients are familiar with ‘hard’ techniques, not ‘soft’ Difficulties with ambition and commitment: (false) feeling of ‘hard conclusions needed’  expectations (exact numbers, clear answers) clash with actual results (insight, common ground, ‘ways forward’) deep involvement required and, therefore, early commitment  threatening because there is no escape from the results Problems with acceptance of judgement-based results: by participants (different groups), by non-participating stakeholders, by scrutineers A lot of traditional literature about Soft OA tend to be oriented towards: scientific paradigm describing the method and how it differs from other methods how does it work (step-wise procedure) rather than practicalities and benefits from client perspective Philosophical disputes whether Soft OR truly is OR Questions about scientific rigour and quality control measures

44 Terms of Reference (1) Considering that: nature of Defence planning and decision making has changed  calls for multi-methodology approach predominantly based on judgement ‘hard’&‘soft’, ‘objective’&‘subjective’, ‘quantitative’&‘qualitative are unhelpful distinctions  regard Soft OA as a ‘methodology of judgement’ judgement-based OA has proven to add value, but validation/credibility still issue  need to ensure value maximisation and improve acceptance large body of literature already exists on methods & usage  need clarity and focus write a CoBP on JB OA  Tasking of SAS-TG: write a CoBP on JB OA

55 Terms of Reference (2) CoBP Objectives create understanding of what JB OA can/cannot achieve increase credibility and acceptance of JB OA with client’s perspective & needs for OA as starting point incl. expectations regarding validity focus on Defence decision making at large (operational & LT strategic planning) set pragmatic rules of the road for analysts when conducting JB OA without describing specific methods/techniques promote a MM approach dictated by needs of issues addressed offer guidance as to identifying decision situations & directions to explore Products client-oriented brochure: what (not) to expect, why & when useful analyst-oriented document: how to add (maximised) value for the client

66 TG’s Organisation Chair/Lead: NLD Participants:ACT, CAN, DEU, FRA, GBR, NLD, SWE, AUS Time frame: Dissemination:Lecture Series Reflection/Review:conference sessions, selected acad. individuals

7 1 st Meeting April 2010, Paris-Neuilly (RTA) brainstorm on issues to be addressed in CoBP design of programme of work & schedule design of discussion workshops at ISMOR & OR52

8 ISMOR Syndicate Session (1) 12 Propositions covering range of issues in coping with clients, judgements, results, validation + some additional clarifying notes client-/analyst-oriented syndicate organisation each syndicate will address 6 propositions each syndicate has 1 sibling syndicate working in parallel on same propositions  we welcome your critical comments, views, additions, rephrasing  please record them!  TG members present will be ‘reluctant’ to offer further guidance

9 ISMOR Syndicate Session (2) Questions when addressing a proposition:  Do you agree with this proposition? Why, or why not?  Should this proposition be rephrased? If yes, how?  How can this proposition be fleshed out by giving examples, suggesting criteria and additional aspects, providing conditions for validity, etc..  If the syndicate has reached an agreement on a (possibly adjusted) proposition, should this proposition be part of a CoBP for JB OA?