1. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 1 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Advances in Group Model Building Reflections on recent work with Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann of Strathclyde University

2. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 2 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Outline of Remarks Part I: Context of the study The TSA Aviation Security Simulator The Emerging TPI Approach Part II: What Happened Last Week? Logistics Scripts Part III: Discussion

3. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 3 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Context: TSA Aviation Security Simulator Contract Between Transportation Security Administration and Argonne National Labs Argonne, Sandia, and Los Alamos as part of Tri- Labs collaboration UAlbany as “special teams” subcontractor for Group Model Building Eden and Ackermann invited to expand team Some material in this study is SSI

4. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 4 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Context: The Emerging TPI Approach At UAlbany, our work grew out of DTG (with thanks to John Rohrbaugh) Nearly a decade of cooperative discussions Joint Seminar at Albany, Humphrey Institute, and Strathclyde University Recent paper in JPART Cooperative work with British Health Service in Peebles, Scotland: January 2007

5. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 5 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Ancient History: Policy Resources in the Welfare Reform Sessions Prevention Child support enforcement Case management & assessment TANF services Employment services, child care, drug treatment, $ Diversion services Self-sufficiency promotion Safety net services...all aggregated up from detailed resources...

6. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 6 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

7. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 7 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany An Example of a Resource Cluster: Employment Services to Families on TANF Education & training slots and referrals for jobs Substance abuse & mental health treatment VESID Workfare and emergency services Job readiness programs DOL & JTPA & private Transportation Federal dollars for training (JTPA) Moneys for grant diversion Transitional Medicaid Licensed day-care and other child care Establish paternity & child support

8. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 8 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

9. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 9 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Logistics: Plan for the First Half of Day One Start at 8:00 AM Initial Issue Identification Stakeholder Issue Identification Initial Policy Ranking BREAK Graphs Over Time LUNCH

10. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 10 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

11. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 11 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

12. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 12 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

13. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 13 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Initial Issues identified

14. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 14 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives 1

15. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 15 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Initial Policy Priorities

16. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 16 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Graphs over time drawn by the participants

17. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 17 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany More graphs over time drawn by the participants

18. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 18 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

19. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 19 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

20. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 20 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Graph over time ONE (training)

21. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 21 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Logistics: Plan for the Second Half of Day One Concept Model Elicitation of Model Structure Modeler Feedback BREAK Scenarios END at 4:15 PM

22. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 22 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Schedule for afternoon of the first day

23. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 23 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model

24. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 24 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model

25. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 25 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model

26. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 26 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Concept Model Behaviors

27. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 27 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Eliciting Model Structure—What we did “Seed” for elicitation was backbone stock and flow structure from Concept Model as elaborated by group Used “variable” pack available from “key variable” list made up in the morning Ability to link model structure to Group Explorer explicitly through variable numbers

28. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 28 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

29. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 29 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Eliciting Model Structure—What we should do next time Use Stakeholder goals and sanctions exercise to generate feedback kernels and “seeds” Use Decision Explorer to generate a list of key model variables for inclusion Experiment with ways to more tightly link DE and Vensim Maps Explore further “fusion” of methods

30. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 30 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Modeler Feedback A Standard part of our Group Model Building Completed using ordinary overhead projector

31. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 31 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

32. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 32 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

33. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 33 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

34. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 34 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

35. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 35 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

36. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 36 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scenarios Group Explorer used to begin elicitation of scenarios Process returned to on second day

37. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 37 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scenario: TSA rapidly create processes to innovate (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)

38. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 38 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

39. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 39 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

40. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 40 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

41. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 41 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

42. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 42 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

43. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 43 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

44. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 44 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany

45. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 45 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Final Policy Priorities (red=short term, green=long term)

46. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 46 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Discussion Stages in the Development of TPI Curiosity (both sides work with facilitated group, computers, and word-and-arrow diagrams) Cooperative Sharing Limited Assimilation Integration (where we are now) “Fusion” of Approaches: a goal?

47. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 47 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany What Fusion Might Mean Duality of Vensim and Decision Explorer Maps Seamless approach to client groups Ability to “zoom lenses” between micro and macro views New support for model formulation and documentation New products that enhance value to clients Eventually perhaps integrated software suites

48. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 48 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Thank You for Your Attention Questions and Comments

49. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 49 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany You really don’t want to go beyond this

50. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 50 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Issues to be addressed to ensure model is believable and useable (ranked from most important to least, {5}=must include) 25 ** Human Factors - ability to detect IEDs using technology{5,0} 221 ** staff efficiency {4,9} 123 ** 13 consistency in interpretation and application of sops {4,8} 141 ** increase in training {4,7} 11 ** Throughput {4,6} 138 ** reduce attrition of "good" screeners to retain security knowledge {4,6} 105 ** [criminals] intent on deceiving screening {4,5} 12 * improve person to person communication between TSO and passengers {4,4} 102 * [ aviation system]safety of aircraft {4,3} 107 * 1 & 2= Communicate, communicate, communicate!!! passengers {4,2} 15 * Maintain customer service {4,2} 51 * Lack of conduit for best practices and/or information sharing {4,0} 32 keeping costs reasonable {3,8} 118 [criminals] predictability {3,8} 133 11 willing to die for cause in completing the mission {3,6} 34 shift focus from finding things to identifying hostile intent in people {3,4} 50 distinguish between airport and aviations security {3,1} 64 foster the mindset of investigative scepticism {3,1} 86 [airports mgt] airlines satisfied {3,1} 120 1 no profiling {3,1} 95 [politicians] need for re-election {2,1}

51. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 51 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Likely SD variables (involved in feedback) derived from Group Explorer gatherings 16 Avoid repetitive activity boredom 17 cooperation between airport authority,FSD, local LEO 18 empowerment for STSOs and LTSOs 19 Ability to manage systematic integration of technology and people 22 Passenger awareness of process and expectations 24 checkpoint & baggage communication 32 keeping costs reasonable{3,8} 36 realistic scheduling based on pax loads 40 better federal cooperation at the airport 43 effective deployment of staff 44 reaction procedures to security threat 52 proper relationship with airport stakeholders 54 potential conflicts with local law enforcement 57 deployment of leos so to enable immediate response of unruly passengers 58 maintaining screener interest in job function 64 foster the mindset of investigative skepticism{3,1} 65 reduce line waits 67 [airports mgt] want all available lanes open all the time 69 [airlines] airlines would like to see screening efficiency increase such that there is no wait time at the checkpoint 71 16 enough TSo's to eliminate fatigue 77 airlines would like the checkpoint experience to very pleasant and polite--No anxiety 80 14 screening procedures change too often 81 16 burn out 99 17: reducing hassle to passengers 104 [airlines] reducing passenger fear 113 [airlines] providing high levels of service to frequent/first class travelers

52. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 52 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Most central themes (lots of links in and out for 3 levels) and summary links between them

53. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 53 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Stakeholder Goals as a System (red=media; LEO=gray; maroon=airport; green=airlines; blue=passengers; teal=screeners; olive=politicians)

54. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 54 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives 2

55. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 55 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scenario: IED explosion (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)

56. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 56 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scenario: chemical or biological attack on airport (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)

57. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 57 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scenario: employee based attack (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)

58. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 58 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Scenario: remaining material (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)

59. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 59 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Graph over time TWO (staffing)

60. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 60 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Graph over time THREE (IED’s)

61. DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 61 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy University at Albany Stakeholder Responses to Security System Failure