Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
The decision-making process used in water resources planning by the Corps of Engineers, focusing on the use of decision matrices to evaluate multiple plans based on various criteria. The document emphasizes the importance of understanding decision makers' values and the need for careful consideration of criteria in the decision-making process.
Typology: Exams
1 / 155
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
Views, opinion, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision unless so designated by other official documentation.
U.S. Army Institute for Water Resources
Decision Methodologies Division
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (IWR), is a Corps of Engineers Field Operating Activity, located in Alexandria, VA. The Institute was created in 1969 to analyze and anticipate changing water resources management conditions and to develop planning methods and analytical tools to address economic, social, institutional and environmental needs in waters resources planning and policy. Since its inception, IWR has been a leader in the development of tools and strategies for planning and executing the Corps’ water resources program.
The Decision Methodologies Division supports the Corps Headquarters, Civil Works Directorate by developing evaluation methodologies, analytical models, and public involvement processes to help plan and manage Corps water resources projects. It also supports the Research and Development Directorate by managing one or more research programs. The division’s missions include:
Investment and Management Decision Making Research Program
National Level Technical Assistance National and Special Studies
Training and Other Technology Transfer Activities Field Level Technical Assistance
The Investment and Management Decision Making Research Program includes research and development activities to improve methods to manage and conduct Corps planning studies. Research activities involve integration of environmental, engineering, economic and social sciences to develop decision frameworks and methods that enable the Corps to make sound decisions about water resources investments. Research outputs range from methods to facilitate stakeholder involvement in water resources planning to mathematical models and evaluation frameworks for formulating, ecosystem restoration and flood damage reduction projects. Research study areas include:
Economic Evaluation Analyses Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost
Watershed Management Budget Decision Making
Collaborative Decision Processes Integrated System-wide Problem Solving
Performance Measures Planning Methodologies
For further information, call either:
Kenneth D. Orth Robert A. Pietrowsky Chief, Decision Methodologies Division Director, Institute for Water Resources 703-428-6217 703-428-
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources 7701 Telegraph Road, Casey Building Alexandria, VA 22315-
Many reports are available on-line at IWR = s web site: www.wrc.usace.army.mil/iwr; or they may be ordered at the above address; or by contacting Arlene Nurthen, IWR Publications, by fax at (703) 428- 8435, or by e-mail at A [email protected].
Table of Contents iii
Making decisions requires some form of deliberation and evaluation by the decision maker. When there is a single decision maker, the process may not have to be rigid or replicable or even justified to anyone other than the decision maker. In water resources planning and investments, there are multiple decision makers, stakeholders and other interested parties making inputs to the decision making process. Planning for projects involving multiple and competing outputs and stakeholders requires a collaborative effort. This process also requires a more definitive evaluation process, one that can be replicated and used to justify or, at a minimum, explain why specific decisions were made and who was involved in the decision making process. The proliferation of work falling into the category of National Ecosystem Restoration, (NER, i.e., providing non-monetary outputs such as Habitat Units or Acres of Wetlands) and subsequently, the need to formulate for multiple-purpose National Economic Development, (NED, i.e., providing monetary outputs such as Flood Damage Reduction and Navigation) combined with National Ecosystem Restoration projects fostered an increased need for tools and guidance to conduct trade-off analysis and collaborative decision making. This document is a ìTrade-Off Analysis Planning and Procedures Guidebookî for Corps of Engineers planning studies.
The work presented in the report was conducted as part of the Investment and Management Decision Making Research Program, part of the Integrated Technologies for Decision Making research area. The Program is sponsored by the Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and is assigned to the Institute for Water Resources, Decision Methodologies Division. Mr. Darrell Nolton is Program Manager of the Investment and Management Decision Making Research Program. Mr. Harry Kitch, Planning Division, Mr. Jerry Foster, Engineering Division, and Mr. Bruce Carlson, Planning Division are the Headquartersí Program Monitors. Field Review Group Members that provide overall Program direction include: Mr. William Fickel, Fort Worth District, Mr. Martin Hudson, Portland District, Mr. Matt Laws, Charleston District, Mr. Dan Sulzer, Los Angeles District, Ms. Teresa Kincade and Mr. Kenneth Barr, Rock Island District. This paper was prepared under the general supervision of Mr. Kenneth Orth, Chief of the Decision Methodologies Division, Institute for Water Resources and Mr. Robert Pietrowski, Director of the Institute for Water Resources.
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ix
viii List of Figures
2 I. Introduction
you will not find a best method in this manual. You will, however, find a framework, a way of thinking about and approaching these problems. That is essential to their solution. And you will find a number of practical, multicriteria decision-making techniques that can be used throughout the planning process. When there is no optimal solution compromise, alternative solutions have to be considered. The framework presented in this manual provides a systematic way of thinking about what the best compromises are.
The broad purpose of this manual is to support decision making in the United States Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works planning process. Very importantly, this manual does not prescribe decisions or techniques for making decisions. It does present a decision support framework fully compatible with the Corps planning process, which, if followed, lends systematic structure and valuable insight to the decision-making process.
The principal focus of this manual is on the selection of the recommended plan from among a final array of candidate plans. The techniques are, nonetheless, perfectly general and can be applied to a wide variety of decisions at various points throughout the planning process.
The first specific purpose of this manual is to provide new and experienced Corps planners with a framework for understanding and thinking about making decisions that involve several alternatives and multiple criteria in order to solve the wicked problems encountered in water resources planning. Wicked problems are problems that do not have a right or wrong answer but only answers that are better or worse. Wicked problems are found at the intersection of science and values.
There is an extensive literature on multicriteria decision making (MCDM) techniques. New techniques continue to be developed. Some of them are quite complex and sophisticated. The second specific purpose of this manual is to provide planners with a range of practical tools and techniques they can use when faced with the necessity of solving wicked problems that involve values in conflict. Consequently, the emphasis in this manual is on techniques that can be applied and understood by planners and stakeholders. These techniques tend toward thought- ordering processes, do-it-yourself methods and commercial software techniques, rather than the state-of-the-art applications found in the literature that require a level of quantitative sophistication not generally available to planners and their stakeholders. Ease of use, transparency, replicability and effectiveness are valued over the rigor that often comes only with complexity and sophistication. A third specific purpose of this manual that is somewhat subsidiary to the second one is to provide some guidance on when to use the various techniques.
The manual comprises nine chapters. It proceeds in Chapter II with an overview of the Corps planning process and the types of decisions that are made within that process. Trade-offs are encountered during the formulation of alternative plans and in the selection of a
I. Introduction 3
recommended plan. But there are many other kinds of decisions encountered along the way that require screening, focusing, identifying, qualifying, rating, ranking and so on that may be aided by the framework and techniques presented in this manual. Chapter II identifies some of those opportunities.
Chapter III presents a framework that will enable planners to systematically address a multicriteria decision problem within the planning process. The eight tasks of the decision support framework are described in detail. Value trade-offs are defined along with some other useful terminology.
Chapter IV describes some simple decision techniques that are basic to the evaluation step of the planning process. These include optimization, conjunctive and disjunctive techniques, elimination by aspects and lexicographic ordering. Although these techniques are perfectly adaptable to the selection of the recommended plan, they appear in a chapter by themselves because these techniques are most likely to be used throughout the planning process rather than during the selection step.
Chapter V develops a case study for use in the remainder of the manual. Having a single, realistic case study will make comparison of the different techniques easier. The case study developed takes its structure from an actual Corps study. Some of the criteria measurements are synthetic to make a richer case study. The chapter includes a discussion of the pre-analysis that is essential to the development of a decision matrix.
Chapter VI introduces some of the basic multicriteria decision-making models found in the literature. Analysts using relatively simple spreadsheet models can apply many of these techniques. Some of them, like multiattribute utility theory, outranking techniques and the analytical hierarchy process, are much easier to use with commercially developed software, however. The examples include weighted products, multiattribute utility models, outranking techniques and other examples.
Chapter VII provides an example application and discussion of the manualís decision- making tools and techniques to the case of cost effectiveness for an ecosystem restoration project. This chapter provides a more extended discussion of the use of the techniques in the evaluation step of the planning process. In practice, the qualification of plans for further consideration in the planning process can spill over and mix with the earlier comparison steps, as demonstrated in the example.
Chapter VIII presents a sampling of the decision support systems that are available through commercial software. Decision Lab 2000 uses the PROMETHEE outranking technique and GAIA graphical presentation methods. Criterium DecisionPlus uses the analytical hierarchy process and multiattribute utility theory in the simple multiattribute rating technique (SMART). Expert Choice is based on the analytical hierarchy process. Each of these programs is used to aid the case study decision problem. The chapter concludes with a short commentary on these three software packages.
Chapter IX provides some perspective on the use of the multicriteria decision models presented. It begins with a discussion of what makes a good decision support technique. It concludes with some thoughts about how to choose a technique for your decision problem.
II. Planning Decisions and Trade-Offs 5
Planning is problem solving. The human reality is multidimensional. Water resource problems are wicked problems. Wicked problems have no right answers. They are multi- dimensional and complex. Any solution to a wicked problem is only better or worse than other solutions.
Planning is decision making. Decision making in a multidimensional, complex environment can be difficult. Decisions rarely are unanimous and more rarely are universally supported. When the solution is not right but only better or worse, the process by which you arrive at it has to be a good one.
In the face of wicked problems it is unrealistic to look for an optimal solution, which rarely exists. It is essential to be able to find compromise solutions. This is not an easy task, especially when decision criteria are conflicting. But if the game we play is compromise solution, then what can a planner do except seek the very best compromises? That requires a systematic and transparent approach to decision making.
Planning requires planners to make many choices and decisions, some of which require trade-offs. This chapter is about planning, the choices and decisions planners make, and the types of trade-offs they face.
There is a planning process. There is a way to think about and approach the solution of wicked problems. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers uses the planning process promulgated by the Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies (also known as Principles and Guidelines or P&G) and Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, Guidance for Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies.
The six-step planning process is described in the P&G as follows:
6 II. Planning Decisions and Trade-Offs
The process can be summarized as a series of analysis and decision steps. We do some analysis, then make a decision, do some more analysis and make another decision. Eventually, the final decision is reached, and the planning process proceeds to implementation of the recommended plan, or it does not.
Although planning has six steps, it is anything but a nice, neat, sequential process. It is an iterative process that is more marble cake than layer cake. You do not always start at step one, and the steps are not always taken in order. You do a step, and then you do it over and you keep on doing it until it is done. All the steps will be done at least once, and each will be finished before a good planning effort is completed. Along the way, the planning steps may be started in any order and addressed a different number of times to varying extents before they are finished.
The Corps planning process is finished when a plan emerges from the process and is recommended for implementation. Along the way many kinds of choices and decisions have to be made. 1 Figure 1 suggests some decisions that are made in the various steps.
Someone must first decide what the study will be about, what it will do and what it will not do. The first stepís decisions include scoping, screening and focusing. Scoping decisions establish the length, breadth and depth of the planning investigations. The scope of the study defines what issues will and will not be considered. Once the scope of the study is established, planners must screen the candidate problems and opportunities that could be addressed in the planning process to identify those that are within the scope of the study. Significant environmental resources have to be identified. Given the problems and opportunities, the planning team must decide what they are going to do to address them. These decisions focus the study on a specific set of planning objectives and constraints.
With problems, opportunities and planning objectives identified, planners now have to identify the criteria they will use to judge their success in meeting the planning objectives. They also have to identify the data they will need to formulate, evaluate, compare and select plans. The analyses required to arrive at the desired answer to the overarching question, ìWhat is the best way to achieve these planning objectives?î is also identified in this step. Identification of the most likely without-project condition is one of the principal outcomes of this planning step.
(^1) The distinction between choice and decision as made here is somewhat arbitrary. Choice is used to represent the
selections made by planners and analysts supporting the planning process. A decision is considered a more conclusive process that would involve decision makers who are above the planning team in the plan selection process chain of command. In order to avoid the cumbersome repetitive distinction of terms, decision will be used here to encompass both processes, but a distinction will continue to be made between planners and decision makers.
