1. DSS for Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Success and failure DDr. Kurt Fedra ESS GmbH, Austria kurt@ess.co.at http://www.ess.co.at Environmental Software & Services A-2352 Gumpoldskirchen DDr. Kurt Fedra ESS GmbH, Austria kurt@ess.co.at http://www.ess.co.at Environmental Software & Services A-2352 Gumpoldskirchen

2. SUCCESS AND FAILURE OF DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Presented at: Palazzo Zorzi, Venice, Italy 5-7 October 2005

3. 3 DSS for water resources management DSS success measure and end user satisfaction Apparent assumptions: 1.We can measure the success of a DSS 2.We can measure user satisfaction 3.Success and user satisfaction is not necessarily the same. DSS success measure and end user satisfaction Apparent assumptions: 1.We can measure the success of a DSS 2.We can measure user satisfaction 3.Success and user satisfaction is not necessarily the same.

4. 4 LOWHIGH LOWproblematic DSS domain HIGHsupport-oriented activities Formal decision taken Degree of consensus on actions Level of information on consequences of actions Framework for water management (after Verbeek & Wind, 2001)

5. 5 DSS for water resources management Some experiences : 1. Nature of application unclear: –Policy/DM process to be supported unclear –most DSS provide “only” scenarios –assumption of chronology design- implementation incorrect – “work-flow” users not involved in design –no continuous involvement of users Some experiences : 1. Nature of application unclear: –Policy/DM process to be supported unclear –most DSS provide “only” scenarios –assumption of chronology design- implementation incorrect – “work-flow” users not involved in design –no continuous involvement of users

6. 6 DSS for water resources management 2. Conflict science vs policy –DSS built on “state-of-the-art” science models, research oriented Resulting problems: –Lack of system consistency –Lack of flexibility to change –Little room for uncertainty –Models/data limiting factors –Technology driven design –Lack of long-term support 2. Conflict science vs policy –DSS built on “state-of-the-art” science models, research oriented Resulting problems: –Lack of system consistency –Lack of flexibility to change –Little room for uncertainty –Models/data limiting factors –Technology driven design –Lack of long-term support

7. 7 DSS for water resources management Possible solutions: - embedding in policy process - continuous user involvement - science  engineering - science of integration, both : Technological: alternative tools, hierarchical structure, uncertainty propagation Institutional: actor analysis, participation Possible solutions: - embedding in policy process - continuous user involvement - science  engineering - science of integration, both : Technological: alternative tools, hierarchical structure, uncertainty propagation Institutional: actor analysis, participation

8. 8 DSS for water resources management DSS success measure and end user satisfaction Apparent assumptions: 1.We can measure the success of a DSS 2.We can measure user satisfaction 3.Success and user satisfaction is not necessarily the same. DSS success measure and end user satisfaction Apparent assumptions: 1.We can measure the success of a DSS 2.We can measure user satisfaction 3.Success and user satisfaction is not necessarily the same.

9. 9 DSS for water resources management Proposition: 1.We can NOT measure the success of a DSS in terms of making “better” decisions; 2.We can measure user satisfaction by traditional psychometric methods (uncertain) OR measure it in quantitative terms of frequency and extent of use; 3.Therefore, success and user satisfaction is the same: success is being used. Proposition: 1.We can NOT measure the success of a DSS in terms of making “better” decisions; 2.We can measure user satisfaction by traditional psychometric methods (uncertain) OR measure it in quantitative terms of frequency and extent of use; 3.Therefore, success and user satisfaction is the same: success is being used.

10. 10 DSS for water resources management Lemmata: 1.Basic objective of a DSS is to influence decision making processes, educate and empower participants 2.Education needs a happy and attentive audience (satisfied users) Lemmata: 1.Basic objective of a DSS is to influence decision making processes, educate and empower participants 2.Education needs a happy and attentive audience (satisfied users)

11. 11 DSS for water resources management Corollary: Users are happy if they get what they want which is NOT ONLY a better decision in some (naïve neopositivist) objective sense meeting expressed aspirations but includes diverse, usually hidden agenda. Corollary: Users are happy if they get what they want which is NOT ONLY a better decision in some (naïve neopositivist) objective sense meeting expressed aspirations but includes diverse, usually hidden agenda.

12. 12 Measuring success Lemma: Success is difficult to measure: Compared to WHAT ?? Only one decision gets implemented – there is nothing to compare the outcome with. Lemma: Success is difficult to measure: Compared to WHAT ?? Only one decision gets implemented – there is nothing to compare the outcome with.

13. 13 Measuring success Lemma: Success is difficult to measure: Compared to WHAT ?? Even the determination of a pareto- optimal set (elimination of dominated alternatives) assumes we can know and consider ALL criteria (extremely unlikely). Lemma: Success is difficult to measure: Compared to WHAT ?? Even the determination of a pareto- optimal set (elimination of dominated alternatives) assumes we can know and consider ALL criteria (extremely unlikely).

14. 14 Measuring success Success is difficult to measure: It may be easier to establish failure cases: Mismatch of expectations and resources Mismatch of expectations and product Institutional change, priorities shift People change (retire, get promoted, leave) Indication of failure: to be ignored Success is difficult to measure: It may be easier to establish failure cases: Mismatch of expectations and resources Mismatch of expectations and product Institutional change, priorities shift People change (retire, get promoted, leave) Indication of failure: to be ignored

15. 15 Success: building consensus How to motivate a group to cooperate: 1.Demonstrate the potential for an increase in overall net benefit (through optimization) 2.Demonstrate allocation of the net benefit in a “win-win game” 3.Use a DSS for that ….. How to motivate a group to cooperate: 1.Demonstrate the potential for an increase in overall net benefit (through optimization) 2.Demonstrate allocation of the net benefit in a “win-win game” 3.Use a DSS for that …..

16. 16 IWRM Decision Problems Problems: – Too much, not enough – Wrong time and place – Insufficient quality – Prohibitive costs ? Problems: – Too much, not enough – Wrong time and place – Insufficient quality – Prohibitive costs ?

17. 17 Overall objective: Every use including the environment gets the water needed (in terms of quantity and quality) wherever, whenever, at an affordable price or cost to the public, sustainably.

18. 18 Overall objective: Supply meets demands Demands (expectations) are well balanced with all supplies Benefits exceed costs System is sustainable, equitable (everybody happy) ELSE THERE IS CONFLICT Supply meets demands Demands (expectations) are well balanced with all supplies Benefits exceed costs System is sustainable, equitable (everybody happy) ELSE THERE IS CONFLICT

19. 19 Overall objective: More formally: Maximise a social utility function subject to some equity constraint More formally: Maximise a social utility function subject to some equity constraint

20. 20 If there is conflict: Which decisions ?? 1.Supply management incl. quality –Alternative sources, water allocation, –Structures, technologies –Investment, OMR, economic incentives 2.Demand management –Pricing, economic incentives –Technologies (economics, efficiency, reuse) 3.Regulatory framework (affects all) –Policy and decision making process –Market mechanisms 1.Supply management incl. quality –Alternative sources, water allocation, –Structures, technologies –Investment, OMR, economic incentives 2.Demand management –Pricing, economic incentives –Technologies (economics, efficiency, reuse) 3.Regulatory framework (affects all) –Policy and decision making process –Market mechanisms

21. 21 Thesis: Water resources problems require a new approach to decision support and decision making because: it is impossible to solve the inverse problem (HOW TO) unambiguously due to the complexities of systems ;it is impossible to solve the inverse problem (HOW TO) unambiguously due to the complexities of systems ;

22. 22 Thesis: As a consequence, any practical DSS approach has to be – iterative (multi tiered) – adaptive (learning) – interactive (end user involvement)

23. 23 Conclusions Paradigm change: more complex problems (increasing pressures, demands)more complex problems (increasing pressures, demands) participatory processes, civic society, diverse audienceparticipatory processes, civic society, diverse audience increasing demand for informationincreasing demand for information Paradigm change: more complex problems (increasing pressures, demands)more complex problems (increasing pressures, demands) participatory processes, civic society, diverse audienceparticipatory processes, civic society, diverse audience increasing demand for informationincreasing demand for information

24. 24 Conclusions Paradigm change: information technology promises instantaneous and ubiquitous access to informationinformation technology promises instantaneous and ubiquitous access to information research results and tools are directly accessible beyond the academic communityresearch results and tools are directly accessible beyond the academic community Paradigm change: information technology promises instantaneous and ubiquitous access to informationinformation technology promises instantaneous and ubiquitous access to information research results and tools are directly accessible beyond the academic communityresearch results and tools are directly accessible beyond the academic community

25. 25 Conclusions Paradigm change: changed nature of discourse from scientific correctness, precision, verification, formal proofchanged nature of discourse from scientific correctness, precision, verification, formal proof to political feasibility, acceptability, Mehrheitsfähigkeit; to political feasibility, acceptability, Mehrheitsfähigkeit; from abstract optimality to an evolutionary: good enough.from abstract optimality to an evolutionary: good enough. Paradigm change: changed nature of discourse from scientific correctness, precision, verification, formal proofchanged nature of discourse from scientific correctness, precision, verification, formal proof to political feasibility, acceptability, Mehrheitsfähigkeit; to political feasibility, acceptability, Mehrheitsfähigkeit; from abstract optimality to an evolutionary: good enough.from abstract optimality to an evolutionary: good enough.

26. 26 Conclusions Paradigm change: DSS do not offer optimal solutions (given a set of preferences) but a mechanism to make the process open, accessible, and the solution acceptable to a majority. Paradigm change: DSS do not offer optimal solutions (given a set of preferences) but a mechanism to make the process open, accessible, and the solution acceptable to a majority.

27. 27 Concluding assumption: improvements to theimprovements to the DM process will lead to improvements of theimprovements of the DM results. (an ISO 9000 approach).