Advances in Group Model Building

1. Advances in Group Model Building Reflections on recent work with Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann of Strathclyde University

2. 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. 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. 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. 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...

7. 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 An Example of a Resource Cluster:Employment Services to Families on TANF

9. 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

13. Initial Issues identified

14. Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives 1

15. Initial Policy Priorities

16. Graphs over time drawn by the participants

17. More graphs over time drawn by the participants

20. Graph over time ONE (training)

21. 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. Schedule for afternoon of the first day

23. Concept Model

24. Concept Model

25. Concept Model

26. Concept Model Behaviors

27. 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

29. 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. Modeler Feedback • A Standard part of our Group Model Building • Completed using ordinary overhead projector

36. Scenarios • Group Explorer used to begin elicitation of scenarios • Process returned to on second day

37. Scenario: TSA rapidly create processes to innovate (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)

45. Final Policy Priorities (red=short term, green=long term)

46. 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. 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. Thank You for Your Attention Questions and Comments

49. You really don’t want to go beyond this

50. 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}