IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ejores/v251y2016i1p237-251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A data collection and presentation methodology for decision support: A case study of hand-held mine detection devices

Author

Listed:
  • van Antwerpen, Coen
  • Curtis, Neville J.

Abstract

Faced with a short turn-around request to characterise several hand-held mine detection systems the authors developed and applied an analytical methodology that was sufficiently robust and pragmatic to satisfy the needs of the various military stakeholders involved yet it was appropriately rigorous and transparent to bear external scrutiny. The methodology can be applied in situations where data collection and analysis must be done quickly while preserving scientific veracity. For mine detection systems considerable uncertainties existed that needed to be characterised including: application, location, operational situation and involvement of human operators. Constraints on the time and expertise available implied there would be difficulties ensuring a sufficient number of trials could be conducted to levels of statistical confidence that would assure appropriate credibility across all of the parameters. This problem was effectively rectified through experimental design and by heavily involving the sponsor stakeholders and subject matter experts throughout the study thus boosting the credibility and acceptance of its results. The process followed involved: liaison with the sponsor, identification of critical issues, measurements in field environments, reporting mechanisms and discussion on implementation and further development. The critical focus was operational capability rather than specific equipment characteristics. A robust data presentation technique was developed to deal with the complexities associated with different needs of multiple stakeholders. This technique enabled the results to be reviewed from different stakeholders’ perspectives, the formation of a common understanding and the results to be reusable in future analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • van Antwerpen, Coen & Curtis, Neville J., 2016. "A data collection and presentation methodology for decision support: A case study of hand-held mine detection devices," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(1), pages 237-251.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:251:y:2016:i:1:p:237-251
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2015.11.009
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037722171501022X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.11.009?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran, 2011. "Mixing OR methods in practice: Past, present and future directions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 215(3), pages 503-511, December.
    2. Cronin, Karen & Midgley, Gerald & Jackson, Laurie Skuba, 2014. "Issues Mapping: A problem structuring method for addressing science and technology conflicts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 233(1), pages 145-158.
    3. Müller, Matthias Otto & Groesser, Stefan N. & Ulli-Beer, Silvia, 2012. "How do we know who to include in collaborative research? Toward a method for the identification of experts," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 216(2), pages 495-502.
    4. Franco, L. Alberto & Montibeller, Gilberto, 2010. "Facilitated modelling in operational research," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 205(3), pages 489-500, September.
    5. R J Ormerod, 2010. "Justifying the methods of OR," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(12), pages 1694-1708, December.
    6. Midgley, Gerald & Cavana, Robert Y. & Brocklesby, John & Foote, Jeff L. & Wood, David R.R. & Ahuriri-Driscoll, Annabel, 2013. "Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 229(1), pages 143-154.
    7. E A J A Rouwette, 2011. "Facilitated modelling in strategy development: measuring the impact on communication, consensus and commitment," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 62(5), pages 879-887, May.
    8. Ackermann, Fran & Howick, Susan & Quigley, John & Walls, Lesley & Houghton, Tom, 2014. "Systemic risk elicitation: Using causal maps to engage stakeholders and build a comprehensive view of risks," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 238(1), pages 290-299.
    9. von Winterfeldt, Detlof & Fasolo, Barbara, 2009. "Structuring decision problems: A case study and reflections for practitioners," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 857-866, December.
    10. Espinosa, Angela & Walker, J., 2013. "Complexity management in practice: A Viable System Model intervention in an Irish eco-community," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 225(1), pages 118-129.
    11. S Bell & S Morse, 2013. "Groups and facilitators within problem structuring processes," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 64(7), pages 959-972, July.
    12. R J Ormerod, 2010. "OR as rational choice: a decision and game theory perspective," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(12), pages 1761-1776, December.
    13. Ackermann, Fran, 2012. "Problem structuring methods ‘in the Dock’: Arguing the case for Soft OR," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 219(3), pages 652-658.
    14. Schuwirth, N. & Reichert, P. & Lienert, J., 2012. "Methodological aspects of multi-criteria decision analysis for policy support: A case study on pharmaceutical removal from hospital wastewater," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 220(2), pages 472-483.
    15. C van Antwerpen & D K Bowley, 2012. "An Australian approach to concept development and experimentation: linking strategy to capability," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 63(2), pages 278-292, February.
    16. White, Leroy, 2009. "Understanding problem structuring methods interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 199(3), pages 823-833, December.
    17. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    18. Bell, Simon, 2012. "DPSIR=A Problem Structuring Method? An exploration from the “Imagine” approach," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 222(2), pages 350-360.
    19. R Ormerod, 2006. "The history and ideas of pragmatism," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 57(8), pages 892-909, August.
    20. Mingers, John & Rosenhead, Jonathan, 2004. "Problem structuring methods in action," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 152(3), pages 530-554, February.
    21. R J Ormerod, 2010. "Rational inference: deductive, inductive and probabilistic thinking," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(8), pages 1207-1223, August.
    22. Richard J Ormerod, 2014. "The mangle of OR practice: towards more informative case studies of ‘technical’ projects," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 65(8), pages 1245-1260, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexandre de A. Gomes Júnior & Vanessa B. Schramm, 2022. "Problem Structuring Methods: A Review of Advances Over the Last Decade," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 35(1), pages 55-88, February.
    2. White, Leroy, 2016. "Behavioural operational research: Towards a framework for understanding behaviour in OR interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 827-841.
    3. David Lowe & Louise Martingale & Mike Yearworth, 2016. "Guiding interventions in a multi-organisational context: combining the Viable System Model and Hierarchical Process Modelling for use as a Problem Structuring Method," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 67(12), pages 1481-1495, December.
    4. Durugbo, Christopher M., 2020. "Affordance-based problem structuring for workplace innovation," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 284(2), pages 617-631.
    5. Lami, Isabella M. & Tavella, Elena, 2019. "On the usefulness of soft OR models in decision making: A comparison of Problem Structuring Methods supported and self-organized workshops," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 275(3), pages 1020-1036.
    6. White, Leroy & Burger, Katharina & Yearworth, Mike, 2016. "Understanding behaviour in problem structuring methods interventions with activity theory," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 983-1004.
    7. Smith, Chris M. & Shaw, Duncan, 2019. "The characteristics of problem structuring methods: A literature review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 274(2), pages 403-416.
    8. Luoma, Jukka, 2016. "Model-based organizational decision making: A behavioral lens," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 816-826.
    9. Elena Tavella & L. Alberto Franco, 2015. "Dynamics of Group Knowledge Production in Facilitated Modelling Workshops: An Exploratory Study," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 24(3), pages 451-475, May.
    10. Gregory, Amanda J. & Atkins, Jonathan P. & Midgley, Gerald & Hodgson, Anthony M., 2020. "Stakeholder identification and engagement in problem structuring interventions," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 283(1), pages 321-340.
    11. Yearworth, Mike & White, Leroy, 2014. "The non-codified use of problem structuring methods and the need for a generic constitutive definition," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 237(3), pages 932-945.
    12. Lowe, David & Espinosa, Angela & Yearworth, Mike, 2020. "Constitutive rules for guiding the use of the viable system model: Reflections on practice," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 287(3), pages 1014-1035.
    13. Edoardo Fregonese & Isabella M. Lami & Elena Todella, 2020. "Aesthetic Perspectives in Group Decision and Negotiation Practice," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(6), pages 993-1019, December.
    14. Small, Adrian & Wainwright, David, 2018. "Privacy and security of electronic patient records – Tailoring multimethodology to explore the socio-political problems associated with Role Based Access Control systems," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 265(1), pages 344-360.
    15. Alberto Franco, L., 2013. "Rethinking Soft OR interventions: Models as boundary objects," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 231(3), pages 720-733.
    16. Sydelko, Pamela & Espinosa, Angela & Midgley, Gerald, 2024. "Designing interagency responses to wicked problems: A viable system model board game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 312(2), pages 746-764.
    17. Howick, Susan & Ackermann, Fran & Walls, Lesley & Quigley, John & Houghton, Tom, 2017. "Learning from mixed OR method practice: The NINES case study," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 70-81.
    18. Jorge Velez-Castiblanco & Diana Londono-Correa & Olandy Naranjo-Rivera, 2018. "The Structure of Problem Structuring Conversations: A Boundary Games Approach," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(5), pages 853-884, October.
    19. Harper, Alison & Mustafee, Navonil & Yearworth, Mike, 2021. "Facets of trust in simulation studies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 289(1), pages 197-213.
    20. Brocklesby, John & Midgley, Gerald, 2016. "Boundary games: How teams of OR practitioners explore the boundaries of interventionAuthor-Name: Velez-Castiblanco, Jorge," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(3), pages 968-982.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ejores:v:251:y:2016:i:1:p:237-251. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eor .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.