Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1, 2010
55
Introduction
Decision support systems (DSS) for crisis management are more complex than regular
DSS. In crisis management DSS the solution sets are dynamic and reflect the changing
nature of domains in crisis situations (Toma, 2004). Information requirements of such
DSS are different from regular DSS in several aspects:
56
M.M. Kabeil
data comes from different sources in different formats with different levels of
timeliness
the content of a data set is usually encountered in a mass of similar material relating
to a variety of both relevant and irrelevant subjects
significant items of data when separated from other material surrounding it are often
found to be fragmentary and incomplete
much of the work of information processing is concentrated on the search for clues
from which assessment of present and potential future environmental conditions can
be made (Radford, 1978).
The paper defines and demonstrates the use of a framework for developing a DSS for
crisis management. The framework is based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP)
and the quality function deployment (QFD) technique. The paper is structured in five
sections. After this introduction is discussed the quality capacity of the decision making
process, which serves as a guide for addressing relevant components of the design. Next,
the proposed framework and a proof of concept (March and Smith, 1995) are presented.
In Section 4, an example of using the framework is developed. Finally, the paper ends up
with the conclusion section.
The generic decision cycle in crisis management context starts with data gathering. The
data is processed further to higher levels of information, knowledge, intelligence,
wisdom, and decision (Figure 1). The decision is implemented through a
command, control, communication, computer, and intelligence (C4I) system to move a
real-world-situation to the most appropriate position for the next decision or action
(Harris, 2008).
Quality of decision is a rating of whether a decision reflects the preferences of the
decision makers and meets the stated objectives effectively, including byproducts, and
efficiently, with minimum side effects. A process is a set of successive operations
targeting a specific result. Quality capacity of a process is the capability of the process to
produce a specific level of quality (Juran, 1992).
57
The quality of decision is built from the very beginning all through the decision cycle
(Herek et al., 1987; Keren and De-Bruin, 2004). The expected quality of a decision can
be estimated by investigating the quality capacity of the decision process (Davern, et al,
2008; Herek et al, 1987).
According to Simon (1977), the decision making process consists of three main
phases, intelligence, design and choice. In the intelligence phase, the environment is
searched for conditions requiring a decision and information gathered with respect to
those conditions. In the design phase, the available courses of action are determined and
analysed to determine their relative values as solutions to the decision problems. In the
choice phase, an available course of action is selected that is designed to convert the
present, less-desirable situation into a future situation believed to be more desirable.
Radford (1978) believes that an effective formulation of procedures for dealing with
strategic decision problems requires a modification of Simons model that takes into
account the interaction between participants, which is a major feature of complex
decision problems such as in crisis management.
In this paper, the quality capacity of the decision making process in the context of
crisis management is considered in four phases which are intelligence, design, choice,
and integration.
The quality capacity of the intelligence phase is assessed using the data quality
management framework proposed by Shankaranarayanan and Cai (2006). The approach
is based on the notion of managing information as a product (Wang et al., 1998). The
quality capacity of the design phase is assessed through the evaluation of the analytical
tools and models used in a set of expected crises.
The quality capacity of the choice phase is assessed from several perspectives. Most
psychologists and political science scholars (Janis and Mann, 1977) believe that the main
reason of defective decision making is groupthink. Groupthink is a type of thought
exhibited by group members who try to minimise conflict and reach consensus without
critically testing, analysing, and evaluating ideas (Baron 2005). Janis (1982) listed seven
symptoms of the defective decision-making process which groupthink can produce:
58
M.M. Kabeil
The end result of this causal chain is a greater probability that a poor quality decision will
be made. On the other side, Janis (1982) devised seven ways of preventing groupthink:
1
several independent groups should be formed for working on the same problem
each member should discuss the groups ideas with trusted people outside of the
group
the group should invite outside experts into meetings for discussion and questioning
at least one group member should be assigned the role of Devils advocate.
Deploying tools and techniques for handling group thinking will improve significantly
the quality capacity of the choice phase.
The quality capacity of the integration phase is assessed through testing the
communication and collaboration protocols. Example of building quality capacity in the
integration phase is the National Response Plan (NRP) in the USA (DHS, 2006). The
plan is intended to integrate public and private response by providing a common
language and outlining a chain-of-command when multiple parties are mobilised. The
NRP is a companion to the National Incidence Management System that acts as a more
general template for incident management regardless of cause, size, or complexity (DHS,
2006). Common alerting protocol (CAP) is a relatively recent mechanism that facilitates
crisis communication across different mediums and systems. CAP helps create a
consistent emergency alert format to reach geographically and linguistically diverse
audiences through both audio and visual mediums.
Akao (1990) combines quality assurance concepts with value engineering concepts in
the quality function deployment (QFD) technique, which is used in the next sections for
transforming crisis requirements into design components.
The proposed framework is based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and the
quality function deployment (QFD) technique. The AHP is used for defining and
assigning relative weights for a comprehensive list of requirements that covers all
59
expected crises of the case study. The QFD is used for defining and assigning relative
weights for design components that support all requirements of the expected crises.
First, a list of all expected crises is defined (Cj, j=1, n) and for each one are assigned a
probability of occurrence (Pj, j=1,n) and a marginal loss-success value (Vj, j=1,n). The
crisis importance rating (CIRj = Pj * Vj ) allows us to prioritise the expected crises.
Delphi technique is used to collect and integrate these data.
The main deliverable of this step is a list of expected crises (1), along with the crisis
importance rating (2):
Cj, j = 1,.., n
(1)
(2)
Second, the expected scenario and associated requirements (CRjk, k=1, m) are developed
for each one of the anticipated crises (j=1, n) based on historical data and experts
assessment. The experts assessment is acquired through semi structured interviews and
brainstorming. The AHP is used for developing the crisis requirement importance rating
(CRIRjk, j = 1, n and k= 1, m) through pairwise comparison. The CRIR allows us to
prioritise the requirements of each one of the expected crises.
60
M.M. Kabeil
The main deliverables of this step are lists of requirements (CR) along with the crisis
requirement importance rating (CRIR) for each one of the expected crises.
CRjk, j = 1, n, k=1, m
(3)
CRIRjk, j = 1, n and k= 1, m
(4)
Third, all sets of requirements for all expected crises are integrated into one single set of
integrated requirements (IR). The summations of all (CRIR * CIR) for the same
requirement becomes the integrated requirement importance rating (IRIR) according to
the following equation:
IRIRi = i (CIRj * CRIRjk) for each integrated requirement (i)
(5)
These final IRIR are normalised as depicted in Figure 2 before being combined into the
QFD matrix.
DSS-1.3
DSS-1.4
DSS-1.5
DSS-1.6
DSS-1.7
DSS-2.1
DSS-2.2
DSS-2.3
DSS-2.4
DSS-2.5
DSS-2.6
7.8
11.4
6.2
6.0
6.3
7.1
6.0
9.1
7.8
4.3
3.9
4.1
4.6
DSS-4
DSS-1.2
Rel.
%
DSS-3
DSS-1.1
Component
Table 1
10.7 4.5
The design is tested against the seven symptoms of the defective decision-making process
of Janis (1982), which are discussed in the previous section. The main deliverable of this
step is a list of design components of the DSS as defined in the next section.
61
62
M.M. Kabeil
The resulting design of the DSS for crisis management consists of four main units, which
are intelligence unit (DSS-1), design unit (DSS-2), choice unit (DSS-3), and integration
and display unit (DSS-4). The four units in turn include 15 components (Kabeil, 2009) as
depicted in Figure 4 and as illustrated bellow.
Figure 4
Main components of DSS for crisis management (see online version for colours)
63
64
M.M. Kabeil
65
66
M.M. Kabeil
Conclusions
A framework for developing a DSS for crisis management is defined. The framework is
based on the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) and the quality function deployment
(QFD) technique. The AHP is used for defining and assigning relative weights for a
comprehensive list of requirements that covers all expected crises of a crisis management
centre. The QFD is used for defining and assigning relative weights for design
components that support the defined requirements.
This framework should be used as a guide that allows developing a realistic system
capable of meeting most expected scenarios. It can be a basic foundation for the
development of flexible, accurate and reusable DSS for crisis management.
An example of applying the framework for developing a case of DSS for crisis
management is demonstrated. By combining the proposed framework with an illustrative
example, the study has provided an evidence of framework validity.
References
Adkins, M., Burgoon, M. and Nunamaker, J.F. (2003) Using group support systems for strategic
planning with the United States Air Force, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34, No. 3,
pp.315337.
Akao, Y. (1990) Quality Function Deployment: Integrating Customer Requirements into Product
Design, English translation, Productivity Press, New York.
Alter, S.L. (1980) Decision Support Systems: Current Practice and Continuing Challenges,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Austin, C.L. (1989) National Crisis Management and Technology, National Defense University,
National War College, Fort McNair, Washington, DC 20319.
Ballou, D. and Pazer, H. (2003) Modeling completeness versus consistency tradeoffs in
information decision contexts, IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering,
Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.240243.
Barkhi, R., Rolland, E., Butler, J. and Fan, W. (2005) Decision support system induced guidance
for model formulation and solution, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp.269281.
Baron, R.S. (2005) So right Its wrong: groupthink and the ubiquitous nature of polarized group
decision making, in M.P. Zanna, (Ed.): Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,
pp.219253, Elsevier Academic Press, San Diego.
Beckner, M. (2008) Pro EDI in BizTalk Server 2006 R2: Electronic Document Interchange
Solutions, Apress, Berkeley CA.
Benamati, J. and Lederer, A.L. (2008) Decision support systems infrastructure: the root problems
of the management of changing IT, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 45, No. 4, pp.833844.
Boin, A. and McConnell, A. (2007) Preparing for critical infrastructure breakdowns: the limits of
crisis management and the need for resilience, Journal of Contingencies and Crisis
Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.5059.
Browne, G.J., Curley, S.P. and Benson, P.G. (1997) Evoking information in probability
assessment: knowledge maps and reasoning-based directed questions, Management Science,
Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.114.
Chan, L.K. and Wu, M.L. (2002) Quality function deployment: a literature review, European
Journal of Operational Research, Vol. 143, No. 3, pp.463497.
Davern, M.J., Mantena, R. and Stohr, E.A. (2008) Diagnosing decision quality, Decision Support
Systems, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp.123139.
67
DeRouen, K. and Sprecher, C. (2004) Initial crisis reaction and poliheuristic theory, Journal of
Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 1, pp.5668.
DHS (2006) Quick Reference Guide for the National Response Plan, Department of Homeland
Security,
Washington,
DC,
Accessed
31
July
2008
at:
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/NRP_Quick_Reference_Guide_5-22-06.pdf.
Farnham, S., Pedersen, E.R. and Kirkpatrick, R. (2006) Observation of Katrina/Rita groove
deployment: addressing social and communication challenges of ephemeral groups,
Proceedings of the 3rd International ISCRAM Conference, pp.3949.
Fildes, R., Goodwin, P. and Lawrence, M. (2006) The design features of forecasting support
systems and their effectiveness, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.351361.
Fischer, G. and Mastaglio, T. (1991) A conceptual framework for knowledge-based critic
systems, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp.355378.
Fowler, K.L., Kling, N.D. and Larson, M.D. (2007) Organizational preparedness for coping with a
major crisis or disaster, Business Society, Vol. 46, No. 1, pp.88103.
Frijda, N.H. (2005) Dynamic appraisals: a paper with promises, Behavioral and Brain Sciences,
Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.205206.
Goss, K.C. (2006) Emerging technologies in emergency management, IAEM Bulletin, Vol. 23,
No. 7, pp.1220.
Granatt, M. and Pare-Chamontin, A. (2006) Cooperative structures and critical functions to deliver
resilience within network society, Int. J. of Emergency Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp.5257.
Graves, R.J. (2004) Key technologies for emergency response, Proceedings of the 1st
International ISCRAM Conference, Brussels, pp.133138.
Harris, R. (2008) Introduction to decision-making, Virtual Salt, available at:
http://www.virtualsalt.com/crebook5.htm, accessed 17 October 2008.
Herek, G.M., Janis, I.L. and Huth, P. (1987) Decision-making during international crises: is
quality of process related to outcome?, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 31, No. 2,
pp.203226.
Hopple, G., Andriole, S. and Freedy, A. (1984) National Security Crisis Forecasting and
Management, Westview Press, New York.
Huang, W., Wei, K., Watson, R. and Tan, B. (2002) Supporting virtual team-building with a GSS:
an empirical investigation, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 34, No. 4, pp.359367.
Janis, I. and Mann, L. (1977) Decision making: a psychological analysis of conflict, choice, and
commitment, Free Press, New York.
Janis, L. (1982) Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascos, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston.
Juran, A. (1992) Juran on Quality by Design: The New Steps for Planning Quality into Goods and
Services, Free Press, Florence, MA.
Kabeil, M. (2009) A proposed framework for developing a national crisis management
information system, International Journal of Information Systems for Crisis Response and
Management (IJISCRAM), Vol. 1, No. 4, IGI Global, USA.
Kara-Zaitri, C. (1996) Disaster prevention and limitation: state of the art tools and technologies,
Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.3039.
Kara-Zaitri, C. and Al-Daihan, S. (1999) The application of augmented QFD to the evaluation of
emergency plans, the 11th Symposium on QFD, the QFD Institute, available at:
http://www.qfdi.org, accessed 31 July 2008.
Keen, P. (1987) Decision support systems: the next decade, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 3,
No. 3, pp.253265.
Keren, G. and De-Bruin, W. (2004) On the assessment of decision quality: considerations
regarding utility, conflict and accountability, in D. Hardman and L. Macchi (Eds.): Thinking:
Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making, John Wiley &
Sons, Chichester UK.
68
M.M. Kabeil
Lee, Z., Wagner, C. and Shin, H.K. (2008) The effect of decision support system expertise on
system use behavior and performance, Information & Management, Vol. 45, No. 6,
pp.349358.
Limayem, M., Banerjee, P. and Ma, L. (2006) Impact of GDSS: opening the black box, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.945957.
March, S.T. and Hevner, A.R. (2007) Integrated decision support systems: a data warehousing
perspective, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 43, No. 3, pp.10311043.
March, S.T. and Smith, G.F. (1995) Design and natural science research on information
technology, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp.251266.
Moreau, E.M. (2006) The impact of intelligent decision support systems on intellectual task
success: an empirical investigation, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp.593607.
Nevo, D. and Chan, Y.E. (2007) A Delphi study of knowledge management systems: scope and
requirements, Information & Management, Vol. 44, No. 6, pp.583597.
QFD-Online, available at: http://www.QFDOnline.com, accessed 31 July 2008.
Radford, K.J. (1978) Information Systems for Strategic Decisions, Reston Publishing Company,
Reston VA.
Refsgaard, J.C., Van Der Sluijs, J.P., Hjberg, A.L. and Vanrolleghem, P.A. (2007) Uncertainty in
the environmental modeling process - a framework and guidance, Environmental Modeling &
Software, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp.15431556.
Royes, G.F. and Bastos, R.C. (2006) Uncertainty analysis in political forecasting, Decision
Support Systems, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.2535.
Saaty, T. (1982) Decision-Making for Leaders: The Analytical Hierarchy Process for Decisions in
a Complex World, Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont CA.
Sankaran, R.A., Senthil, V., Devadasan, S.R. and Pramod, V.R. (2008) Design and development of
innovative quality function deployment model, International Journal of Business Innovation
and Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.203222.
Shankaranarayanan, G. and Cai, Y. (2006) Supporting data quality management in
decision-making, Decision Support Systems, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp.302317.
Simon, H. (1977) The New Science of Management Decision, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ.
Slinger, M. (1992) To Practice QFD with Success Requires a New Approach to Product Design,
Kontinuert Forbedring, Copenhagen.
Toma, L. (2004) Decision making in a fast speed world: an early warning system for avoiding
crises, Int. J. of Foresight and Innovation Policy, Vol. 1, Nos. 3/4, pp.218231.
Vlad, R.C., Benyoucef, L. and Vlad, S. (2006) Identification of software specifications through
quality function deployment, automation, quality and testing, robotics, 2006 IEEE
International Conference on Digital Object Identifier, 2528 May 2006, Vol. 2, pp.7479.
Wang, R.Y., Lee, Y.W., Pipino, L.L. and Strong, D.M. (1998) Manage your information as a
product, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp.95105.
Yates, J.F. (1990) Judgment and Decision Making, NJ: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.
Yuan, Y. and Detlor, B. (2005) Intelligent mobile crisis response systems, Communications of the
ACM, Vol. 48, No. 2, pp.9598.