DSS for Integrated Water Resources Management IWRM Success

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

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

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. 3

Level of information on consequences of actions Degree of consensus on actions LOW HIGH problematic DSS domain support-oriented activities Formal decision taken Framework for water management (after Verbeek & Wind, 2001) 4

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 designimplementation incorrect – “work-flow” users not involved in design – no continuous involvement of users 5

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 6

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 7

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. 8

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. 9

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) 10

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. 11

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

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 14

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 …. . 15

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

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. 17

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 18

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

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 20

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; 21

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

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

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

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

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. 26

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