MORS 2001-2002: “Focus on the Decision Maker”

By: Dr Thomas L. Allen, Institute for Defense Analysis, tallen@ida.org

Integrity – the bedrock of the profession

The news is filled with stories of the Enron debacle, the largest bankruptcy in United States history. It may take years to sort out all the details, but the reports suggest that neither Enron nor its auditors put a high priority on providing completely truthful and unambiguous information to its workers, share holders or the public. We analysts need to learn from this. A basic rule we must adhere to is to tell our customers what they need to hear — not just what they want to hear. What sets a good analyst apart from the crowd is that in addition to answering the questions the decision maker asked, he or she goes on to answer the questions that should have been asked. As analysts, we are not the decision makers. But our job is to make sure the decision makers have all the information — good, bad and ugly — that they need to make fully informed choices. Sometimes this means providing inputs that the decision maker may not want to hear. But the good analyst provides it anyway: better to hear it in-house from the analyst than to have to address it publicly later when the results are more painful and certainly more expensive. In this sense, the good analyst helps serve as the conscience of the enterprise.

The bosses I’ve worked for have not always selected the options that my analyses suggested were the most cost-effective. Usually it’s because they understand the analytic methodology I’ve used and substituted different weights for value and risk as well as added political and human factor dimensions that I could not quantify, but which were essential to the final solution. It doesn’t mean my analysis was flawed or their decisions were wrong. It does mean that analysis alone is not always able to shed light on every aspect of an issue or to quantify all factors in a problem. At the same time, a decision maker is not always able to articulate the full range of factors and constraints bearing on the problem. As analysts, we need to be able to live with this dichotomy, because at our best we can still help the decision maker build a framework for thinking about a particular issue and provide insight on a number of variables that impact the problem. If we can show that some factors are less important than others, and that some variables are linked in ways that are not obvious from the start, then we’re definitely doing our job. What we can never afford to do is to limit what we tell the decision maker to what we think they want us to say. It may be painful to tell the boss that the favored decision is flawed, but that’s exactly what we have to do if that’s the result of objective analysis.

The key to success is often not in the message but in the delivery. No one wants to hear that the baby is ugly, and I’m not advocating starting your briefing by arrogantly characterizing a decision maker’s proposal as stupid or dumb. Most often specific ideas are conceived in a particular context and our challenge is to understand that context and then to help expand it to a larger framework. It may even be helpful to reinforce the positive value of an idea in the original context before pointing out how it breaks down in the expanded environment. By engaging the decision maker in discussion, we might even gain new insights that weren’t part of our initial analysis — and could lead to a different analytic outcome. Even if it doesn’t, the dialogue helps the decision maker understand the weaknesses of a proposal and gives him or her a chance to rethink or to press ahead, but with full knowledge of the gaps and risks inherent in their position. Because the analyst has provided insight and objective information that assists in this process, he or she has now become an essential member of the team precisely because of the integrity they bring to the process. In focusing on the decision maker, we analysts can never afford to cut corners on integrity.

New Fellows of the Society

At our December 2000 meeting, the Board of Directors elected Mary G.B. Pace, Vincent P. Roske Jr and Jerry A. Kotchka as the newest Fellows of the Society. All three have made major contributions to the practice of analysis and the effectiveness of MORS through the years. You can congratulate all three for this richly deserved honor during their official induction at the 70th MORSS at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, 18-20 June 2002.

70^th MORS Symposium

Steve Pilnick, the 70^th MORSS Program Chair, the MORS staff and Steve’s organizing committee are well on their way to providing an outstanding Symposium. We’ll be focusing on the new frontiers faced by analysis, including the war on terrorism, at the historical site of the American West’s old frontier. You should have received your Announcement and Call for Papers and submitted your abstracts by now. Visit our website (http://www.mors.org) for details and plan to help make this another record setting event.

Special Meetings

I encourage all of you to keep your eyes open for future PHALANX issues, PHALANX Online, and our website for our upcoming Special Meetings. The workshop on Effects Based Operations, 29-31 January at the Booz Allen, Hamilton facilities in McLean, VA, led by program chairs Dr Jackie Henningsen, FS, and MGen Dean Cash, and Technical Chairs Sue Iwanski and VP (FM) Dr Dick Hayes, brought in 171 participants and broke new ground in this important area. In addition, our workshop on Tackling the Space Community’s Analytic Challenges in Colorado Springs under the program chairmanship of Col TS Kelso and the technical leadership of Society Secretary LtCol Suzanne Beers was well on its way to success, although the 26-28 February dates were after this edition of PHALANX went to press. In addition, Dr Dick Deckro’s Operations Research Methods for Information Operations, is scheduled for 9-11 April, and promises to provide a significant step forward in this arena. Congratulations to the leaders, organizing committees and participants who have made such significant contributions to our Special Meetings program.

Education Colloquium

COL Mike McGinnis, the Board of Directors’ chair for our Education and Professional Development Committee, is leading this year’s Education Colloquium to be held 2-3 April 2002, at the ACSD Building in Alexandria, VA.

MORS continues to provide major value to the Military OR community, but we can always do better. If you have specific ideas on how we can improve, please contact me or any Director. MORS needs your ideas and energy to succeed.