DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
1
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Advances in Group Model Building
Reflections on recent work with Colin Eden and Fran Ackermann of Strathclyde
University
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
2
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
3
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
4
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
5
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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...
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
6
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
7
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
An Example of a Resource Cluster:
Employment Services to Families on TANF
• 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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
8
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
9
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
10
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
TSA Overview scheduleDAY 1
Public agenda Team agendaTime Topic Time Topic and roles Details
7:50 Assemble All the technogy works!8:00 Coffee logistics Orders for the break
8:00 Introduction 8:05
Opening introduction: TSA head of screening, Michael Samsa from Argonne. Introductions of participants
DA facilitates & organizes. Name tags, name tents
8:30Problem definition and model boundary
8:30Issue surfacing and structuring
Pairs for DE set up and arranged. FACE structure and facilitate
9:20 Stakeholder views FACE using DE/GE
9:45What's in and out of analysis to make it believable and useful?
FACE using DE/GE
10:00Policy priorities - preliminary view from different stakeholder perspectives
FACE using DE/GE
Break 10:15 BreakAndrew, Steve organize lunch with the group
Dynamic perspectives 10:30 Graphs over timeDAGR works the group. FACE takes notes in DE.
11:45
FACE preferencing on the variables and review elaboration around the variables
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
11
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
12
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
13
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Initial Issues identified
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
14
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives 1
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
15
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Initial Policy Priorities
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
16
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Graphs over time drawn by the participants
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
17
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
More graphs over time drawn by the participants
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
18
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
19
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
20
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Graph over time ONE (training)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
21
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Logistics: Plan for the Second Half of Day One
• Concept Model• Elicitation of Model Structure • Modeler Feedback• BREAK• Scenarios• END at 4:15 PM
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
22
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
12:00 Lunch 12:00 Lunch
Steve extracted dynamic variables; George desgined the stock-and-flow backbones for TSOs and Technology and Skills.
1:00 Concept model 1:00 Concept model GR & IM
Preliminary model structuring
1:30Model structuring I linked to DE issues map
DA brought the variable pack to the board. GR began the stock-and-flow backbone for TSOs and facilitated the initial group elaboration of that. DA facilitates & structures; GR supports; FACE annotates if possible
2:45 Modeler feedback
GR presented; asked for group acceptance; diagrams reproduced for handouts, with DE maps
3:00 3:00 Break
Scenario events 3:25 Scenario events and stories FACE
4:00 End
Schedule for afternoon of the first day
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
23
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Concept Model
Part timescreeners
Hiring rate
Totalpersonnel
Desiredpersonnel
Part timersquitting
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
24
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Concept Model
Part timescreeners
Full timescreeners
Promotingto full time
Hiring rate
Full timersquitting
Frac fulltimersleaving p month
Totalpersonnel
Fraction full time
Desiredpersonnel
Part timersquitting
Desired full timescreeners
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
25
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Concept Model
Part timescreeners
Full timescreeners
Promotingto full time
Hiring rate
Full timersquitting
Time to becomefull time
Frac fulltimersleaving p month
Totalpersonnel
Fraction full time
Desiredpersonnel
Part timersquitting
Desired full timescreeners
Dissatisfactionleading to quits
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
26
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Concept Model BehaviorsPart time screeners
60,000
30,000
0
0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)
Part time screeners : TSA1 peoplePart time screeners : TSA2 peoplePart time screeners : TSA3 people
Full time screeners40,000
20,000
0
0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)
Full time screeners : TSA1 peopleFull time screeners : TSA2 peopleFull time screeners : TSA3 people
Hiring rate20,000
10,000
0
0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)
Hiring rate : TSA1 people/monthHiring rate : TSA2 people/monthHiring rate : TSA3 people/month
Time to become full time60
30
0
0 15 30 45 60Time (p month)
Time to become full time : TSA1 monthTime to become full time : TSA2 monthTime to become full time : TSA3 month
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
27
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
28
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
29
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
30
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Modeler Feedback
• A Standard part of our Group Model Building
• Completed using ordinary overhead projector
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
31
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
32
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
33
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
34
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
35
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
36
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Scenarios
• Group Explorer used to begin elicitation of scenarios
• Process returned to on second day
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
37
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Scenario: TSA rapidly create processes to innovate (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
38
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DAY 2Public agenda Team agenda
7:50 Assemble 7:50
8:00Review day 1, intro day 2
8:00Get acceptance of refined TSO structure map; revise as necessary
GR facilitates?
Model structuring 8:35Build customer sector on back board
DA facilitates. FACE annotates
10:15 and 10:15 Break
10:30 Modeler feedbackGR on Customer Sector, linkages to TSO sector
System Goals 10:45 Goal structure FACE
12:00 Lunch 12:00 LunchDAGR plans next modeling piece
1:00 Model structuring 1:00Airport, Customer, HeadQuarters structure
DA facilitates. FACE annotates
and 2:30 Break
2:45 Modeler feedbackGR on Goal structure and/or final model sector(s)
3:00Takeaways on issues, goals, priorities, scenarios, and policies
FACE
Policy priorities 3:30Next steps: TSA, Tri-Lab Team
Michael Samsa, Andrew Cox
3:55 Wrap up DA, GR, FA, CE, …4:00 End
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
39
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
40
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
41
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
42
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
43
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
44
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
45
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Final Policy Priorities (red=short term, green=long term)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
46
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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?
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
47
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
48
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Thank You for Your Attention
Questions and Comments
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
49
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
You really don’t want to go beyond this
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
50
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
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}
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
51
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Likely SD variables (involved in feedback) derived from Group Explorer gatherings16 Avoid repetitive activity boredom17 cooperation between airport authority,FSD, local LEO18 empowerment for STSOs and LTSOs19 Ability to manage systematic integration of technology and people22 Passenger awareness of process and expectations24 checkpoint & baggage communication32 keeping costs reasonable{3,8}36 realistic scheduling based on pax loads40 better federal cooperation at the airport43 effective deployment of staff44 reaction procedures to security threat52 proper relationship with airport stakeholders54 potential conflicts with local law enforcement57 deployment of leos so to enable immediate response of unruly passengers58 maintaining screener interest in job function64 foster the mindset of investigative skepticism{3,1}65 reduce line waits67 [airports mgt] want all available lanes open all the time69 [airlines] airlines would like to see screening efficiency increase such that there is no wait time at the checkpoint71 16 enough TSo's to eliminate fatigue77 airlines would like the checkpoint experience to very pleasant and polite--No anxiety80 14 screening procedures change too often81 16 burn out99 17: reducing hassle to passengers104 [airlines] reducing passenger fear113 [airlines] providing high levels of service to frequent/first class travelers
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
52
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Most central themes (lots of links in and out for 3 levels) and summary links between them
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
53
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Stakeholder Goals as a System (red=media; LEO=gray; maroon=airport; green=airlines; blue=passengers; teal=screeners; olive=politicians)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
54
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives 2
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
55
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Scenario: IED explosion (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
56
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Scenario: chemical or biological attack on airport (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
57
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Scenario: employee based attack (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
58
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Scenario: remaining material (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
59
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Graph over time TWO (staffing)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
60
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Graph over time THREE (IED’s)
DF Andersen & GP RichardsonFebruary 2007
61
Rockefeller College of Public Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and PolicyAffairs and PolicyUniversity at AlbanyUniversity at Albany
Stakeholder Responses to Security System Failure