DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 1 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy...

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


2


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


3


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


4


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


5


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...


6



7


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


8



9


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


10


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


11



12



13


Initial Issues identified


14


Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives 1


15


Initial Policy Priorities


16


Graphs over time drawn by the participants


17


More graphs over time drawn by the participants


18



19



20


Graph over time ONE (training)


21


Logistics: Plan for the Second Half of Day One

• Concept Model• Elicitation of Model Structure • Modeler Feedback• BREAK• Scenarios• END at 4:15 PM


22


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


23


Concept Model

Part timescreeners

Hiring rate

Totalpersonnel

Desiredpersonnel

Part timersquitting


24


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


25


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


26


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


27


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


28



29


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


30


Modeler Feedback

• A Standard part of our Group Model Building

• Completed using ordinary overhead projector


31



32



33



34



35



36


Scenarios

• Group Explorer used to begin elicitation of scenarios

• Process returned to on second day


37


Scenario: TSA rapidly create processes to innovate (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)


38


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


39



40



41



42



43



44



45


Final Policy Priorities (red=short term, green=long term)


46


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?


47


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


48


Thank You for Your Attention

Questions and Comments


49


You really don’t want to go beyond this


50


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}


51


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


52


Most central themes (lots of links in and out for 3 levels) and summary links between them


53


Stakeholder Goals as a System (red=media; LEO=gray; maroon=airport; green=airlines; blue=passengers; teal=screeners; olive=politicians)


54


Issues from Stakeholder Perspectives 2


55


Scenario: IED explosion (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)


56


Scenario: chemical or biological attack on airport (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)


57


Scenario: employee based attack (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)


58


Scenario: remaining material (R=relative impact, G=relative probability across all scenario events)


59


Graph over time TWO (staffing)


60


Graph over time THREE (IED’s)


61


Stakeholder Responses to Security System Failure

DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 1 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy...

Documents

Transcript of DF Andersen & GP Richardson February 2007 1 Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy...