ISSUE 70 : May/Jun - 1988 - Australian Defence Force Journal

Harnessing Military Expertise in Defence Decision
Analyses — A Realisable Goal
By Dr Malcolm S. Bilton and Mr Keith Lawson
TO those involved in the analysis of Defence
problems it comes as no surprise to find
that often management decisions require comparison
of 'apples and oranges'. What often
does cause surprise is the way in which the
comparison is made. We become used to commonplace
justifications which make appeals to
the 'average outcome' or which are founded on
the shaky ground of expedience. It is easy to
gain the impression that some of the public
justifications for decisions tend to gloss over
the degree of vagueness incorporated in the
arguments.
Defence Management decisions usually involve
many different factors and criteria, some
of which might actually be in conflict. For
example, what is the effect of overall force
readiness when Air Force flying hours are traded
off for Navy Steaming time? These situations
are not solvable using classical concepts of optimisation.
Rather, the decision maker must
choose from a set of feasible alternative decisions
which, in the light of the information
available, are not readily distinguishable. The
decision maker is in the position of choosing
from two or more 'good' decisions rather than
having a single 'correct" alternative.
And now, with Freedom of Information legislation,
and a general drive within the community
for everyone to lift their game, the
decision makers are expected to make ever more
complex decisions under conditions of increasing
uncertainty. There is ever-increasing scope
to provide techniques which the decision maker
can use to structure problems in a flexible manner,
and provide a repeatable and explainable
decision synthesis. Such techniques have appeared
in the private sector, some built into
integrated hardware/software machines (these
are usually called 'analysis workstations' because
they were originally designed for stockmarket
portfolio analysts' needs).
We take the view that it is possible to build
a 'generalised decision model' which the decision
makers can use to map out their (often
intuitive) ideas about a problem, often in the
quiet of their own office, so the techniques need
to be implemented on a small computer. Our
most important premise is that the decision
makers' intuitions about a problem (in our business
these are often renamed 'military judgements')
can be harnessed and refined.
In this article we discuss a set of techniques
which are being developed as part of ongoing
investigations into the construction of a generalised
decision model. The work is in its Phase
II development under the project name Management
Decision Support System (MDSS). Unlike
more traditional methods of operational
research, the MDSS does not try to find 'correct'
or 'optimum' solutions to problems. What
it does attempt to do is:
a. provide a reasonable method of assessment
and synthesis of information, and
then
b. provide an explicit statement of the degree
to which decision alternatives are of equal
worth.
The overall aim of our article is to introduce
the ideas behind the MDSS approach to decision
making.
Extensive research of the decision analysis
literature leads us to the conclusion that there
are several processes that go on when making
a decision to do something and which are independent
of the decision type.
Using fairly common terms, the processes
are:
a. identify the problem as a problem for the
decision maker to deal with. What is the
probem and does it belong to me?
b. analyse the problem, determine what the
basic questions are — what do I want to
do?
c. define (implicitly or explicitly) what your
objectives are, the major goals that should
be met when the decision is implemented
— what do I really want to change and
achieve?
d. generate alternative ways of achieving the
major goals — how can I do these things
and are they really possible?