Decision support experiments and evaluations using seasonal to ...

The U.S. Climate Change Science Program
User-driven
information in regard
to seasonal-to-
interannual climate
variability for water
resources decision
making must be
salient, credible,
and legitimate.
122
technologies” (Cash and Buizer, 2005; Sarewitz
and Pielke, 2007).
In sum, there is an emerging consensus that
the utility of information intended to make
possible sustainable environmental decisions
depends on the “dynamics of the decision context
and its broader social setting” (Jasanoff
and Wynne, 1998; Pielke et al., 2000; Sarewitz
and Pielke, 2007). Usefulness is not inherent
in the knowledge generated by forecasters—
the information generated must be “socially
robust”. Robustness is determined by how well
it meets three criteria: (1) is it valid outside,
as well as inside the laboratory; (2) is validity
achieved through involving an extended group
of experts, including lay “experts;” and 3) is the
information (e.g., forecast models) derived from
a process in which society has participated as
this ensures that the information is less likely
to be contested (Gibbons, 1999).
Finally, a user-driven information system relies
heavily on two-way communication. Such communication
can help bridge gaps between what
is produced and what is likely to be used, thus
ensuring that scientists produce products that
are recognized by the users, and not just the
producers, as useful. Effective user-oriented
two-way communication can increase users’
understanding of how they could use climate
information and enable them to ask questions
about information that is uncertain or in dispute.
It also affords an opportunity to produce
“decision-relevant” information that might
otherwise not be produced because scientists
may not have understood completely what kinds
of information would be most useful to water
resource decision makers (NRC, 2008).
In conclusion, user-driven information in regard
to seasonal-to-interannual climate variability
for water resources decision making must be
salient (e.g., decision-relevant and timely),
credible (viewed as accurate, valid, and of high
quality), and legitimate (uninfluenced by pressures
or other sources of bias) (see NRC, 2008;
NRC, 2005). In the words of a recent National
Research Council report, broad involvement
of “interested and affected parties” in framing
scientific questions helps ensure that the science
produced is useful (“getting the right science”)
by ensuring that decision-support tools are
explicit about any simplifying assumptions that
may be in dispute among the users, and accessible
to the end-user (NRC, 2008).
4.3.5 Proactive Leadership—
Championing Change
Organizations—public, private, scientific, and
political—have leaders: individuals charged
with authority, and span of control, over important
personnel, budgetary, and strategic planning
decisions, among other venues. Boundary
organizations require a kind of leadership called
inclusive management practice by its principal
theorists (Feldman and Khademian, 2004). Inclusive
management is defined as management
that seeks to incorporate the knowledge, skills,
resources, and perspectives of several actors
and seeks to avoid creating “winners and losers”
among stakeholders.
While there is an enormous literature on
organizational leadership, synthetic studies—
those that take various theories and models
about leaders and try to draw practical, even
anecdotal, lessons for organizations—appear to
coalesce around the idea that inclusive leaders
have context-specific skills that emerge through
a combination of tested experience within a variety
of organizations, and a knack for judgment
(Bennis, 2003; Feldman and Khademan, 2004;
Tichy and Bennis, 2007). These skills evolve
through trial and error and social learning.
Effective “change-agent” leaders have a guiding
vision that sustains them through difficult
times, a passion for their work and an inherent
belief in its importance, and a basic integrity toward
the way in which they interact with people
and approach their jobs (Bennis, 2003).
While it is difficult to discuss leadership
without focusing on individual leaders (and
difficult to disagree with claims about virtuous
leadership), inclusive management also embraces
the notion of “process accountability”:
that leadership is embodied in the methods by
which organizations make decisions, and not in
charismatic personality alone. Process accountability
comes not from some external elected
political principle or body that is hierarchically
superior, but instead infuses through processes
of deliberation and transparency. All of these
elements make boundary organizations capable
of being solution focused and integrative
Chapter 4