Decision support experiments and evaluations using seasonal to ...

time by the interest of groups to continue to
participate and to be consulted and involved.
Participants should view the process of collaboration
as fair and effective—this could be
gauged by elicitation of feedback from process
participants.
Second, there should be progress in developing
an interdisciplinary and interagency environment
of collaboration, documented by the presence
of dialogue, discussion, and exchange of
ideas and data among different professions—in
other words, documented boundary-spanning
progress and building of trusted relationships.
One documentable measure of interdisciplinary,
boundary-spanning collaboration is the growth,
over time, of professional reward systems
Information Integration
Decision-Support Experiments and Evaluations using Seasonal to
Interannual Forecasts and Observational Data: A Focus on Water Resources
within organizations that reward and recognize
people who develop, use, and translate such
systems for use by others.
Third, the collaborative process must be viewed
by participants as credible. This means that
participants feel it is believable and trustworthy
and that there are benefits to all who engage in
it. Again, this can be documented by elicitation
of feedback from participants. Finally, outcomes
of decision-support tools must be implementable
in the short term, as well as longer-term.
It is necessary to see progress in assimilating
and using such systems in a short period of
time in order to sustain the interest, effort, and
participatory conviction of decision makers in
the process. Table 4.2 suggests some specific,
Outcomes of
decision-support
tools must be
implementable
in the short
term, as well as
longer-term.
Table 4.2 Promoting Access to Information and its Use Between Scientists and Decision Makers–A Checklist
(adopted from: Jacobs, 2003).
• Was information received by stakeholders and integrated into decision makers’ management framework or
world view?
• Was capacity built? Did the process lead to a result where institutions, organizations, agencies, officials can use
information generated by decision-support experts? Did experts who developed these systems rely upon the
knowledge and experience of decision makers—and respond to their needs in a manner that was useful?
• Will stakeholders continue to be invested in the program and participate in it over the long term?
Stakeholder Interaction/Collaboration
• Were contacts/relationships sustained over time and did they extend beyond individuals to institutions?
• Did stakeholders invest staff time or money in the activity?
• Was staff performance evaluated on the basis of quality or quantity of interaction?
• Did the project take on a life of its own, become at least partially self-supporting after the end of the project?
• Did the project result in building capacity and resilience to future events/conditions rather than focus on
• mitigation?
• Was quality of life or economic conditions improved due to use of information generated or accessed through
the project?
• Did the stakeholders claim or accept partial ownership of final product?
Tool Salience/Utility
• Are the tools actually used to make decisions; are they used by high-valued uses and users?
• Is the information generated/provided by these tools accurate/valid?
• Are important decisions made on the basis of the tool?
• Does the use of these tools reduce vulnerabilities, risks, and hazards?
Collaborative Process Efficacy
• Was the process representative (all interests have a voice at the table)?
• Was the process credible (based on facts as the participants knew them)?
• Were the outcomes implementable in a reasonable time frame (political and economic support)?
• Were the outcomes disciplined from a cost perspective ( i.e., there is some relationship between total costs and
total benefits)?
• Were the costs and benefits equitably distributed, meaning there was a relationship between those who paid and
those who benefited?
131