IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/oprepe/v2y2015icp36-56.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Simulation-based decision support for evaluating operational plans

Author

Listed:
  • Schubert, Johan
  • Moradi, Farshad
  • Asadi, Hirad
  • Luotsinen, Linus
  • Sjöberg, Eric
  • Hörling, Pontus
  • Linderhed, Anna
  • Oskarsson, Daniel

Abstract

In this article, we describe simulation-based decision support techniques for evaluation of operational plans within effects-based planning. Using a decision support tool, developers of operational plans are able to evaluate thousands of alternative plans against possible courses of events and decide which of these plans are capable of achieving a desired end state. The objective of this study is to examine the potential of a decision support system that helps operational analysts understand the consequences of numerous alternative plans through simulation and evaluation. Operational plans are described in the effects-based approach to operations concept as a set of actions and effects. For each action, we examine several different alternative ways to perform the action. We use a representation where a plan consists of several actions that should be performed. Each action may be performed in one of several different alternative ways. Together these action alternatives make up all possible plan instances, which are represented as a tree of action alternatives that may be searched for the most effective sequence of alternative actions. As a test case, we use an expeditionary operation with a plan of 43 actions and several alternatives for these actions, as well as a scenario of 40 group actors. Decision support for planners is provided by several methods that analyze the impact of a plan on the 40 actors, e.g., by visualizing time series of plan performance. Detailed decision support for finding the most influential actions of a plan is presented by using sensitivity analysis and regression tree analysis. Finally, a decision maker may use the tool to determine the boundaries of an operation that it must not move beyond without risk of drastic failure. The significant contribution of this study is the presentation of an integrated approach for evaluation of operational plans.

Suggested Citation

  • Schubert, Johan & Moradi, Farshad & Asadi, Hirad & Luotsinen, Linus & Sjöberg, Eric & Hörling, Pontus & Linderhed, Anna & Oskarsson, Daniel, 2015. "Simulation-based decision support for evaluating operational plans," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 36-56.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:2:y:2015:i:c:p:36-56
    DOI: 10.1016/j.orp.2015.02.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214716015000068
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.orp.2015.02.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steve Bankes, 1993. "Exploratory Modeling for Policy Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 41(3), pages 435-449, June.
    2. Bañuls, Victor A. & Turoff, Murray & Hiltz, Starr Roxanne, 2013. "Collaborative scenario modeling in emergency management through cross-impact," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(9), pages 1756-1774.
    3. Asan, Umut & Erhan Bozdag, Cafer & Polat, Seçkin, 2004. "A fuzzy approach to qualitative cross impact analysis," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 443-458, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Russeil, Valentin & Lo Seen, Danny & Broust, François & Bonin, Muriel & Praene, Jean-Philippe, 2023. "Food and electricity self-sufficiency trade-offs in Reunion Island: Modelling land-use change scenarios with stakeholders," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    2. Lan, Jibin & Chen, Yuwen & Ning, Mengyao & Wang, Zhongxing, 2015. "A new linguistic aggregation operator and its application to multiple attribute decision making," Operations Research Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 2(C), pages 156-164.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Roland Broll & Gerald Blumberg & Christoph Weber, "undated". "Thesenpapier: Constructing Consistent Energy Scenarios using Cross Impact Matrices," EWL Working Papers 2005, University of Duisburg-Essen, Chair for Management Science and Energy Economics.
    2. Guido A Veldhuis & Nico M de Reus & Bas MJ Keijser, 2020. "Concept development for comprehensive operations support with modeling and simulation," The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation, , vol. 17(1), pages 99-116, January.
    3. Turoff, Murray & Hiltz, Starr Roxanne & Bañuls, Víctor A. & Van Den Eede, Gerd, 2013. "Multiple perspectives on planning for emergencies: An introduction to the special issue on planning and foresight for emergency preparedness and management," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(9), pages 1647-1656.
    4. Lempert Robert J., 2014. "Embedding (some) benefit-cost concepts into decision support processes with deep uncertainty," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 5(3), pages 487-514, December.
    5. Margherita, Alessandro & Elia, Gianluca & Klein, Mark, 2021. "Managing the COVID-19 emergency: A coordination framework to enhance response practices and actions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    6. Erik Pruyt & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2014. "Radicalization under deep uncertainty: a multi-model exploration of activism, extremism, and terrorism," System Dynamics Review, System Dynamics Society, vol. 30(1-2), pages 1-28, January.
    7. Jan H. Kwakkel & Erik Pruyt, 2015. "Using System Dynamics for Grand Challenges: The ESDMA Approach," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 358-375, May.
    8. Barnes, Stuart J. & Mattsson, Jan, 2016. "Understanding current and future issues in collaborative consumption: A four-stage Delphi study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 200-211.
    9. Evelina Trutnevyte & Céline Guivarch & Robert Lempert & Neil Strachan, 2016. "Reinvigorating the scenario technique to expand uncertainty consideration," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 135(3), pages 373-379, April.
    10. Jodlbauer, Herbert & Tripathi, Shailesh & Brunner, Manuel & Bachmann, Nadine, 2022. "Stability of cross impact matrices," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    11. Jan Kwakkel & Willem Auping, 2021. "Reaction: A commentary on Lustick and Tetlock (2021)," Futures & Foresight Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(2), June.
    12. Timothy Wojan & Anil Rupasingha, 2001. "Crisis as Opportunity: Local Context, Adaptive Agents and the Possibilities of Rural Development," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 35(2), pages 141-152.
    13. Erik Pruyt & Willem L. Auping & Jan H. Kwakkel, 2015. "Ebola in West Africa: Model-Based Exploration of Social Psychological Effects and Interventions," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 2-14, January.
    14. Auping, Willem L. & Pruyt, Erik & de Jong, Sijbren & Kwakkel, Jan H., 2016. "The geopolitical impact of the shale revolution: Exploring consequences on energy prices and rentier states," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 390-399.
    15. Hamarat, Caner & Kwakkel, Jan H. & Pruyt, Erik, 2013. "Adaptive Robust Design under deep uncertainty," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 408-418.
    16. Xiaojiao Qiao & Dan Shi, 2019. "Risk Analysis of Emergency Based on Fuzzy Evidential Reasoning," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-10, November.
    17. Lanndon A. Ocampo, 2019. "Decision Modeling for Manufacturing Sustainability with Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process," Global Business Review, International Management Institute, vol. 20(1), pages 25-41, February.
    18. Georgios Tsaples & Jason Papathanasiou & Andreas C. Georgiou, 2022. "An Exploratory DEA and Machine Learning Framework for the Evaluation and Analysis of Sustainability Composite Indicators in the EU," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 10(13), pages 1-27, June.
    19. Hidayatno, Akhmad & Jafino, Bramka Arga & Setiawan, Andri D. & Purwanto, Widodo Wahyu, 2020. "When and why does transition fail? A model-based identification of adoption barriers and policy vulnerabilities for transition to natural gas vehicles," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    20. Seyed Ahmad Reza Mir Mohammadi Kooshknow & Rob den Exter & Franco Ruzzenenti, 2020. "An Exploratory Agent-Based Modeling Analysis Approach to Test Business Models for Electricity Storage," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(7), pages 1-14, April.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:oprepe:v:2:y:2015:i:c:p:36-56. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/operations-research-perspectives .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.