Interactive computer support in decision conferencing: Two cases on off-site nuclear emergency management
Jyri Mustajoki1, Raimo P. Hämäläinen1 and Kari Sinkko2

1 Helsinki University of Technology
Systems Analysis Laboratory
P.O. Box 1100, 02015 HUT, Finland
E-mails: jyri.mustajoki@hut.fi, raimo@hut.fi
Tel. +358-9-451 3054, fax +358-9-451 3096

2 STUK - Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority,
P.O.Box 14, 00881 Helsinki, Finland
E-mail: kari.sinkko@stuk.fi

Abstract 
Decision conferencing is a collaborative way to support shared decision making problems (see e.g. Phillips and Phillips, 1993; French, 1996). In decision conferences – also called facilitated or moderated workshops – all the decision making parties are gathered together to thoroughly discuss and analyze the problem. The objective is to deal with the conflicting issues at hand so that a common understanding of the problem could be achieved. Multiattribute value theory (MAVT) can be used to systematically model different views of the participants, and decision analytical software is typically used support the evaluation of the strategy alternatives.
In this paper, we analyze and make observations on the use of the decision conferencing approach with interactive MAVT software in two case studies for planning countermeasures in a hypothetical nuclear accident. Our objectives are to both study the applicability of the approach in nuclear emergency management, and derive experiences of the independent and collaborative use of multicriteria software. Issues in nuclear safety often involve multiple policy alternatives and multiple shareholders having conflicting interests. Decision analytical approaches have been successfully applied in these (see e.g. French, 1996; Hämäläinen et al., 2000; Keeney and von Winterfeldt, 1994). Our cases deal with countermeasures for (i) milk production, and (ii) the cleaning of inhabited areas. In both cases, a day-long decision conference exercise utilizing a portable group decision support system (GDSS) was held to consider the problem from different perspectives with an aim train the participants for a similar real situation. MAVT modeling was carried out with advanced general purpose multicriteria software called Web-HIPRE (Mustajoki and Hämäläinen, 2000).
With respect to the independent and collaborative use of multicriteria software, our cases had several characteristics that have not been studied earlier and thus may be of wider interest. Firstly, the participants used the software by themselves to give weights in a jointly structured MAVT model. In earlier conferences, the decision analyst or her assistant has typically operated the software throughout the whole conference. We shall discuss the requirements for independent use of MAVT models and software. Secondly, both conferences were arranged as one-day workshops, which we have found to be a sufficient and convenient length to fit into busy participants’ timetables. This intensive framework poses requirements for both the prearrangements and facilitation. Thirdly, we emphasize the new possibilities and multicriteria tools available for computer support in decision workshops. In particular, we study the possibilities provided by the Internet and intranets. Although these conferences were arranged in a decision room, the software would also allow remote participation via the Web.
The feedback from the participants supports the applicability of the approach in nuclear emergency management, although it is typically a very difficult and sensitive area to deal with. Our experiences also strongly support the applicability of interactive MAVT software in decision conferences, assuming that these are carefully planned in advance. In general, the participants were very satisfied with the approach, and the conferences showed that the model evaluation can be carried out interactively to increase the shared understanding of the problem. On the other hand, a use of easy-to-use methods and simple models were an essential requirement for this. It also appeared to be possible to carry out the conference in one day, which however further emphasized the need for simple models.
References
French, S. (1996). Multi-attribute decision support in the event of a nuclear accident. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 5, 39-57.
Hämäläinen, R.P., Lindstedt, M., Sinkko, K. (2000). Multiattribute risk analysis in nuclear emergency management. Risk Analysis 20(4), 455-467.
Keeney, R.L. von Winterfeldt, D. (1994). Managing nuclear waste from power plants. Risk Analysis 14(1), 107-130
Mustajoki, J., Hämäläinen, R.P. (2000). Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis. INFOR 38(3), 208-220.
Phillips, L.D., Phillips, M.C. (1993). Facilitated work groups: Theory and practice. Journal of Operational Research Society 44(6), 533-549.
Related Web links
Authors’ home pages: 
	Raimo P. Hämäläinen: http://www.raimo.hut.fi
	Jyri Mustajoki: http://www.sal.hut.fi/Personnel/Homepages/JyriM.html
Software used in the projects:
Opinions-Online: http://www.opinions.hut.fi
Web-HIPRE: http://www.hipre.hut.fi
Web pages of the cases:
Milk Case: http://www.riihi.hut.fi/stuk/indexeng.html
Urban Case: http://www.evatech.hut.fi
Full manuscript available at http://www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/mmus05.pdf