Powerful tools to frame decisions for management actions; Decision Papers.
Abstract not provided.
Olloway, Jolene P.↗
SEARCH · Engineering Papers
Results for “DECISION”
Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.
Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.
Co-optimization to Integrate Power System Reliability Decisions with Resiliency Decisions.
Abstract not provided.
Pierre, Brian Joseph↗
Co-optimization to Integrate Power System Reliability Decisions with Resiliency Decisions.
Abstract not provided.
Pierre, Brian Joseph↗
Co-optimization to Integrate Power System Reliability Decisions with Resiliency Decisions.
Abstract not provided.
Pierre, Brian Joseph↗
Stakeholder-Engaged Structured Decision Making for the Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Mission - 20501
The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) environmental legacy cleanup program requires decisions to be made for environmental remediation, decommissioning and disposal or management of radioactive waste. This legacy cleanup program was established to address groundwater contamination, material disposal areas (MDAs) that have been used to dispose of radioactive and other waste material, and 'aggregate areas' that might produce radioactive or other chemical waste as a result of remediation activities. The LANL site is regulated for environmental concerns under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). However, some parts of LANL, such as material disposal area G (MDA G), have disposed of radioactive waste under DOE Order 435.1, and are subject to other regulations. For example, decommissioning the remote-handled TRU material stored in 33 shafts at MDA G falls under EPA's 40 CFR 191. Collectively, the regulations are all aimed in the same direction of finding the best solution, either through constructs such as 'as low as reasonably achievable' (ALARA), considering balancing factors as opposed to only cost and human health risk, and, under EPA regulations such as RCRA and NEPA, evaluating impact from all chemicals and both human health and ecological endpoints. Despite the basic goals and objectives of the regulations or their guidance, the main challenge is in their implementation. Arguably perhaps, but really in principle, all of these (and similar) regulations are asking for a decision analysis to be performed. Implementation challenges encountered have included lack of understanding of decision analysis in the industry, lack of effective stakeholder engagement in the decision analysis process, and lack of appreciation of the need to separate value judgments from science, the latter leading to developing conservative, or protective, science-based models. Conservative models lead to poor solutions, lack of effective stakeholder engagement leads to long drawn out protracted approaches to finding a solution (which also might never be found with this approach), and lack of understanding of decision analysis and Bayesian statistics causes poor models to be built, which creates unfortunate situations of 'garbage in, garbage out' becoming the basis for decision making. Stakeholder-engaged structured decision making (SDM) is an approach to solving problems that relies on the theory of decision science to involve stakeholders in the decision-making process. This approach incorporates stakeholder values using a scientifically rigorous methodology that separates value judgments from science in a way that helps avoid the pitfalls of biased, protective, or conservative modeling. This approach has its foundation in Keeney's 1992 treatise on value-focused thinking [1]. Keeney advocated a paradigm shift in decision making based on the idea that the standard way of thinking about decisions is backwards. The standard approach of focusing first on identifying alternatives rather than on articulating values results in a reactive approach with the emphasis on mechanics and fixed choices instead of the core values that have meaning to stakeholders. This paradigm shift effectively engages all stakeholders in the decision-making process while using a values focused thinking approach that can lead to the identification of decision opportunities and the creation of better alternatives. The intent is to be proactive and generate solutions that are related directly to values and objectives as identified by stakeholders. There are, perhaps, two overarching reasons why SDM can be used to benefit LANL's environmental legacy cleanup. Some of LANL's remaining waste management and environmental management problems are challenging and complex (for example, the Cr and RDX plumes, and MDAs) and while the traditional approach has, arguably, worked well for relatively simple risk-based problems, it cannot, or should not, be applied to more complex problems if the most effective and efficient solutions are desired. The second reason is cost. This has perhaps become more critical since publication of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports that DoE's environmental liability is considered a high-risk concern for the nation [2]. The focus of SDM is on structuring solutions to decision risk problems by first addressing stakeholder and decision maker values and subsequently developing decision objectives and ways to measure those objectives, preference weighting across objectives, identifying decision alternatives that best achieve those values, and characterizing uncertainty in predictions of the measures. Because a complete decision model is created using SDM, it can be evaluated to find the main elements of the model that drive, or predict, the best solution. This approach creates complete decision models that are transparent, traceable, reproducible and technically defensible. The science behind SDM, or decision analysis, is well founded, yet it is not unusual to see ad hoc approaches to decision making implemented under various environmental regulations that are pertinent to the LANL site, including NEPA, RCRA and DOE Order 435.1. Such ad hoc approaches are often not transparent or traceable, and lack reproducibility and technical defensibility. The LANL legacy cleanup program has embarked on using SDM to address the complex problems that remain. Stakeholder meetings have been held, and a prototype version of the stakeholder value system has been developed. Further meetings are expected in the future to address specific project needs. This is a long-term endeavor considering the complex environmental problems faced by DOE EM in Los Alamos (EM-LA), and careful planning, consideration of stakeholder value systems, and engagement with stakeholders throughout the SDM process is expected to lead to a successful endpoint. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Integrated Risk-Informed Decision-Making for an ALMR PRISM
Decision-making is the process of identifying decision alternatives, assessing those alternatives based on predefined metrics, selecting an alternative (i.e., making a decision), and then implementing that alternative. The generation of decisions requires a structured, coherent process, or a decision-making process. The overall objective for this work is that the generalized framework is adopted into an autonomous decision-making framework and tailored to specific requirements for various applications. In this context, automation is the use of computing resources to make decisions and implement a structured decision-making process with limited or no human intervention. The overriding goal of automation is to replace or supplement human decision makers with reconfigurable decision-making modules that can perform a given set of tasks rationally, consistently, and reliably. Risk-informed decision-making requires a probabilistic assessment of the likelihood of success given the status of the plant/systems and component health, and a deterministic assessment between plant operating parameters and reactor protection parameters to prevent unnecessary trips and challenges to plant safety systems. The probabilistic portion of the decision-making engine of the supervisory control system is based on the control actions associated with an ALMR PRISM. Newly incorporated into the probabilistic models are the prognostic/diagnostic models developed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. These allow decisions to incorporate the health of components into the decision–making process. Once the control options are identified and ranked based on the likelihood of success, the supervisory control system transmits the options to the deterministic portion of the platform. The deterministic portion of the decision-making engine uses thermal-hydraulic modeling and components for an advanced liquid-metal reactor Power Reactor Inherently Safe Module. The deterministic multi-attribute decision-making framework uses various sensor data (e.g., reactor outlet temperature, steam generator drum level) and calculates its position within the challenge state, its trajectory, and its margin within the controllable domain using utility functions to evaluate current and projected plant state space for different control decisions. The metrics that are evaluated are based on reactor trip set points. The integration of the deterministic calculations using multi-physics analyses and probabilistic safety calculations allows for the examination and quantification of margin recovery strategies. This also provides validation of the control options identified from the probabilistic assessment. Thus, the thermalhydraulics analyses are used to validate the control options identified from the probabilistic assessment. Future work includes evaluating other possible metrics and computational efficiencies, and developing a user interface to mimic display panels at a modern nuclear power plant.
97 MATHEMATICS AND COMPUTING↗
Application of Structured Decision Making to Hanford Site Radiological Air Monitoring - 17924
Radiological air monitoring is a component of an Environmental Surveillance (ES) program that has been in operation at the Department of Energy Hanford Site for several decades. The primary objectives of the ES program are protection of human health and the environment (on and off-site) as well as regulatory compliance. The ES program was designed decades ago when the plutonium-production reactors and related facilities at the Hanford Site were operational and air emissions were more widespread and significant than today. We employed a structured decision making (SDM) approach that integrates science with values and preferences to a Hanford Site air monitoring program decision. Specifically, a decision was necessary pertaining to the possible replacement of three air monitoring stations located in the 100 Area of the Hanford Site because the power line that supports these stations was near the end of its lifecycle. Although focused on this specific decision, the SDM model is more broadly applicable to decisions pertaining to adapting the air monitoring network to current Hanford operations. The value focused thinking approach that underlies SDM facilitates transparent and defensible decision making, and aids in communicating monitoring rationale. Some of the fundamental objectives elicited from the decision makers regarding management options for the three air monitoring stations included maximizing the ability to measure releases, minimizing environmental impacts, and maximizing social and economic sustainability. The fundamental objectives were linked to six objectives that could be measured (quantified) to allow a decision-analytic solution to the decision problem. Value functions and preference weights were developed for each of the objectives measures based on information obtained during a project workshop as well as by review and analysis of environmental data. Lastly, a set of five management options was identified that might achieve at least one of the objectives. A Bayes Network was developed as a solution to the decision problem pertaining to the three air stations (the 3 air stations decision). The Bayes Network describes the decision model graphically, and also serves as the computational engine for the decision analysis. The Bayes Network defines the relationship among the five management options and six objectives measures. In addition to the weights and value functions noted above, key inputs to the Bayes Network include a set of probabilities related to the different model states defined by the network. These include the probability of a significant release occurring, the probability that a release would be detected under each of the five management options, and the probability of achieving the other objective measures under each management option. In this manner the Bayesian Network captures the uncertainty in the components of the decision model. Replacing the three air monitoring stations with thermoluminescent dosimeters was identified as the preferred management option. A brief report was developed documenting the SDM model, including the workshop notes and analyses that were used to develop the objectives and model input variable values. This application demonstrates SDM's utility for supporting monitoring program decisions and, critically, providing a transparent and traceable basis for the decision. This relatively simple SDM model also provides a basis for an SDM model for monitoring decisions related to the more complex and holistic goal of achieving ES program objectives. (authors)
61 RADIATION PROTECTION AND DOSIMETRY↗
Strategic Planning and Decisions Tools to Enhance EM Mission Execution - 16552
Maximizing the success of an organization depends on many things with a key one being the focus and quality of the management decisions made by the organisation's senior leadership team. Successfully advancing an organisation's agenda requires operational, tactical, and strategic decisions. These decisions involve both decisions on specific actions, as well as decisions about planning. In addition to the day-to-day decisions of running the business, the leadership team should be allocating appropriate time toward developing organizational strategic objectives. Strategic planning is an organisation's process of defining its direction and strategies, and plotting how to accomplish those strategies. Strategic planning is essential to the long term viability of the organization. The pathway to success with strategic planning is not nearly so obvious and straight forward as with operational decisions. Organizational leaders must resist the temptation to minimize the time allocated to strategic thinking and strategic planning. Strategic thinking and strategic planning are centered around making sure that your organization is doing the right things, instead of just doing things right. Management guru Peter Drucker noted that 'There is nothing more wasteful than becoming highly efficient at doing the wrong things'. Strategic thinking is used in deciding what to do. Tactical thinking is used in deciding how to do it. Decision tools can be utilized to improve the results of the strategic planning process. In certain situations, properly selected decision tools will provide a mechanism or a process for making better decisions, or for channeling strategic thought and strategic planning toward enlightened alternative approaches. Decision tools can also provide for assigning a quantitative measure of merit or goodness, or at least a semi-quantitative measure of merit to multiple decision options. Properly selected and utilized, decision tools provide the leadership team with additional insight into the consequences of their decisions. Appropriately selected decision tools can be utilized to maximize the effectiveness of your strategic planning efforts. Decision tools can be used to quantify strategic decision options within a particular framework, providing insights into alternatives to improve an organisation's most effective execution of the DOE EM clean up mission. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice
The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.
Orasanu, Judith↗
Decision Making in Action
The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. A similar observation has been made in nuclear power plants. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multidimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for spaceflight and training for offshore installations will be discussed.
Orasanu, Judith↗
Decision Making in the Airplane
The Importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment. Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful In improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking In response to a problem, This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.
Orasanu, Judith↗
A Paradigm Shift continued: An Application of Structured Decision Making for Sustainable Waste Management - 16486
Structured decision making presents an opportunity for DOE and others engaged in solving complex environmental and waste management problems to find solutions that are stakeholder engaged and cost effective. This approach represents a paradigm shift that was introduced in a series of papers and a panel session at the WM2015 Symposium. The advantages of structured decision making over less formal approaches to decision making include technical defensibility, traceability and transparency. Structured decision making also overcomes the limitations of misapplication of conservatism in modeling, addresses stakeholder concerns and competing objectives directly, and provides a formal method through which internal and external stakeholders are encouraged to collectively and carefully consider all relevant attributes of solving complex problems. The first requirement of this paradigm shift is a realization and recognition that the problems faced are inherently decision problems, and that there is a formal theory of decision analysis that can, and should, be used to support finding the best solutions. Structured decision making is, very simply, formalized common sense. The formalities include: framing the problem; identification of objectives and measures for valuing those objectives; costs or values associated with those objectives; management options or alternatives for taking action that are tied directly to the objectives; and, science-based models to evaluate the options. Decision analysis is used to evaluate objectives and choose management options by balancing probability and consequence. The science-based models are built probabilistically based on expectation and uncertainty, and costs and value judgments are used to fulfill addressing stakeholder concerns. Consequently, this approach avoids misplaced conservatism in science-based modeling and properly places values in the objectives component of a decision model. This approach honestly addresses uncertainty and value judgments and balances these competing components to find the most effective decision. A software framework program called Guided Interactive Statistical Decision Tools (GiSdT - pronounced 'gist') is used to support an application of this paradigm shift towards structured decision making. In this application objectives and management options for a waste disposal problem at the Los Alamos National Laboratory are identified, and features, events and processes are described and defined to form the basis of a conceptual site model. This establishes the decision model structure. Objectives are addressed through the three pillars of sustainability - economic, environmental, and social - and also address regulatory concerns or constraints. Management options include removal of waste to another location and engineering designs for leaving waste in place. Using structured decision making, the relationship between objectives, management options, and the conceptual site model is made clear, and leads to a comprehensive, defensible, transparent and traceable approach to effective decision making. (authors)
12 MANAGEMENT OF RADIOACTIVE AND NON-RADIOACTIVE W↗
Shared Problem Models and Crew Decision Making
The importance of crew decision making to aviation safety has been well established through NTSB accident analyses: Crew judgment and decision making have been cited as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents in commercial air transport, general aviation, and military aviation. Yet the bulk of research on decision making has not proven helpful in improving the quality of decisions in the cockpit. One reason is that traditional analytic decision models are inappropriate to the dynamic complex nature of cockpit decision making and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions. A new model of dynamic naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove more useful for training or aiding cockpit decision making. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulation and National Transportation Safety Board accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good decisions. In brief, good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation and reflect the crew's metacognitive skill. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relation between communication that serves to build performance. Implications of these findings for crew training will be discussed.
Orasanu, Judith↗
Decision Making in Action: Applying Research to Practice
The importance of decision-making to safety in complex, dynamic environments like mission control centers, aviation, and offshore installations has been well established. NASA-ARC has a program of research dedicated to fostering safe and effective decision-making in the manned spaceflight environment: Because access to spaceflight is limited, environments with similar characteristics, including aviation and nuclear power plants, serve as analogs from which space-relevant data can be gathered and theories developed. Analyses of aviation accidents cite crew judgement and decision making as causes or contributing factors in over half of all accidents. Yet laboratory research on decision making has not proven especially helpful in improving the quality of decisions in these kinds of environments. One reason is that the traditional, analytic decision models are inappropriate to multi-dimensional, high-risk environments, and do not accurately describe what expert human decision makers do when they make decisions that have consequences. A new model of dynamic, naturalistic decision making is offered that may prove useful for improving decision making in complex, isolated, confined and high-risk environments. Based on analyses of crew performance in full-mission simulators and accident reports, features that define effective decision strategies in abnormal or emergency situations have been identified. These include accurate situation assessment (including time and risk assessment), appreciation of the complexity of the problem, sensitivity to constraints on the decision, timeliness of the response, and use of adequate information. More effective crews also manage their workload to provide themselves with time and resources to make good good decisions are appropriate to the demands of the situation. Effective crew decision making and overall performance are mediated by crew communication. Communication contributes to performance because it assures that all crew members have essential information, but it also regulates and coordinates crew actions and is the medium of collective thinking in response to a problem. This presentation will examine the relations between leadership, communication, decision making and overall crew performance. Implications of these findings for training will be discussed.
Orasanu, Judith↗
A game theory perspective on environmental assessment: What games are played and what does this tell us about decision making rationality and legitimacy?
Game theory provides a useful theoretical framework to examine the decision process operating in the context of environmental assessment, and to examine the rationality and legitimacy of decision-making subject to Environmental Assessment (EA). The research uses a case study of the Environmental Impact Assessment and Sustainability Appraisal processes undertaken in England. To these are applied an analytical framework, based on the concept of decision windows to identify the decisions to be assessed. The conditions for legitimacy are defined, based on game theory, in relation to the timing of decision information, the behaviour type (competitive, reciprocal, equity) exhibited by the decision maker, and the level of public engagement; as, together, these control the type of rationality which can be brought to bear on the decision. Instrumental rationality is based on self-interest of individuals, whereas deliberative rationality seeks broader consensus and is more likely to underpin legitimate decisions. The results indicate that the Sustainability Appraisal process, conducted at plan level, is better than EIA, conducted at project level, but still fails to provide conditions that facilitate legitimacy. Game theory also suggests that Sustainability Appraisal is likely to deliver ‘least worst’ outcomes rather than best outcomes when the goals of the assessment process are considered; this may explain the propensity of such ‘least worst’ decisions in practise. On the basis of what can be learned from applying this game theory perspective, it is suggested that environmental assessment processes need to be redesigned and better integrated into decision making in order to guarantee the legitimacy of the decisions made. - Highlights: • Decision legitimacy is defined in terms of game theory. • Game theory is applied to EIA and SA decision windows. • Game theory suggests least worst outcomes prevail. • SA is more likely to be perceived legitimate than EIA.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Decision Space Modeling: Trade Space Ontology
As the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) works to develop a crewed Moon to Mars Architecture, it is dealing with a large decision space consisting of the overlay of human exploration architectures for both the Moon and for Mars. Efforts are underway to enable reasoning, analysis, and deliberation on this decision space. A critical first step is to develop a model of the decision space, which will then allow for various methods and techniques to be applied in support of the larger architecture decision-making process. The Trade Space Ontology consists of a set of terminologies and relations (an ontology) and a MagicDraw resource that enables documentation of decisions and alternatives. It also provides a means by which decisions and alternatives can be traced to other Systems Engineering artifacts. For documenting alternatives, the Trade Space Ontology adapts the Morphological Matrix methodology to The Systems Modeling Language (SysML) through a profile; custom diagrams are also implemented to simplify the profile's use. With the profile and custom diagrams, system architects can specify options for architecture attributes, as well as compatibility between them, in a compact visual format. While the approach shares similarities to a trade tree, the emphasis at this stage is less on enumerating specific combinations of options and instead on specifying the options and their compatibility. Enumeration of alternatives is performed by an external analysis that operates on an output file from a model constructed using the Trade Space Ontology. For decisions, the Trade Space Ontology provides a way to model generic precedence relationships as well as documenting inputs and outputs. These may include what alternatives, criteria, and rationale are understood to be relevant for each decision. Importantly, the decision-making side of the Trade Space Ontology is defined at a more general level, such that it can be adapted to the specific terms in use by projects and programs at NASA. However, this adaptability also means that less capability is provided ``out-of-the-box'' from installation. Currently the resource includes plugin functionality to enumerate paths through generic precedence relationships between decisions and to export these paths to a spreadsheet. Custom dependency stereotypes are included in the profile to indicate the cross-cutting relationships between the trade space and the architecture decisions, providing a means to map which parts of the trade space enumerate alternatives for a decision, and to identify how the output of a decision may modify the trade space through pruning or down-selection. While the motivating use case for this resource is in human exploration architectures, the broad applicability of the Morphological Matrix methodology indicates that the Trade Space Ontology should also be useful for other activities and tasks at the agency.
Trade Tree↗
Decision Making In A High-Tech World: Automation Bias and Countermeasures
Automated decision aids and decision support systems have become essential tools in many high-tech environments. In aviation, for example, flight management systems computers not only fly the aircraft, but also calculate fuel efficient paths, detect and diagnose system malfunctions and abnormalities, and recommend or carry out decisions. Air Traffic Controllers will soon be utilizing decision support tools to help them predict and detect potential conflicts and to generate clearances. Other fields as disparate as nuclear power plants and medical diagnostics are similarly becoming more and more automated. Ideally, the combination of human decision maker and automated decision aid should result in a high-performing team, maximizing the advantages of additional cognitive and observational power in the decision-making process. In reality, however, the presence of these aids often short-circuits the way that even very experienced decision makers have traditionally handled tasks and made decisions, and introduces opportunities for new decision heuristics and biases. Results of recent research investigating the use of automated aids have indicated the presence of automation bias, that is, errors made when decision makers rely on automated cues as a heuristic replacement for vigilant information seeking and processing. Automation commission errors, i.e., errors made when decision makers inappropriately follow an automated directive, or automation omission errors, i.e., errors made when humans fail to take action or notice a problem because an automated aid fails to inform them, can result from this tendency. Evidence of the tendency to make automation-related omission and commission errors has been found in pilot self reports, in studies using pilots in flight simulations, and in non-flight decision making contexts with student samples. Considerable research has found that increasing social accountability can successfully ameliorate a broad array of cognitive biases and resultant errors. To what extent these effects generalize to performance situations is not yet empirically established. The two studies to be presented represent concurrent efforts, with student and professional pilot samples, to determine the effects of accountability pressures on automation bias and on the verification of the accurate functioning of automated aids. Students (Experiment 1) and commercial pilots (Experiment 2) performed simulated flight tasks using automated aids. In both studies, participants who perceived themselves as accountable for their strategies of interaction with the automation were significantly more likely to verify its correctness, and committed significantly fewer automation-related errors than those who did not report this perception.
Mosier, Kathleen L.↗
Decision-Tree Formulation With Order-1 Lateral Execution
A compact symbolic formulation enables mapping of an arbitrarily complex decision tree of a certain type into a highly computationally efficient multidimensional software object. The type of decision trees to which this formulation applies is that known in the art as the Boolean class of balanced decision trees. Parallel lateral slices of an object created by means of this formulation can be executed in constant time considerably less time than would otherwise be required. Decision trees of various forms are incorporated into almost all large software systems. A decision tree is a way of hierarchically solving a problem, proceeding through a set of true/false responses to a conclusion. By definition, a decision tree has a tree-like structure, wherein each internal node denotes a test on an attribute, each branch from an internal node represents an outcome of a test, and leaf nodes represent classes or class distributions that, in turn represent possible conclusions. The drawback of decision trees is that execution of them can be computationally expensive (and, hence, time-consuming) because each non-leaf node must be examined to determine whether to progress deeper into a tree structure or to examine an alternative. The present formulation was conceived as an efficient means of representing a decision tree and executing it in as little time as possible. The formulation involves the use of a set of symbolic algorithms to transform a decision tree into a multi-dimensional object, the rank of which equals the number of lateral non-leaf nodes. The tree can then be executed in constant time by means of an order-one table lookup. The sequence of operations performed by the algorithms is summarized as follows: 1. Determination of whether the tree under consideration can be encoded by means of this formulation. 2. Extraction of decision variables. 3. Symbolic optimization of the decision tree to minimize its form. 4. Expansion and transformation of all nested conjunctive-disjunctive paths to a flattened conjunctive form composed only of equality checks when possible. If each reduced conjunctive form contains only equality checks and all of these forms use the same variables, then the decision tree can be reduced to an order-one operation through a table lookup. The speedup to order one is accomplished by distributing each decision variable over a surface of a multidimensional object by mapping the equality constant to an index
James, Mark↗