Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.
To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.
2018
…
7 pages
1 file
Policy development is a complex and highly dimensional process. This complexity is very difficult to comprehend due to complexity of the parameter space, multi-dependence of parameters, and the nature of process. Therefore, policy makers should be supported while considering and evaluating various alternative decisions. This paper illustrates a modelling approach for advisory and assistance in decision making for political practitioners. We describe the corresponding advisory tool supporting the interactive decision process.
The policy making process in public authorities is nowadays usually an offline process. ICT is just very conservatively used, which also limits the inclusion of citizens' opinions. In difference the ICT sector consists of a rapid development in the area of eParticitpation and also in data-storing approaches and visualizations. But today it is hard to assign such new technical approaches to the policy modeling process, because of their non-ICT orientation. In this paper we introduce a new detailed ICT-based policy modeling process and an assignment of some modern ICT technology features. To support decision-makers, the main contribution of this paper is an assignment of useful visualization-types to the technological features and furthermore to the ICT-based policy-making process. Therewith we describe an approach how interactive visualizations can lead to a more effective policy making.
Advances in electronic government, digital divide, and regional development book series, 2014
The policy making process requires the involvement of various stakeholders, who bring in very heterogeneous experiences and skills concerning the policymaking domain, as well as experiences of ICT solutions. Current solutions are primarily designed to provide "one-solution-fits-all" answers, which in most cases fail the needs of all stakeholders. In this chapter, the authors introduce a new approach to assist users based on their tasks. Therefore, the system observes the interaction of the user and recognizes the current phase of the policymaking process and the profile of the user to assist him more sufficiently in solving his task. For this purpose, the system automatically enables or disables supporting features such as visualization, tools, and supporting techniques.
Thep olicymaking process in public authoritiesi sn owadays usually an offline process. ICTi sj ustv ery conservatively used,w hich also limits the inclusion of citizens' opinions. In difference theI CT sector consists of ar apid development in thea reao fe Particitpation and also in data-storinga pproaches and visualizations.B ut today it is hard to assign such new technical approaches to the policy modeling process, becauseo ft heirn on-ICTo rientation. In this paper we introduce anew detailedICT-based policy modeling process and an assignment of some modernI CT technology features. To supportd ecision-makers, them ain contributiono ft his paperi s an assignment of useful visualization-types to the technological features and furthermore to theI CT-based policy-making process. Therewith we describea na pproachh ow interactivev isualizations canl ead to a more effectivepolicymaking.
2017
In the policy arena, there is high pressure to provide right and quick decisions for problems that are often poorly defined. There is hence an urgent need to support stakeholders in establishing a shared understanding of policy problems and to assist them in the design of potential solutions. Here we propose a formal methodology based on the construction and analysis of system maps, i.e., a graphical representation of the complex interdependencies of all relevant factors that affect the problem under study. Owing to their collaborative design, system maps provide a transparent tool with broad stakeholder acceptance to analyze ill-defined problems in a formal way. The construction of system maps involves expert elicitation to define system components, system boundaries, and interactions between system components, whereas the dynamical system behavior can be approximated by means of system dynamics. Although there is great value in the construction of the system map to enhance the und...
1999
Think by decomposing the problem 3 Choose by evaluating options comprehensively 4 Choose after considering alternative scenarios 5 Anticipate by foreshadowing people's reactions 6 Anticipate by managing uncertainty 10.2 NOW WHAT? Whereas most books claim to be cooperative efforts, the writing of this one proved to be a rather solitary adventure. Nevertheless, I am deeply grateful to those who provided encouragement during its darker moments. I would particularly like to thank Jim Smith for being such an enthusiastic promoter of the Strategizer software, and the writers of the other three packages featured in this book for their unstinting encouragement and advice-John Dickey, John Friend and Thomas Saaty. I must once again express my gratitude to my long-time and loyal supporters, Peter Hall and Mike Batty, for their unwavering confidence in my work. I would also like to thank my managing editor at Alexandrine Press, Ann Rudkin, for her initial enthusiasm, continued patience and enduring good humour. The University of Melbourne generously provided me with facilities, computers and study leave during the first half of 1998, when I (almost) completed this book. I would also like to thank colleagues within its Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, particularly its leaders, Neal Enright and Brian Findlayson, for tolerating my working within such a deviant area as policymaking software. RW Traditional approaches Looking firstly at the analytical tradition, note that countless research organizations have been set up around the world to 'get to the bottom of things'. Their rationale is that if we had perfect knowledge, policymaking would be redundant-it would simply be obvious what needs to be done. The well known lateral thinker Edward de Bono (quoted in Kelly, 1994) put it thus: If you had complete and totally reliable information on everything, then you would not need to do any thinking. Such an attitude has spawned the existence of many 'think tanks', institutes and higher education establishments. Within such organizations lurks a deep and pervasive desire to arrive at policy through the route of complete and comprehensive understanding. They are imbued with some sort of collective ethic that if understanding is good enough, better policymaking will inevitably follow. They use methods like 'simulation', 'inferential statistics', 'optimization' and 'modelling' to try to understand environmental mechanisms. Presumably, this will dispel the fog of complexity-induced confusion that pervades postindustrial civilization and so point the way to better policymaking. By contrast, and looking (secondly) at the design tradition, some of its supporters actually reject analysis out of hand. Indeed, some designers the author knows really believe that numbers and computers will stifle their creativity. And it is creativity, nothing more and nothing less, which is the path to exemplary policymaking. Such an approach, which involves 'master' policymakers designing their way out of contemporary problems, resembles a medieval guild system of apprenticeships. Emphasis is on personal attributes like 'synthesizing skill', 'education', 'sensitivity', 'intuition', 'originality', 'intellect' and 'an ability to empathize with people's multifaceted needs, wants and spiritual requirements'. Such traits are then all focused on improving the world through aesthetics and through the achievement of harmony. Hence we have two dominant approaches to policymaking-the analytical tradition and the design tradition. The question immediately arises: why only two? Cannot other approaches be taken? This is an especially pertinent question when one realizes that both the analytical and the design tradition fall well short of constituting good policymaking. To see why, we look at each tradition in turn. Turning firstly to analysis, note that policymaking actually means to decide what to do in the future (Boritz, 1983). Yet analysis, whether in the form of modelling, forecasting, optimization or whatever, is only peripherally about deciding what to do in the future. Analysis is preparation for policymakingdecision support. Indeed, analysis might actually inhibit good policymaking by over-complicating issues. If too much is known about a situation, the policymaker can become confused to the point of suffering 'analysis paralysis'. That is, analytical experts can sometimes know so much about the difficulties associated with all of the alternative policies that they will be unable to recommend any of them. The result will be a loss of decisiveness and missed opportunity, a little like that suffered by the centipede in the following poem (anon.): The centipede was doing well, Until the fox in fun, said, Pray, which leg goes after which? xiv xvi boost to their policymaking skill, such study becomes anything but boring. It becomes exhilarating and exciting because of its obvious potential. Still, and this is a second drawback of our approach, many can never be convinced that policymaking methods are exciting. In a sense they are correct. Most of us are more interested in driving a car than attending courses about what goes on under the bonnet-the technical part. Some mechanically minded people might well be interested in motors, but most of us prefer to drive around with the wind in our hair. Similarly, many performers are more interested in popular music than in classical music training and many computer users prefer to stumble along rather than take lessons in programming. It is similar with policymaking-its excitement comes from the gossip, the intrigue and richness that surrounds real case studies rather than from dedicated scrutiny of improved methods. But consider the advantages of being disciplined. If we know about mechanics we can sometimes make a car do some incredible things. Classically trained musicians are equipped to become better popular music performers than untrained musicians, and computer programmers can make computers do so many more things than can most lay users. Similarly, technically trained policymakers will have more chance of performing well than people whose sole qualification is that they are interested in gossip and intrigue. Indeed, it could be argued that in any field, unless one goes back to basics and looks at source methods, one will forever be hemmed in by a ceiling that caps one's potential for improvement. By contrast, the classically trained will have no such limitations. For example, those who are trained in Latin and ancient Greek will be better equipped to speak eloquently, those who are trained in classical gymnastics will be better equipped to become circus performers, and those who are trained in a swimming pool will probably develop a better style for open-water racing. It is just that the classical training seems so tedious. But it need not be, provided one progresses to the stage of becoming enormously excited by its potential benefits. Yet if we look within many educational institutions that specialize in policymaking, current thinking is against this. That is, a third drawback of our approach is its lack of academic fashionability. Scores of scholars have written much about the futility of studying planning methods, and such opinions have partly stemmed from the mistakes that were made by planners during the over-mechanization of their methods during the 1960s and 1970s (Wyatt, 1996a). Consequently, there is now an increasingly popular sentiment in some circles that policymaking is a warm, human, mysterious, organic and ambiguous activity for which the assistance of cold, inhuman, logical, silicon-based and precise computers is grossly inappropriate. Enlisting such philistine technology is like cooking a pizza without the cheese. Stripping away policymaking's essential richness, flavour and human interest is very misguided and, above all, dull and boring. After all, students and professionals are usually much more interested in discussing hypotheses than in performing technical manipulations. Instead of dealing in abstractions they prefer to study phenomena that have social immediacy. Yet such objections to our approach are in some ways rather facile. Things still need to get done, like policymaking, and simply rejecting an approach to it because it is 'mere technology', or because humanism is more important, can sometimes mean that things are done less well than they otherwise could have been. Besides, who is to say that the end result of technological advance cannot be profoundly humanitarian? Consider the look in the eyes of a deaf child who hears for the first time using a bionic ear-an intensely technical piece of apparatus. Such a look is likely to give the technologist as deep a humanitarian feeling as will ever be experienced by the anti-technology, social science-based 'doubting Thomases'.
Studies in Informatics and Control
This paper describes how policy design process is enabled by multichannel social computing, policy topic extraction, semantic analysis, opinions formation, simulation of agent based models and simulation of global models. An Integrated Policy System for policy design process includes: 1) extracting opinions, 2) summarising opinions, 3) generating scenarios, 4) simulating the scenarios for selecting and publishing the best ones. Opinions can be extracted from text analysis or using model for opinion formation on governmental decisions.
MeTTeG, 2010
The paper presents an approach to collaborative policy modelling, as proposed in the FP7 ICT project OCOPOMO. Within this approach long-term strategic planning is supported by a combination of narrative scenarios, agentbased policy models, and e-Participation tools integrated in a single platform. The policy model for a given domain is created iteratively, in an active cooperation of various interest groups, including decision makers, analysts, experts, and the general public. Principles and key concepts of collaborative policy modelling are discussed in the paper. A high-level architecture of ICT tools and software components is described in this paper together with envisioned functionality of the platform. Finally, the overall approach is demonstrated on an example of pilot application focused on the development of a strategy for exploitation of renewable energy resources.
Today's politicians are confronted with new (digital) ways to tackle complex decision-making problems. In order to make the right decisions profound analysis of the problems and possible solutions has to be performed. Therefore policy analysts need to collaborate with external experts consulted as advisors. Due to different expertises of these stakeholders the whole process may suffer from knowledge gaps. In our approach, we describe a concept to bridge these knowledge gaps by introducing information visualization and visual analytics to the policy analysis domain. Therefore, we refine a standard policy cycle at the stages relevant for the policy analysis. Secondly, we characterize the main stakeholders in the process, and identify knowledge gaps between these roles. Finally, we emphasize the merits of including advanced visualization techniques into the policy analysis process, and describe visualization as a facet bridging the knowledge gaps in a collaborative policy making life-cycle.
Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, 2013
International Accounting Standards Board (IASB) for comment only. The proposals may be modified in the light of the comments received before being issued in final form. Comments need to be received by 26 October 2015 and should be submitted in writing to the address below, by email to [email protected] or electronically using our 'Comment on a proposal' page.
International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 2018
Trends in Finance and Economics, 2024
Jusqu'à la mort accompagner la vie
BYZANTINA SYMMEIKTA 26 (2016), 395-418
Studime Historike, 2020
Philosophical Research, 2024
KİTAP BÖLÜMÜ: Avrupa Birliği Roman Çerçevesi ve Türkiye'nin Roman Politikalarına Yansımaları, KITAP ADI: TARİHTEN GÜNÜMÜZE TÜRKİYE DE ROMANLAR, EDİTÖR HAMZA ATEŞ, BURSA KÜLTÜR YAYINLARI, 2015
Sociology of Health & Illness
Ανατρεπτικά παιχνίδια με την τέχνη του λόγου και η συμβολή τους στη διαμόρφωση της ιδεολογικής ταυτότητας του εφήβου αναγνώστη, 2022
gamevironments, 2020
Journal of World Business, 2002
Molecular Biology of the Cell, 2011
Environmental Engineering Science, 2015
International Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2018
IET Renewable Power Generation
Primeiro Congresso da REBRATS, 2019