DSS architecture and design

The work of WP1 (MoU)

It will result in reports on guidelines for good practices to assist overall system design, quality control, integration, sharing, and use. It will focus on design processes and different architectures to build a DSS. It will address innovative ways of ...

1. managing the MBMS to improve the effectiveness of forest DSSs,
2. designing interfaces between DSS modules and end-users to make use of various forms of information and knowledge,
3. extracting and processing of data from traditional sources as well as remote sensing
4. integrating methodologies into forest DSSs that will enhance the ability to support social learning and participation”.

Subtasks

1. Review of multifunctional planning issues and DSS functional criteria
2. Evaluation of forest DSS case studies
3. Procedural framework and guidelines on good practices

Working program for 2011

1. Contact person for each DSS presented in the WIKI – possibility to ask questions about the content of a DSS-article: The responsible people for the country reports should determine a contact person for each DSS related to their country and presented on the WIKI. The contact person should be mentioned with e-mail at the very beginning of the WIKI-article. The contact person should be able to answer questions that readers might ask.
2. Problem dimensions as categories in the WIKI – basis for determining the main utility of a DSS: The responsible person for the country reports should also ensure that each DSS is described in the WIKI by in categories according to the problem dimensions. These dimensions build the basis for determining the problem types. A WIKI-page should be dedicated to these particular categories, and at least a list of the dimensions should be produced, e.g., copy and paste them.
3. Categories in the WIKI – basis for the search of a particular DSS: A curation of the categories is necessary (e.g., singular / plural). Guidelines should be determined preliminarily (e.g., solely the use of singular) and highlighted in the WIKI. WG1 organises this curation in collaboration with the other WGs, as well as with the STC. In a first step, only formal guidelines will be produced.
4. Glossary – basis for common understanding: Among all categories available, priorities for descriptions should be set (e.g., must, wish, could). Descriptions already available should be taken into account (review of available glossaries – STSM ?). At the end, the user should be able to easily print the list of categories / terms with their descriptions (e.g., with one click – currently, there is one page per category). (semantic WIKI – work for a STSM ?)
5. Check-list – basis for checking the completeness of the DSS articles: A list of necessary information on DSSs should be produced. This list should inform the authors about the aspects of a DSS that are considered important (e.g., focused writing, check if something is missing). This list is the basis for the selection of the case studies. It is also an important basis for producing guidelines. The list should be as simple as possible, including priorities (i.e., must – what is essential, wish - what helps to better understand the DSS?, could – nice to have?), focusing on the essentials, and not overloading the work of the authors. The problem dimensions already represent a part of this check-list (related to the utility of DSS to solve particular problems).
6. Template – structuring the information about DSSs: Based on the check-list, a new version of the template should be produced in order to simplify the comparability of the DSS-articles and the search for information. The template is only a suggestion; it should be as simple as possible, without too much detail (1st, eventually 2nd level chapter).
7. Evaluation criteria to select the case studies: Based on the previous steps

Thessaloniki meeting, 6-7 June 2011

Non exhaustive overview on actors, expertise and expectations related to the development of DSSs

Questions as a basis for the presentation

1. How is your developer team composed and organized in order to develop computer-based tools? What is your role ?
2. What are the computer-based tools that the developer team has already developed or is yet to develop, and who are the (potential) users of these tools ? Which of these tools are considered as DSSs and why ? 
3. What is the IT-environment of these tools and what types of tools are they ?
4. What are the IT-components integrated in the developed tools ? Which kinds of techniques are used to ensure decision support? How is interoperability ensured ? How is the user-friendliness of the GUI ensured ?
5. What sort of methodology is applied to develop the tools (reference) ? How is the development process structured ? What are the main modelling techniques used to design the IT-solutions ?
6. How does the team ensure the proper transfer of the tools to potential users ? How is the proper maintenance of the tools ensured and how is the support for users organised ?
7. Are stakeholders involved in the development of the tools ? If so, who, when, how, which role/function?
8. What is specific to sustainable forest management (SFM) in the development of the tools ? What were the adaptations, respectively the extensions you made to the generic development of computer-based tools ?
9. What is the effective contribution of the tools to SFM ? What was/is essential to ensure this effective contribution ? What are the key factors for success ? Check-list ?
10. What are the recommendations you propose to ensure the proper development of DSSs for SFM ?  Do guidelines to develop and apply DSSs already exist ?

Presentations

• The Finnish MELA System; Tuula Nuutinen
• Presentation on the development of DSS in Spain; Antoni Trasobares
• Institute of Mathematical Problems in Biology of Russian Academy of Science; Larisa Khanina
• UCD Forestry Ireland; Maarten Nieuwenhuis
• SIMO; Jussi Rasinmäki
• Planeamento do transporte de madeira integrado com a recepção fabril; Alexandra Marques, José Borges
• Development of DSS in France, Sebastien Cavaignac
• Agricultural Research Council; Fabrizio Ferretti, Massimo Bianchi, Paolo Cantiani, Isabella De Meo, Alessandro Paletto !
• WIS.2, Christian Rosset !

! not presented during the meeting because of lack of time

Semantic WIKI