2011-06 Thessaloniki Case Study Notes by WG

From COST Action FP0804: FORSYS
Revision as of 12:31, 9 November 2011 by Hvacik (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search


Extracted from June 2010 Thessaloniki meeting report notes.

WG I

Purposes:

  • Lessons learned !
  • Concrete impacts of DSS in SFM
  • Role of architecture and development process
  • Why DSS are not used ... ?

The set of case studies should cover ...

  • most important planning problem types (based on the number of countries mentioning them ?)
  • most (all) regions covered by COST FORSYS (group of countries)
  • different types of architectures and development methodologies
  • issues like interoperability, GUI (user friendliness)
  • successful and unsuccessful DSSs (what is successful ?)
  • most of the temporal and spatial scales

Single case study selection criteria:

  • Described in the WIKI (gold flag), presented in the country report
  • Possibility to come in contact with developers, researchers and users?

Selection of the case studies – what kinds of case studies ? how many ?

  • Main problem types > assessment > 3 case studies
  • Context, tradition, institutional setup (why DSS used, why not) > 2

WG II

Case Study Selection criteria 1 Research question of case studies -from Sean Gordon’s presentation

  • Why are certain DSS used for certain PTs? > innovation diffusion
  • Who are using the DSS, how many, how much, how are DSS used? > information systems, social negotiation
    • What are the trends in populating PTs and in DSS tool development within PTs
    • Is there any horizon scanning taking place? –How is this being achieved? Policy practice?
  • What makes them successful or a failure? > success factors
    • Uptake success in relation to implementation methods used?
    • Uptake in relation to commissioning body/level?
    • Uptake in relation to champions or not in an organisation?
    • Uptake in relation to data requirements?
    • Are there criteria to predict success for future developments? Outside forestry domain?

Case Study Selection criteria 2 –Impact at which level? E.g. relevance at science policy interface but no take up at local level? –Research approach •One or more existing theories vs. grounded theory -Probably existing knowledge? –Case selection •By DSS, by problem, by organization, by theory –Probably a mixed approach –Sampling procedure –Data collection –Using information we have or published mixed with survey interviews Our thinking on the selection criteria 3 –Problem type –Do we need to rationalise dimensions? –Implementation –time, space –We suggest case study on common problem type is interesting –Importance in terms of which dimensions –e.g. Key to select case studies offering a wide range of technical solutions –Success failure in uptake? We need examples of both

WG III

Criteria

  • Problem types should cover different countries in a wider geographical context (Non Cost countries, Cost Countries,…)
  • Screening of DSS is not enough – analyze certain hypothesis
  • What are the similarities/differences in the context of the applicationss (Who? How?)

Topics

  • Comparing DSS for Fire management
  • Comparing DSS for adapting forest management under CC
  • Comparing DSS for utilization of forest resources for energy use
  • Comparing DSS for Sustainable Forest Management

Other issues

  • Comparing DSS in most often described problem types (reduce dimensions)
  • Comparing the development processes for DSS (regional, forest, stand – strategic, tactical, operational)
  • Comparing the process of the DSS application from KM perspective (how the tools Expert Systems, Knowledge Mapping, Web Portal are used and benchmark with others)

update in Leuven 09.11.2011:

  • To identify computer based KM tools which support the processes of knowledge identification and generation, knowledge storage and transfer in the context of the topic identifying adaption strategies for Climate change.
  • To consider common issues of participation processes and Knowledge Management processes in DSS approaches for the formulation of the FORSYS guidelines
  • Gap analysis for identifying the KM techniques applied in developing DSS and proposing those which could be used
  • Gap analysis for identifying KM techniques currently implemented in DSS based on the documentation in the CR

WG III

  • Ask directly what the end users think as successful DSS or successful way of using DSSs or successful methods and tools included in DSSs = empirical approach
  • Isabella DeMeo, Fabrizio Ferretti, Teppo Hujala & Annika Kangas have been working on this topic through interviews to users of different sort
  • Journal article under preparation based on the 15 interviews carried out in Italy and Finland
  • DSS can be a combination of several tools
  • The respondents have had several different tools in mind when responding
  • people use familiar tools that are available
  • how you use a tool may be more important than the actual features of the tool
Retrieved from "http://fp0804.emu.ee/wiki/index.php?title=2011-06_Thessaloniki_Case_Study_Notes_by_WG&oldid=4409"