Brill E.D. (1979) USE OF OPTIMIZATION MODELS IN PUBLIC-SECTOR PLANNING, MANAGEMENT SCIENCE, 25
Summary
Brill’s article returns to a concept which we discussed near the beginning of this semester: “wicked” problems of the public sector, and how optimization models should be adapted when applied to these types of situations.
Brill begins his article by outlining the limitations of using optimization models. He points out how the economic efficiency objective is insufficient on two fronts: (1) it neglects to consider equity, and (2) it has empirical shortcomings associated with estimating benefits and costs. With respect to complete multiobjective models, Brill notes that in problems with several objective functions it may be “computationally impractical to generate a complete set of trade-off relationships.” He also observes that these complex problems may have “a plethora of local optima,” and that it would be impractical to have decision maker participate in the process. With incomplete models, Brill points out that the best solution may lie in the inferior region, since certain objectives are ignored.
With these shortcomings in mind, Brill suggests that “a philosophy of using optimization to aid the planning process” be adopted. This is in contrast to many current applications, in which complete “answers” are sought. Brill offers many suggestions which would streamline optimization models with the traditional “planning process.” His first set of suggestions involve the joint use of models, which he claims would enhance the capabilities of individual models. Second, and most importantly, Brill argues for the “use of optimization models to generate alternatives and facilitate evaluations.” He believes that use of optimization models in this fashion would serve as catalysts for human innovation, thereby enhancing the public-sector planning process.
Discussion
I thought this article was both soft and derivative. Its concepts and construction were nearly identical to Liebman’s article which we read at the beginning of the semester. If I had to applaud the article for one idea, I would say that its “suggestions” are an improvement over those presented by Liebman in 1976. Liebman’s “simple-minded suggestions” were extremely generic, whereas Brill’s suggestions point to specific actions which could be implemented to enhance the use of models in the planning process.
Summary
Brill’s article returns to a concept which we discussed near the beginning of this semester: “wicked” problems of the public sector, and how optimization models should be adapted when applied to these types of situations.
Brill begins his article by outlining the limitations of using optimization models. He points out how the economic efficiency objective is insufficient on two fronts: (1) it neglects to consider equity, and (2) it has empirical shortcomings associated with estimating benefits and costs. With respect to complete multiobjective models, Brill notes that in problems with several objective functions it may be “computationally impractical to generate a complete set of trade-off relationships.” He also observes that these complex problems may have “a plethora of local optima,” and that it would be impractical to have decision maker participate in the process. With incomplete models, Brill points out that the best solution may lie in the inferior region, since certain objectives are ignored.
With these shortcomings in mind, Brill suggests that “a philosophy of using optimization to aid the planning process” be adopted. This is in contrast to many current applications, in which complete “answers” are sought. Brill offers many suggestions which would streamline optimization models with the traditional “planning process.” His first set of suggestions involve the joint use of models, which he claims would enhance the capabilities of individual models. Second, and most importantly, Brill argues for the “use of optimization models to generate alternatives and facilitate evaluations.” He believes that use of optimization models in this fashion would serve as catalysts for human innovation, thereby enhancing the public-sector planning process.
Discussion
I thought this article was both soft and derivative. Its concepts and construction were nearly identical to Liebman’s article which we read at the beginning of the semester. If I had to applaud the article for one idea, I would say that its “suggestions” are an improvement over those presented by Liebman in 1976. Liebman’s “simple-minded suggestions” were extremely generic, whereas Brill’s suggestions point to specific actions which could be implemented to enhance the use of models in the planning process.
No comments:
Post a Comment