Enhanced Multi-Criteria Decision Support: A Case Study in Iraq

Using results from adapting a multi-criteria decision support methodology for use by Multi-National Force, Iraq (MNF-I), this paper develops an argument for adopting a similar approach across the Department of Defense (DoD). While in Baghdad, the authors adapted a methodology to visually frame problems in a decision-matrix format and logically arrange courses of action for scoring against how well each would support the varied range of major campaign objectives. A simple spreadsheet application that linked a diverse range of substantiating data and information with dynamic weighting of rating factors enabled more productive group discourse and testing of assumptions. One notable use of the methodology in Iraq was to assess the likely campaign-level impacts of a contentious proposal to accelerate the release of detainees under US control. Results showed accelerated release the best option for achieving Joint Campaign Plan objectives, and General Petraeus cited the work as very helpful in finetuning his implementation guidance. By helping to more comprehensively examine problem factors, variables, and solution options, the methodology overcame many shortfalls, providing operational senior leaders with enhanced decision support. This result and the existence of similar decision support shortfalls throughout DoD argue for wider adoption of the methodology. Introduction This paper describes the authors’ adaptation of a multi-criteria decision support methodology developed for Multi-National Force–Iraq (MNF-I) and argues for adoption of a similar approach across the Department of Defense (DoD). While deployed to Baghdad’s International Zone in 2007, the authors adapted a methodology that logically arranges courses of action for scoring against how well each would support major campaign objectives. The approach does this by visually framing problems in a decisionmatrix format and using a simple spreadsheet application, called DynaRank, to more explicitly link objectives to substantiating data (objective and subjective; quantified and qualitative) and to dynamically weight rating factors. These features served to bolster the productivity of group discourse and testing of assumptions. One notable use of the approach involved broadly considering the impact on joint campaign objectives of implementing a contentious proposal to accelerate the release of Iraqi detainees held by US forces. The issue dealt with whether to hold detainees, many of them likely members or at least supporters of the insurgency, in detention camps to keep them off the streets and boost security, versus the need to promote the political goal of building public support for the government. The results of our study showed accelerated release as the best option for achieving Joint Campaign Plan objectives. General Petraeus found the approach rigorous and results useful for refining his policy implementation guidance. This adaptation of a multi-criteria decision support methodology enabled more comprehensive examination of problem factors, variables, and options, leading to a more informed decision. Despite complicated implementation factors, these results and the existence of similar decision support shortfalls across DoD suggest the possibility of attaining even greater benefits if the methodology were to be more broadly applied. To develop its argument for adopting a DoD-wide decision support approach, this paper begins by providing background about the detainee situation in Iraq, then highlights key factors about the accelerated detainee release proposal that emerged towards the end of 2007. Next, it details study methodology, briefly touching on how we adapted a campaign assessment methodology that we had previously developed for MNF-I into a multi-criteria decision support approach. This section emphasizes key benefits of the approach, explaining how certain features helped the study effort in Iraq deal with the difficult tradeoff and impact comparisons demanded by this time-compressed operational decision situation. It then summarizes how results were received and applied, including expected campaign level detainee release effects. This part includes observations about how the decision was being implemented