Annals of Operations Research

, Volume 236, Issue 1, pp 1–13 | Cite as

Policy analysis and policy analytics

  • Katherine A. Daniell
  • Alec MortonEmail author
  • David Ríos Insua


Working from a description of what policy analysis entails, we review the emergence of the recent field of analytics and how it may impact public policy making. In particular, we seek to expose current applications of, and future possibilities for, new analytic methods that can be used to support public policy problem-solving and decision processes, which we term policy analytics. We then review key contributions to this special volume, which seek to support policy making or delivery in the areas of energy planning, urban transportation planning, medical emergency planning, healthcare, social services, national security, defence, government finance allocation, understanding public opinion, and fire and police services. An identified challenge, which is specific to policy analytics, is to recognize that public sector applications must balance the need for robust and convincing analysis with the need for satisfying legitimate public expectations about transparency and opportunities for participation. This opens up a range of forms of analysis relevant to public policy distinct from those most common in business, including those that can support democratization and mediation of value conflicts within policy processes. We conclude by identifying some potential research and development issues for the emerging field of policy analytics.


Public policy Policy analysis Analytics Big data Decision support 



The idea for this special volume was sparked by a workshop on Policy Analytics organized at LAMSADE-CNRS, Paris, in December 2011 as a joint initiative between LAMSADE and DIMACS, where discussions with Alexis Tsoukiàs, Valerie Belton and a number of our other colleagues, both during and after the workshop, have supported the development of our thinking around the topic. The work of Katherine Daniell was supported by the HC Coombs Policy Forum. The HC Coombs Policy Forum and the Australian National Institute for Public Policy (ANIPP) received Australian Government funding under the ‘Enhancing Public Policy Initiative’. The work of David Ríos is supported by the AXA-ICMAT Chair in Adversarial Risk Analysis, the AESA-RAC Agreement on Operational Safety, and the MINECO project MTM2014-56949-C3-1-R. Discussions with colleagues at the ESF-COST IS1304 action on Expert Judgment and the HC Coombs Policy Forum are gratefully acknowledged. We are also grateful to the reviewers of the papers contained in this special volume, who, while they must remain anonymous, have generously contributed their time and expertise, and without whom the special volume would not be possible.


  1. Abi-Zeid, I., & Tremblay, J. (2015). Value-based argumentation for policy decision analysis—Methodology and an exploratory case study of a hydroelectric project in Québec. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-014-1774-4.
  2. Albright, S., & Winston, W. (2014). Business analytics: Data analysis and decision making. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  3. Alfaro, C., Cano-Montero, J., Gómez, J., Moguerza, J. M., & Ortega, F. (2015). A multi-stage method for content classification and opinion mining on weblog comments. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-013-1449-6.
  4. Althaus, C., Bridgman, P., & Davis, G. (2007). The Australian policy fandbook (4th ed.). Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  5. Aringhieri, R., Carello, G., & Morale, D. (2015). Supporting decision making to improve the performance of an Italian Emergency Medical Service. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-013-1487-0.
  6. Banks, D., Rios, J., & Rios Insua, D. (2015). Adversarial risk analysis. Boca Raton: Francis Taylor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnard, C., & Simon, H. (1947). Administrative behavior. A study of decision-making processes in administrative organization. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  8. Blackett, P. M. S., & Blackett, B. (1962). Studies of war, nuclear and conventional. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brennan, A., Meier, P., Purhouse, R., Raifia, R., Meng, Y., & Hill-McManus, D. (2015). Developing policy analytics for public health strategy and decisions—The Sheffield alcohol policy model framework. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-013-1451-z.
  10. Capriolo, E., Warmpler, D., & Rutherglen, J. (2012). Programming hive. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  11. Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36, 1165–1188.Google Scholar
  12. Clemen, R., & Reilly, T. (2014). Making hard decisions. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, M. D., March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daniell, K. A. (2014). The role of national culture in shaping public policy: A review of the literature. HC Coombs Policy Forum discussion paper. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  15. De Marchi, G., Lucertini, G., & Tsoukiàs, A. (2015). From evidence based policy making to policy analytics. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-014-1578-6.
  16. Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dunn, W. (1994). Public policy analysis: An introduction (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  18. Fischer, F., Miller, G. J., & Sidney, M. S. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  19. French, S., Papamichail, N., & Maule, J. (2009). Decision behaviour, analysis and support. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forester, J. (1993). Critical theory, public policy, and planning practice: Towards a critical pragmatism. Albany, NY: State University of New York.Google Scholar
  21. Giacomelli, P. (2013). Apache Mahout cookbook. Birmingham: Packt.Google Scholar
  22. Gigerenzer, G., Swijtink, Z., Porter, T., Daston, L., Beatty, J., & Krueger, L. (1989). The empire of chance: How probability changed science and everyday life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goldsmith, S., & Crawford, S. (2014). The responsive city: Engaging communities through data-smart governance. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Hewson, P. J., Halliday, J., Gibson, A., & Asthana, S. (2015). Policy analytics need more than a spreadsheet: A case study in funding formulae. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-013-1475-4.
  25. James, G., Witten, D., Hastie, T., & Tibshirani, R. (2013). An introduction to statistical learning. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jann, W., & Wegrich, K. (2007). Theories of the policy cycle. In F. Fischer, G. J. Miller, & M. S. Sidney (Eds.), Handbook of public policy analysis: Theory, politics and methods. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  27. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  28. Kumar, A., Nguyen, V. A., & Teo, K. M. (2015). Commuter cycling policy in Singapore: A farecard data analytics based approach. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-014-1585-7.
  29. Kunreuther, K., & Heal, G. (2003). Interdependent security. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 26, 231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lasswell, H. D. (1936). Who gets what, when and how. New York: Whittlesey House.Google Scholar
  31. Lasswell, H. D. (1956). The decision process: Seven categories of functional analysis. Bureau of Governmental Research,College of Business and Public Administration, University of Maryland.Google Scholar
  32. Lindblom, C. E., & Woodhouse, E. J. (1968). The policy-making process (Vol. 4). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  33. Lloyd, C. J. (2011). Data driven business secisions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. MacKenzie, C. A., Baroud, H., & Barker, K. (2015). Static and dynamic resource allocation models for recovery of interdependent systems: Application to the deepwater horizon oil spill. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-014-1696-1.
  35. Matthews, M. (2009). Fostering creativity and innovation in cooperative federalism—The uncertainty and risk dimensions. In J. Wanna (Ed.), Critical reflections on Australian Public Policy (pp. 59–70). Accessed June 13, 2014.
  36. Matthews, M. (2014a). Innovation and the productivity challenge in the public sector, talk given at the inaugural Policy Reflection Forum at the Department of Communications, Wednesday 5 March 2014, Accessed June 13, 2014.
  37. Matthews, M. (2014b). Is it time to shift from evidence-based policymaking to intelligence-based policymaking? HC Coombs Policy Forum poster presentation. Canberra: The Australian National University.Google Scholar
  38. Mayer, I. S., Van Daalen, C. E., & Bots, P. W. G. (2004). Perspectives on policy analyses: A framework for understanding and design. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 4(2), 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MIT Technology Review. (2013). Big data will save politics. MIT Technology Review, 116(2). Accessed January 13, 2015.
  40. O’Reilly, (2012). Big data now: 2012 edition, current perspectives from O’Reilly Media. Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  41. Pollock, S. M., & Maltz, M. D. (1994). Operations research in the public sector: An introduction and a brief history. In S. M. Pollock, M. H. Rothkopf, & A. Barnett (Eds.), Operations research and the public sector (pp. 1–22). Amsterdam: North Holland.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pollock, S. M. (1994). Operations research and the public sector. Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
  43. Provost, F., & Fawcett, T. (2013). Data science for business. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  44. Quade, E. (1975). Analysis for public decisions. Skokie: Rand Co.Google Scholar
  45. Rios Insua, D., & French, S. (Eds.). (2010). e-Democracy: A group decision and negotiation perspective. Advances in group decision and negotiation series, Vol. 5, Part 2. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Rosenhead, J., & Mingers, J. (2001). Rational analysis for a problematic world revisited: Problem structuring methods for complexity, uncertainty and conflict. Revised edn. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1993). Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  48. Scharaschkin, A., & McBride, T. (2015). Policy analytics and accountability mechanisms: Judging the ‘value for money’ of policy implementation. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-014-1723-2.
  49. Shive, B. (2013). Data engineering. Westfield: Technics.Google Scholar
  50. Stigler, S. (1990). The history of statistics: The measurement of uncertainty before 1900. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  51. Stokey, E., & Zeckhauser, R. (1978). A primer for policy analysis. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  52. Tsoukiàs, A., Montibeller, G., Lucertini, G., & Belton, V. (2013). Policy analytics: An agenda for research and practice. EURO Journal on Decision Processes, 1, 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wasserman, S. (1994). Social Network Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White, T. (2012). Hadoop: The definitive guide. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.Google Scholar
  55. WIRED. (2008). The end of theory: The data deluge makes the scientific method obsolete. Wired Magazine, 16(07). Accessed January 13, 2015.
  56. Wolf, C. (1993). Markets or governments: Choosing between imperfect alternatives. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Xu, J., & Zhuang, J. (2015). Modeling costly learning and counter-learning in an defender-attacker game with private defender information. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-014-1722-3.
  58. Xiang, Y., & Zhuang, J. (2015). A medical resource allocation model for serving emergency victims with deteriorating health conditions. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-014-1716-1.
  59. Xu, J., Zhuang, J., & Liu, Z. (2015). Modeling and mitigating the effects of supply chain disruption in an attacker-defender game. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-015-1810-z.
  60. Zhang, L., Hu, G., Wang, L., & Chen, Y. (2015). A bottom-up biofuel market equilibrium model for policy analysis. Annals of Operations Research. doi: 10.1007/s10479-013-1497-y.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine A. Daniell
    • 1
  • Alec Morton
    • 2
    Email author
  • David Ríos Insua
    • 3
  1. 1.Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  2. 2.University of StrathclydeGlasgowScotland, UK
  3. 3.ICMATCSICMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations