Advertisement

A knowledge-based approach to strategic planning

  • Edward H. Freeman
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 636)

Abstract

The Strategic Planning System (SPS) is a knowledge-based causal modeling and analysis technology. It has been designed to provide an organizing framework within which planners can (1) identify the key goals, actions and environmental variables which potentially contribute to the success or failure of a particular plan of action, (2) express the underlying causal relationships between these critical business factors, (3) obtain automatic identification of all feedback loops in a given model, including the determination of the positive or negative polarity of each loop, (4) obtain structural information on how these positive and negative loops interact to produce what are often counterintuitive effects from strategic system inputs, (5) determine the effects and side-effects of a given action plan or strategy, and (6) through ad-hoc queries, conduct “what-if” analyses and obtain various sorts of advice on manipulating action and goal variables. In group planning situations, SPS provides a model building methodology and an automated environment within which specific scenarios can be defined, and strategic plans can be iteratively refined based on group feedback and consensus.

Keywords

Causal Network Signal Flow Graph Goal Variable Model Interrogation Group Model Building 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    R. Axelrod, Structure of Decisions: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ., (1976).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. de Kleer and J. Brown, “A qualitative physics based on confluences,” Artificial Intelligence 24, 7–83 (1984).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    E. Freeman, “The Implementation of Effect Decomposition Methods for Two General Structural Covariance Modeling Systems,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Dept. of Psychology, UCLA, Los Angeles, 1982.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    E. Freeman, “A Logic-based Prototyping Environment for Process Oriented Second Generation Expert Systems,” SPIE Applications of Artificial Intelligence VI, 937 (1988), pp. 126–134.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Heise, Causal Analysis, New York: Wiley, 1975.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Iwasaki and H. Simon, “Causality in Device Behavior,” Artificial Intelligence, 29, 3–32(1986).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. Kelley, “Perceived causal structures,” in Attribution Theory and Research: Conceptual and Developmental Dimensions, J. Jaspars, et. al. eds., pp. 343–369, Academic Press, London, (1983).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. Kuipers and J. Kassirer, “Causal reasoning in medicine: Analysis of a protocol,” Cognitive Sciences 8, 363–385 (1984).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. F. Ledbetter, “The Strategic Planning System User Interface Evaluation,” U S WEST Document, 1989.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Lorens, Flowgraphs for the Modeling and Analysis of Linear Systems, McGraw-Hill, NY. (1964).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. Lunt, “A causal network of loneliness,” in Attribution Theory and Research: Conceptual and Developmental Dimensions, J. Jaspars, et. al. eds., pp. 343–369, Academic Press, London, (1983).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Mason, “Feedback theory — some properties of signal flow graphs,” Proceedings of the Institute of Radio Engineers, 41, 1144–1156 (1953).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C. Reiger and M. Grinberg, “The Declarative Representation and Procedural Simulation of Causality in Physical Mechanisms,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufmann, Inc., 1977, pp. 1080–1085.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    G. Richardson, A Pugh, Introduction to System Dynamics Modeling with DYNAMO, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 1981Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H. Simon, “Spurious Correlation: a Causal Interpretation,” Journal of American Statistical Association, 49, 467–479(1954).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    R. Stata, “Organizational Learning—The Key to Management Innovation,” Sloan Management Review, 30 (1989), pp. 63–74.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    J. Sterman, “Modeling Managerial Behavior: Misperceptions of Feedback in a Dynamic Decision Making Experiment,” Management Science, 35, No. 3, 321–339 (1989).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B. Tregoe, J. Zimmerman, Top Management Strategy, New York, Simon and Schuster, 1980.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Weiss, C. Kulikowski, and A. Safir, “A Model-based Consultation System for the Long-term Management of Glaucoma,” Proceedings of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, William Kaufmann, Inc., 1977, pp. 826–832.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    S. Wright, “Correlation and Causation”, Journal of Agricultural Research, 20, 557–585 (1921).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward H. Freeman
    • 1
  1. 1.US WEST Advanced TechnologiesEnglewood

Personalised recommendations