Abstract
Operational research (OR) has its origins in the empirical observation and analysis of military operations. It later expanded its scope to embrace the modelling of hypothetical conflicts from a more theoretical standpoint. Whilst initially the focus was unremittingly quantitative, in more recent years OR has exploited a wider range of approaches in order to address the complex strategic environment that followed the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless, despite changing emphases, OR has remained committed to three principles: trying to make the best use of empirical data; aiming for explicit, auditable modelling, while taking a pragmatic approach to the form that modelling takes; and, above all, focusing on the final aim of timely, practical advice to the executive decision-maker. The paper will discuss the application of these principles in addressing conflict transformation.

Although his original academic background was in chemistry and crystallography, Roger Forder has enjoyed a long career in operational research within the UK Ministry of Defence, starting in 1974 when he joined the Defence Operational Analysis Establishment at West Byfleet in Surrey. He subsequently held a variety of posts, both in MoD scientific establishments and in Whitehall, most of which were concerned in one way or another with OR to support defence decision-makers. In 1995 he was appointed Chief Analyst of the Centre for Defence Analysis (part of the newly formed Defence Evaluation and Research Agency). Following the implementation of the DERA Public-Private Partnership scheme in 2001, he continued to play a similar role within the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory until his retirement from the Senior Civil Service in 2007. He continues to work part-time for Dstl on a variety of OR and system-related topics. Dr Forder is a Fellow and, currently, one of the two Vice-Presidents of the Operational Research Society. In 2005 the Society elected him a Companion of Operational Research for his “sustained support and encouragement for the development of OR”.

"Learning through Role Play about Decision-Making in Multi-Issue, Multi-Stakeholder Contexts" Donal O'Neill

Abstract
In traditional academic education and in business training, problems tend to get addressed through the lens of a single discipline. In such cases solutions can usually be identified which, in the context of that discipline, and often with mathematical support, can appear to be optimum. “Single-Issue” campaigning organisations often approach their concerns from this starting point. In practice however, government, business and other major entities are confronted with the need to address multiple problems in parallel. Typically, many others beside the “main players” may influence inputs or be affected by outcomes and emotion and prejudice may count as much as scientific or economic fact. In such cases an optimum and rational solution to one problem can cause significant complications in other areas. In such multi-issue, multi-stakeholder contexts the best outcome that can be hoped for may not be an optimum one, but rather the combination of sub-optimum solutions which, in aggregate, represent the least worst” outcome. Irrational factors may need to be taken into account as well as potential unintended consequences of decisions that can have repercussions over a very long time scale.

The writer has found role-playing simulations to be a powerful tool for sensitising business and political leaders to the complexities involved in such decision making. A single central problem is postulated – e.g. nationalisation of the gas industry in a country which faces serious economic challenges and low social cohesion, and in which the government’s hold on power is tenuous – and the entities directly influencing the outcome, or who will be directly or indirectly influenced by it, are identified. Up to sixteen groups may be accommodated, typically in teams of two to six persons, and entities represented may include ruling and opposition political parties, private companies, multi-laterals, local communities, think-tanks, non-governmental organisations and media. Initial briefings are team-specific and not necessarily comprehensive or wholly reliable. Following preparatory work within the teams, interaction between teams takes place over, typically, a one and a half day period, followed by a half-day debrief. Such interaction is intense, indeed exhausting, involving information – or disinformation – exchange, problem analysis, image management, solution identification, alliance building and negotiation against a background of rapidly changing priorities and schedules driven by the teams themselves. Players of such simulations have included undergraduates, MBA students, business leaders, civil servants and politicians up to the level of state-governors in Latin America. The simulation is ideally preceded by a short series of lectures focussed on decision-making, simple game theory, scenario thinking, impact assessment, issue and stakeholder management and alliance building.

This presentation will outline the rationale underlying this type of training and describe how such simulations are custom-designed to address specific thinking challenges.

Prior to his present role as a consultant on the impact of industry on host societies, Donal spent 36 years with Shell, almost a third of them in Sub-Saharan Africa. He left Shell as Vice President: External Affairs and Social Performance, a position that he had specifically requested so that he could "plough back and institutionalise" the experience he had gained in managing oil and gas ventures in challenging environments and implement his belief that "management of the industry's impact on its host societies is as important as its technical and economic management of its oil and gas assets". Previously he had held a number of senior operational positions with the company including Managing Director of Shell Venezuela Exploration and Production between 1996 and 2000. He has recently developed a portfolio of scenario-based role-playing simulation tools that have been used at a number of universities (e.g. Oxford and Columbia) to enable participants to explore the challenges of collaboration in a development context.

"Afghanistan: A Nation of Conflicting Narratives" Mary Crannell

Abstract
Afghanistan is a nation that knows conflict. For the last thirty years the country has been a war zone. This session will address how conflicting narratives have hindered success in the region and examine a method that assists decision makers map narratives to identify conflicting messages and how best to dominate the narrative among the cacophony of narratives to achieve a successful exit.

Mary Crannell is president and founder of Idea Sciences, a company that designs decision support tools that integrate intuition and logic to assist organizations in all sectors make smarter decisions. Previously she was a senior manager in SAIC. She has more than 20 years of experience in organizational transformation, intercultural consulting and training and has been a key contributor to the merger and acquisition efforts of Fortune 100 companies. Ms Crannell is a frequent speaker on cultural change within organizations, and articles she has authored have appeared in systems engineering, government and training/management consulting journals. She serves as a co-chair on a study panel for the US Army Science Board, is a member of the Information Technology Commission for Arlington County, Arlington, VA and is a board member on the Kogod School of Business, Information Technology Executive Council. She holds a bachelor of arts from Eisenhower College of the Rochester Institute of Technology and earned a master’s degree from Colgate University, where she graduated cum laude.