Palisade Corporation

Something has troubled me for some time regarding the choices being made in risk land. I train and work with many clients whom have adopted Monte Carlo simulation techniques (via @RISK for Excel) into the day-to-day running of their businesses. By doing so they (hopefully) now have a good understanding of the exposure they are facing be it in project cost estimation, discounted cash flow analysis or, well, anything really. But this is only one facet of risk and decision assessment, specifically dealing with the descriptive statistical output from a simulation. What of the decision evaluation component? Why aren’t more of my customers analysing the decisions they make, or better yet actually optimising them? I have a few ideas why.

If you’re in business you have to make decisions. Big ones, little ones, yes/no, multiple state and continuous value decisions. Decisions that impact other decisions in simple or complex dependency structures. But are you making the best decisions possible? I’m sure important decisions aren’t being made completely randomly (I hope!) but I see many companies who rely completely upon qualitative techniques for their decision making (experience, gut feel, etc.) which of course means optimality is no more than a hoped for outcome rather than something that is actually being worked towards.
Firstly the decision model must be identified and then quantified, and this can be a difficult task. There is a level of modelling aptitude necessary for effective modelling that goes beyond merely knowing Excel and its functions, and into the construction of logical mathematical descriptions of possibly complicated processes. Relevant decisions need to be identified and the impact of those decisions combined into a formula that can be mathematically optimised. A critical component to all this is the knowledge that spreadsheet models can actually be optimised, and that in cases where Excel’s Solver fails there are Palisade products (Evolver and RISKOptimzer) that can perform optimisations under virtually any circumstance.

I too used to focus on Monte Carlo simulation rather than decision evaluation, and this was mainly a product of the clients I was dealing with almost exclusively when I first worked for Palisade. In my next blog I’ll tell you why that changed and also get a little more into the nuts and bolts of optimisation.

Rishi Prabhakar
Trainer/Consultant

Rumors of this death are greatly exaggerated.  

Why is it that most of the high profile projects managed by the government in the UK all ultimately become beset by problems? A number of projects jump to mind – the Millennium Dome, Wembley Stadium and currently the NHS IT. All three have been plagued by developmental delays and financial mismanagement.

Recently, yet another worthy, but ambitious project has been announced – the North-South high speed rail line to connect London to Scotland. One wonders if the government undertakes detailed quantitative project risk analysis for its infrastructure initiatives?

A good example to highlight in this context is ENGCOMP, a Saskatchewan-based engineering consulting firm that has worked with the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) to help define budgets for the fourth phase of construction of its Fleet Maintenance Facility at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt in Victoria, British Columbia. Using @RISK, a Monte Carlo simulation tool, ENGCOMP helped the DND define and secure budget approval from the Federal Government’s Treasury Board. The consultancy firm was able to estimate the impact of the variability and uncertainties pertaining to risks, costs and scheduling. This assessment enabled it to estimate the project risk budget or the risk reserve and schedule contingency, which were both factored in when defining the total project cost of the infrastructure project.

The fact is, in the world of business, risk is inherent and unavoidable. Whilst one cannot completely control risk, one can certainly help reduce uncertainty, greatly increasing the chances of project success. For instance, a key finding of the project risk analysis conducted by ENGCOMP was that, taking into account all the risk and uncertainties on the project, there is an 85 per cent chance that the Fleet Maintenance Facility project will be completed in January 2014. A fairly positive result for the DND, given the scale and complexity of this project in question.

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

New DecisionTools Suite 5.5.1 is a maintenance update that has been fully translated into Spanish, German, French, Portuguese and Japanese. It features simulation of password-protected worksheets in @RISK as well as an integrated RISKOptimizer toolbar. In addition, you can now also launch any DecisionTools program from within any other program already running. If you still have @RISK 5.0 or DecisionTools Suite 5.0, version 5.5.1 offers @RISK simulations that run 2 to 20 times faster than before, new scatter plots from scenario analysis, a freehand distribution artist, an Excel-style Insert Function dialog with graphs, and much more.
 
@RISK 5.5.1 and DecisionTools Suite 5.5.1 are free for current maintenance holders. If you don't have maintenance, contact Palisade to get up to date:

US/Canada
607-277-8000, sales@palisade.com

Europe
+44 1895 425050, sales@palisade-europe.com

Latin America
607-277-8000 x318, ventas@palisade.com

Brasil
607-277-8000 x318, vendas@palisade.com

Asia-Pacific
+61 2 9929 9799, sales@palisade.com.au

» Get your update
» Read What's New in @RISK 5.5.1 and DecisionTools Suite 5.5.1

When experts disagree, Cooke has pointed out, any attempt to impose agreement will "promote confusion between consensus and certainty."  In order to get around this problem, Aspinall points out in his article, the goal of risk analysis should be to "quantify uncertainty, not to remove it from the decision process."  His ongoing  risk assessment of volcanic activity on the island of Monserrat in the West Indies is the longest running application of Cooke's "expert elicitation" method.  For details about how the elicitation and the pooling of opinion works, I recommend taking a look at the January 2010 issue of Nature.  

Why attend?

This one-day forum is a great way to find out how others in the Healthcare Industry are using our software, as well as to learn new approaches to the problems Healthcare professionals face every day. We will have six software training sessions, and six real-world case studies presented by industry experts covering risk and decision analysis from all angles specific to the Healthcare sector.

You will also see how new versions of @RISK, PrecisionTree, RISKOptimizer, TopRank, NeuralTools, StatTools, and other Palisade software tools work together to give you the most complete picture possible in your situation.

Who should attend?

Professionals in risk and financial analysis in: Care Equipment & Services, Pharmaceuticals, Biotechnology & Life Sciences, Hospital Care & Management, or related services

How much?

For a limited time, the cost for attending the Health Risk Analysis Forum is has been discounted $100.

$295 covers all sessions, continental breakfast, lunch and a cocktail networking reception. Attendees will also receive a welcome package that includes a 15% discount on their next software purchase.

Please contact Jameson Romeo-Hall at jromeo-hall@palisade.com if you are interested in attending.

Location
The Westin Gaslamp Quarter
910 Broadway Circle
San Diego, CA 92101
(619) 239-2200

Book your room at a discounted rate (subject to availability.)

In the last two blogs I have challenged the idea that simulation results can be boiled down to a single statistic with any positive benefit. The context of a statistic is incredibly important, which is another reason why many statistics and charts/tables should be reported on, not simply one figure. And here’s a compelling reason why.

Consider two competing, similarly-sized projects, of which a company can only pursue one. Now let’s say this company would like to take on the project that has the “least risk”. If they are only familiar with generating the P90 for the total project cost they will be forced to select the project with the lowest P90. But what if the key drivers for exceeding the P90 are easier to mitigate in one project compared to the other? Perhaps the project with the lower P90 also has a higher P95 or P99 – this means the catastrophic failure is actually greater despite a lower P90 and is the mathematical equivalent of “when things go bad, they go really bad”. Not all P90s are created equally! Such an adverse outcome might sink a smaller company where a larger one could wear the loss. The context of the company running the analysis also impacts the context of the analysis itself.

So you can see not only do simulations generate results with which informed decisions can only be made if approached holistically, but if the language used is restrictive this outcome will never be achieved. Risk analyses are a necessary part of business because most of us wish to minimise the chance that something bad will happen, quite simply. Even if a manager tells you they “want the P90” what they are really asking is “tell me about the risk we’re facing”. The answer to this fundamental question is not found in a single figure taken from a simulation, but in a range of charts and tables which require correct interpretation.

More so, Monte Carlo simulation itself is only one piece of the risk and decision assessment pie. Decision modelling and optimisation, predictive modelling and statistical analyses should also form part of the quantitative approach to uncertainty. There is life beyond just risk simulation software, and I intend on exploring that in future blogs.

» Part 1
» Part 2

Rishi Prabhakar
Trainer/Consultant

This Thursday, 11 March 2010 at 11am ET, Dr. Jose A. Briones, SpyroTek Performance Solutions, will present a free live webcast entitled, Use of @RISK for Probabilistic Decision Analysis of a Manufacturing Forecast in an Environment of High Uncertainty

Profitability projections in a manufacturing environment are directly tied to how the sales forecast fits with the capability of the operation. When a company has a large portfolio of products with very different operational production rates, the manufacturing capacity of the plant will be significantly impacted by the product mix to be produced. This in turn will have a radical effect on the output of the plant and the allocation of the fixed cost of production. In this case we present an example where a company is trying to decide how best to balance the sales of certain families of products to maximize revenue, maintain a diverse product line, and properly price each individual product based on the impact to the manufacturing schedule and fixed cost allocation.

» Register now for this FREE live webcast
» View archived webcasts

The UK Met Office is not going to ‘live down’ its weather forecast of a ‘barbeque Summer and a mild Winter’ for 2009, anytime soon. There was ample rain through the Summer, the Cumbrian region saw severe flooding in November and now the nation is gripped by sub-zero temperatures not experienced for more than 30 years.

The inaccurate weather forecast is not a criticism of the Met Office. Forces of nature cannot be controlled, but these severe weather conditions do highlight the need for a more risk-led approach to public service planning. As we are seeing, the lack of planning to combat the current Arctic conditions engulfing the nation has thrown the country in turmoil, not to mention the substantial losses incurred by businesses. 

Global Warming is now often touted as the reason for such vagaries in weather, which according to environmentalists is set to intensify in the coming years. There is a very strong case for the government to undertake a scientific, risk-led approach to assess the potential effects of extreme weather, so that the required planning and realistic fund allocation can be made to deal with unforeseen weather situations. 

For instance, Halcrow Group Ltd, specialising in providing planning, design and management services for infrastructure development, works very closely with the UK Environment Agency on its Flood Defense programme. It conducts risk analysis on several of the Agency’s projects, using Palisade’s @RISK. Through flood risk management, the UK’s Environment Agency can reduce the probability of flooding from rivers and the sea through the management of land, river systems, and flood and coastal defenses. This also works to helps to reduce the damage floods can do through effective land use planning, flood warning and emergency responses.

There is now a dire need to extend this risk analysis-based approach beyond just flood defense, so that pre-emptive actions can be taken to reduce the adverse impact of extreme weather on the nation.

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

Where I left off last time was lamenting the use of Monte Carlo simulation to create a single value (statistic etc.) from a model. It might still not be clear why this is anathema to me, so here goes.

A simulation is not a number. It’s not one possible (future) outcome – that’s a scenario. Monte Carlo simulation is a methodology for understanding one’s exposure to outcomes not situated close to the central tendency of the process/project in question. Note the plural “outcomes”. Risk analysis, when done properly, should let you know essentially all possible outcomes and how likely they are for your model. Output from a simulation can include a plot of means (over time), or P5s, or P95s, or the mean ± one standard deviation or any number of statistics. But that’s not plotting a simulation! Let’s not give a minimalist graph too much credit.

Such statements also perpetuate the idea that simulation is only used for creating means (or other centrally tending statistics) and ignores the wealth of information available. Risk simulation software exists to help you do risk analysis which must include not only several statistics but also sensitivity information. It is all too easy to turn a risk assessment into a hunt for a regularly asked for percentile (such as the P90) and there ends the task. I see this a lot, especially in project cost estimation where the pressure both from management and regulatory bodies is to accurately estimate some large percentile. Once found there is usually scant further risk analysis.

Nothing good ensues. When risk analyses are run “to get ‘the’ number” they become simply another box to tick in a process and ultimately any benefits (perceived or actual) will be forgotten and lost to the ages. The notion of context is also lost. No single number by itself really means anything, or at least shouldn’t mean anything to a decision maker. I have often heard phrases like “the model returned/gave $1.2m” followed by an audience nodding in agreement. Huh? Which statistic are you talking about there, and how about reporting a few other numbers around it to place that $1.2m somewhere meaningful?

In the next installment I will look further into this issue of context and hopefully prove the necessity of an holistic approach to understanding and reporting simulation results.

» Part 1

Rishi Prabhakar
Trainer/Consultant

Both the Conservative Party and the Labour Government have indicated that they will raise the state pensions age of men and women to help reduce the UK’s national debt.  In addition, more and more employers in the private sector are closing good pension schemes. The Association of Consulting Actuaries’ (ACA) recent survey on pension trends has revealed that 59% of employers are set to review pensions ahead of 2012 and 24% of employers will consider pension benefit reductions when they have to auto-enroll all employees into a scheme.

With taxes on business and individuals likely to rise over the next few years, it is difficult to see anything other than a deteriorating climate for pension savings unless there is a radical change of approach, says the ACA. It has proposed a standing Pension Commission that will challenge the legal and regulatory hurdles standing in the way of sensible long-term pension designs.

Perhaps, a more in-depth risk analysis may help the ACA make a stronger case to the government. As a related example, in the US, the Society of Actuaries and the Casualty Actuary Society, sponsored a research project with the Illinois State University to develop a model for projecting economic indices such as interest rates, equity price levels, inflation rates, unemployment rates, and real estate price levels. The model was created using Palisade’s @RISK and Microsoft Excel. In fact, @RISK’s built-in probability distribution functions, correlation matrices, and simulation results were essential to the study.

The UK ‘pensions’ landscape is set to undergo tremendous change, which will impact each and every one of us. Using scientific, risk analysis techniques, actuarial industry bodies can develop a strong argument and lobby the government so that informed policy decisions are made that are right for both the financial health of the nation and its citizens.

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

I read an interesting article on the causes of the Global Financial Crisis by John B. Taylor. Although the topic is interesting enough already, especially for a member of a risk analysis-specialising company, something else caught my eye. I have observed in training workshops, onsite consulting and now academic papers a phenomenon regarding probabilistic modelling. Many of those using the methods don’t understand what they should actually be getting from the methodology. There is an intellectual leap from the deterministic to the probabilistic that sometimes does not get made. This limits the usefulness of Monte Carlo simulation, and the value of performing such statistical analyses.

Back to the article which spurred me to write this blog in the first place. Or rather, the graph. Yes a single graph of housing starts vs. time (and its brief description) leapt out at me. One of the lines on the graph was claimed to show model simulations of housing starts using the actual interest rate, compared to the interest rate ‘predicted’ by the Taylor Rule and a third line showing actual data.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that simulation techniques should not be used to create a single value. The single ‘simulation’ line implies a single modelled/returned value for each time period. This is deterministic modelling. There may be a particular scenario that has been modelled, but it certainly isn’t a simulation that is being represented by that single line. Simulations produce thousands of data, observed values and their associated percentiles as well central moments (mean, variance etc.). Not just one value (sorry Value at Risk – that includes you too) that can be plotted as a single line. I would guess that if a simulation were run as I understand the term then the line in the chart was probably constructed using the simulated means. But I shouldn’t be guessing.

This is far from the only time I’ve seen simulation results reduced to a single entity. I have heard from clients in the past “the simulation gave $X” with little to no context around it, and this is supposed to both mean something to me and to their customers and help to make better decisions under uncertainty…

In the next blog I will explore this idea further and discuss the sorts of results that should be gleaned from a simulation. In particular, why narrowing simulation results down to a single number is counterproductive to healthy business practices.


Rishi Prabhakar
Trainer/Consultant

The latest Business in Britain survey from Lloyds TSB Commercial shows that the UK's commercial enterprises are regaining confidence.  The six monthly report charts the performance of 1,732 UK companies and their views on prospects for the coming year. Its most recent business confidence shows that expectations for both sales and orders have started to recover. The balance of firms anticipating an upturn in sales has climbed to 21% - from just 1% six months ago.   And hopes for orders are also looking brighter. The balance expecting order levels to rise over the coming six months has climbed to 23%, from just 6% in the last survey.

But companies planning major new business drives for 2010 would do well to follow the example of Thales UK, which uses @RISK  to enable it to assess commercial feasibility of potential new business wins. @RISK's in-depth risk analysis ensures the leading provider of mission-critical electronic information systems for aerospace, defence and security markets around the world, is fully informed when making business-critical decisions.

Thales operates in a highly competitive environment, with technologically advanced countries presenting tough opposition when it tenders for contracts. It must continually develop highly sophisticated equipment that is robust and failsafe to meet the stringent demands of its customers. Bringing products of this calibre to market is costly in terms of time and resource, so for every competitive new business opportunity, Thales must be confident that it has a reasonable chance of success.

Using Monte Carlo analysis to show all potential scenarios and the likelihood that each will occur, @RISK enables Thales to calculate the competitiveness of complex markets, measure probabilities for project costs, quantify rate of return, and even account for the effects of cumulative business, thereby providing decision-makers with the most complete picture possible.  From this risk analysis, Thales can make an informed decision on the commercial viability of the potential new business offered.

Craig Ferri
EMEA Managing Director of Risk & Decision Analysis

On Thursday, February 18, 2010, Prakash Shrivastava will present a free live webcast entitled. "Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Patient Care using The DecisionTools Suite"

Cost-effectiveness analysis is often used to evaluate effectiveness of medical interventions and is one of the main topics in healthcare research. This analysis requires data evaluation, including building and testing decision analysis models. This free live webcast will illustrate how such models are easily built using the DecisionTools Suite. The first part of the webcast will introduce process, cost drivers and measures in healthcare. In the second part, cost-analysis examples will be presented. The webcast will conclude with a sensitivity analysis example.

Prakash Shrivastava is a Principal at Strategic Management International, Inc. He specializes in Research, Analysis and Simulation of Control Systems, Business Models and Processes. He worked in Automotive Industry for over 22 years and Aerospace Industry for 7 years. He holds a Masters Degree from Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, a Doctoral degree from Princeton University, NJ and a Masters degree in Management of Technology from RPI.

» Register now (FREE)
» View archived webcasts

Palisade Training services show you how to apply @RISK and the DecisionTools Suite to real-life problems, maximizing your software investment. All seminars include free step-by-step books and multimedia training CDs that include dozens of example models.

North America

• March 1-2, 2010, Houston, TX
  Monte Carlo Simulation for the Oil and Gas Industry using @RISK
• 3-4 March 2010, Dayton/Versailles, OH
  Decision-Making and Quantitative Risk Analysis using @RISK
• 10-11 March 2010, Jersey City, NJ
  Decision-Making and Quantitative Risk Analysis using @RISK
• 23-24 March 2010, Denver, CO
  Decision-Making and Quantitative Risk Analysis using @RISK
• 23-25 March 2010, Denver, CO
  Decision-Making & Quantitative Risk Analysis using the DecisionTools Suite

Brazil

• 3-5 de março 2010,Rio de Janeiro
  Seminário de Avaliação de Riscos na Indústria Petrolífera e de Gás (3 Días)
• 17-19 de março 2010, São Paulo, Brasil
  Avaliação do Risco para Usuários Iniciantes/Intermediários (em português)

Latin-America

• 8 al 10 de marzo del 2010,Medellín, Colombia
  Risk in Supply Chain (en español)
• 15 al 17 de marzo del 2010,Lima, Peru
  Evaluación de Riesgo para Usuarios Principiantes/Intermedios (en español)
• 18 al 19 de marzo del 2010,Lima, Peru
  Administración de Riesgos en Proyectos con @RISK para Project (en español)

Asia-Pacific

• 10-11 March 2010, Melbourne
  Decision-Making and Quantitative Risk Analysis using @RISK

Two weeks ago, I attended IQPC’s (International Quality & Productivity Center) Lean Six Sigma and Process Improvement Summit in Orlando, Florida. During the past 4 years, I have watched the conference, the attendees, and their projects evolve. The IQPC did an excellent job keeping the quality of the conference at an A+ level despite wrangling with the effects of a down market and near zero travel budgets for many companies. This conference has earned it place as one of the premier Six Sigma events of the year.

With attendance numbers on par with last year (which are only slightly down from a few years ago), the major difference that I noticed was the attendees' passion. As the economy has worsened and media’s perception of Six Sigma waned, practitioners and champions are more passionate and committed now than ever. Perhaps it’s because they still have jobs and their companies understand the value of cost reduction in both their processes and product/ process development programs. They - and the companies who employ them - have every right to be excited and passionate because they are making positive changes to their organizations that will hopefully lead them to recovery and stability faster than others.
 

Many companies, large and small, represented practically every industry. Farmers Insurance and Capital One were two representatives from the insurance and banking industries. Technology and pharmaceuticals were well represented by Seagate, Motorola, Merck and Johnson & Johnson. In addition, the energy sector was well represented, as were the military, aerospace and services sectors. (If you want a complet list of companies attending, it may be available at www.sixsigmaiq.com)

The overriding message heard over and over again, was, “We need to make your Six Sigma deployments stick.” Initially, I found this to be an interesting message since it came from a group of many highly intelligent and motivated individuals who were obviously very successful in doing just that: “Making it Stick”. This message serves as a clarion call for all of us. We need to look for new tools, philosophies and approaches to make our improvement initiative better and “stickier” so that they can pass the test of time.

The highlight of every year is the awards ceremony. There were many great projects honored this year, and congratulations to the winners and everyone who submitted their projects! At the awards ceremony I had the pleasure to meet a great group from the Bahamas Telecommunications Company. They are the pioneers for Lean Six Sigma for their company. (I tried to get them to need an onsite training session in some of the Palisade tools, but have been thus far unsuccessful!) Good luck on your Six Sigma Journey, I hope to see you accepting an award next year!

There is an assumption that drives all of our expectations for how our economy will be in the future.  That assumption is one of endless economic growth. Clearly endless exponential growth is impossible. Yet that is what we base all of our expectations upon. We all agree that zero or negative economic growth is bad (just look around now at the effects of the Great Recession). But we also know logically that 2% or 4% annual growth every year leads to an exponential growth outcome that is unsustainable. 

In this free webcast, Dr. William Strauss models the next 100 years, based on the last century's data. The experiment in this webcast is about the future. If the model can very closely replicate the last 100 years, what does it have to say about the next 100 years? The experiment uses @RISK’s risk analysis and Monte Carlo techniques to generate new combinations of parameters for each of tens of thousands of runs of the simulation. Changes in the parameters represent potential exogenous policy choices.

The “doing what you did gets you what you got” scenario leads to a surprising and unsettling outcome. The experiments using Evolver (genetic algorithm optimization software) do find a path that works. Obviously if it is not “business-as-usual” that leads to a stable outcome, it is some other way. The policy choices that lead to a stable outcome suggest that the future of capitalism is not going to be what we expect it to be.

Palisade is pleased to host this presentation from Dr. William Strauss.

William Strauss is the President and founder of FutureMetrics. He brings more than thirty years of strategic planning, project management, data analysis, and modeling experience into the company’s stock of knowledge capital. Bill’s professional history includes executive positions as director, president, and senior vice president, as well as positions as senior analyst and field coordinator. He has an MBA (specializing in Finance) and a PhD (Economics). Read more of Dr. Strauss' bio here.

» Complete abstract of "Simulating the U.S. Economy: Where will we be in 100 years?" 
» Register now (FREE)  
» View archived webcasts