Decision analysis under uncertainty structures the choices communicators and the authorities they serve must make: whether to speak before evidence settles, which audiences and channels to prioritise, and when to adapt or end a campaign. It makes trade-offs between reach, equity, cost and the risk of harm explicit and open to scrutiny.
GCRI · Established · service level R0
Decision analysis under uncertainty is a structured method for choosing among options when outcomes are uncertain, making objectives, probabilities and trade-offs explicit. For risk communication it frames whether to speak before evidence settles, which audiences and channels to prioritise, and when to adapt or end a campaign.
The working screen behind this method: its structure, terms and states. Names are placeholders and values illustrative.
Campaigns · Decision analysis for risk… · Run R-2791
| People reached | Lognormal | people, stated | expert elicitation |
| Knowledge gain | Normal | score change, stated | expert elicitation |
| Consent records complete | Lognormal | of participants, stated | expert elicitation |
| Preparedness actions taken | Beta | of households, stated | expert elicitation |
Decision analysis under uncertainty provides structured methods for choosing among options when outcomes are uncertain and objectives conflict. It makes trade-offs and value judgements explicit. In information and public trust and society and human development, decision analysis helps choose actions that perform acceptably across interconnected risks and uncertain futures. It clarifies when to act now and when to keep options open. The canonical description is on the STEM Commons.
Early communication with stated uncertainty is weighed against waiting for better evidence, using value-of-information reasoning and the risks of silence, so the timing choice and its assumptions are on record.
Options are scored against reach, accessibility, equity, cost and risk of harm, with weights elicited from stakeholders, and the ranking is tested for sensitivity to those weights.
Decision points are set in advance with the evidence that would trigger adapting, continuing or ending a campaign, so later choices are not driven by sunk costs or favourable metrics alone.
Each term as this page uses it. Where a standard-setting body defines the term, the wording follows that body.
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Expert elicitation | A formal process for obtaining experts' judgements, including uncertainty, where data are lacking. |
| Value of information | The expected improvement in a decision from obtaining more information before deciding. |
| Multi-criteria analysis | Comparing options against several weighted objectives, such as reach, equity, cost and risk of harm. |
Urban demand centres and the hubs that anchor digital and data infrastructure, shown for North America as an example geography for this subject.
Data from the source register feeds the methods; calibration and an independent test gate the estimate and its limits; the decision stays with the competent authority.
Fig. 01Nodes carry their type, metrics and state; connectors show what feeds what; the gates are the validation steps; the timeline is one application. Design of the method's use, not a record of a run.
Datasets and records used by decision analysis under uncertainty on this platform, with the role each plays and the label its values carry. Sources are listed in the source register.
| Data | Role | Label |
|---|---|---|
| Expert elicitation records | Judgements where data are thin | ESTIMATED |
| Stakeholder preference surveys | Weights on criteria such as reach, equity and cost | REPORTED |
| Pre-test and evaluation results | Evidence on how options perform | OBSERVED |
| Budget and resource records | What each option requires | OFFICIAL |
Analyses are checked through sensitivity analysis, peer review and stakeholder scrutiny. Retrospective review compares decisions with outcomes.
| Check | How it is done |
|---|---|
| Sensitivity analysis | Weights and probabilities are varied to show which of them drive the choice |
| Explicit value judgements | Each criterion and weight is recorded with who set it and why |
| Robustness across scenarios | Options are tested against several plausible futures, not one expected case |
| Retrospective review | Decisions are compared with what followed, separating the quality of the judgement from the luck of the outcome |
Results depend on elicited probabilities and preferences that may be biased. Deep uncertainty can make expected value comparisons misleading.
Systemic Risk Management stewards decision analysis under uncertainty for the Consortium and reviews how it is applied across platforms.
The current service level is R0: information and enquiries. An enquiry receives a reference and names the next step; applications, payments, compute allocations and registrations open only when their team, terms and review capacity exist.